Tohron

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="1" id="3535570"] Building starbases the way the system currently is setup is like not being able to save ship designs ... Every time you want to build a new ship you need to design it from scratch even if youve designed the exact same ship ten times or a thousand times already [/quote] Admittedly, there can be local variations depending on where the starbase is - you might want to insert some relic-study modules into your buil

[quote who="Bamdorf" reply="8" id="3534826"] Quoting SBFMadDjinn, reply 1 /snip/ For the AI trading bit - Can you lock out actual trading with the AI (when at war with them) unless it is a peace deal? Seems odd that they'd want to trade anything with you while at war with you.

Do you have 2 construction points available? Interstellar Collectors and several other modules need 2 construction points to build.

[quote who="ManiiNames" reply="6" id="3533162"] Seeking advice on how to actually fix this. As my first attempt at a mod/fix in GC3m I ... Copied the RaceTraitDefs.XML file to \Documents\My Games\GalCiv3\Mods\Game Modified the Dense traits to change Colony to Ship <s

Right now, the "Dense" race trait does not actually give extra mass to use on ships. The reason is that the 4 versions of the trait are currently written like this: Dense1 Dense1_Name Dense1_Desc MassCap Global <br

Will we finally have production and research overflow in Beta 5? Will the production overflow be multi-item-per-turn? (there's not much point giving shipyards multiple planets if they can't build more than 1 ship per turn)

[quote who="erischild" reply="19" id="3530773"] I followed this first part of the post and think the chained speed boost is quite clever. Quoting Tohron, reply 16 Meanwhile, give those starbases the three general military-boosting upgrades, and they'll each boost all weapons and defen

I disagree with the assertion that military starbases are useless. With just a single-file line of starbases with fully upgraded range and stellar wake generators (a 5 module cost), movement along the line costs only 1/8 of the normal cost (since all nearby tiles are in range of 3 starbases), so a 5-move ship travelling down the line can move 40 hexes in one turn. Upgrade to a double line of starbases, and ships in the middle will be in range of 5 starbases at any given time, redu

I definitely like the idea of ideology points being generated by in-game behavior, rather than just detached choices on which set of bonuses/penalties you want. It would make your ideology feel more representative of how your civilization actually behaves.

Rally points can be used to affect the auto-launch direction - ships will launch in the tile closest to the rally location. If you want, you can put a rally point right outside the shipyard and set it to rally there.

So from the sound of it, here are some things which could help balance carriers: * Carrier modules increase the logistics cost of a ship by 5 (the same as 5 tiny fighters benefiting from a Hyperion Logistics System) * Carrier modules cost over 300 production each (since they come with 5 fully built fighters) * Replacing fighters is similar to upgrading - it costs money, and leaves the ship idle for a few turns. It can also only be done in your territory.

Here's another person who'd really like to see production and research overflow properly implemented soon. It's cool to make a planed with several hundred production post-bonuses, but it hurts when that planet can still only produce Tiny fighters at a rate of 1/turn.

[quote who="tid242" reply="9" id="3517367"] Sorry if I missed it, but could anyone fill me in on what the "sharing borders" penalty is? cheers, [/quote] I think that's referring to the diplomatic penalty you take with a civiliz

One potential problem with the Shrewd bonus for pragmatic ideology: in Multiplayer, couldn't two players with Shrewd trade money back and forth to generate limitless cash?

[quote who="kestlstw" reply="54" id="3514835"] I've been arguing that they should either be boosted to be worth while or removed. What I think will happen if this choice for game design is forced is that they will be removed because military starbases would have to get a new capability to be worth while or perhaps the entire starbase system will need to be revamped. Personally I don't see why starbase modules aren't treated like buildings on planets, when the next

[quote who="peregrine23" reply="13" id="3514485"] Quoting Tohron, reply 8 So... are you advocating making the outcome of the game almost entirely dependent on the first 50 turns of expansion... because of realism? Anyway, new interstellar colonies probably wouldn't be self sufficient - at least, not if you w

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="7" id="3514390"] Hell no, this isn't remotely similar to civ. If there is a penalty for for making a city on the other side of the globe, how will I be able to make a galactic empire over thousands of light years?!? There is no logical argument that justifies expansion penalties in this game. And none of your suggestions of maintenance would be a fix to this fallacy of a issue, for it would be solved when the colony develops. The ideas list

Right now, Galciv3 has essentially no expansion penalties. Maintenance costs are trivial, especially for new colonies, and your existing colonies suffer no ill effects from the expansion of your empire. The only thing you lose from expanding is the cost of the construction ship. Thus, a civilization's growth will follow an extreme exponential curve. The consequence of this in the gameplay is that the early game is everything. If you grab 1-2 more colonies e

Also would definitely like to see indicators of the quality levels of all tiles whenever choosing a terraforming spot. In addition to the reasons given above, it's also important not to waste things like Habitat Improvement or Terraforming Plant on tiles that can be improved later with Omega Terraforming.

Here's a possibility: the AI decides which of its various techs, ships, and planets it is willing to trade with a given race right now - and only those assets are shown in the diplomacy window. So, if you're at war, it's probably only willing to consider credits and a peace treaty - if it's losing, some techs and planets might be shown, as possible peace treaty offerings. For a neutral race, a lot more will be visible, though some high-value planets, ships, a

Definitely agree here - the whole point of having settings ranging from "none" to "abundant" is that you can get a wide range of galaxy types. If the "abundant" settings still leave the player unsure if any of the nearby stars have habitable planets, a large fraction of potential galaxy types is being arbitrarily excluded.

Looking at the description, the Competitive Manufacturing tech reduces manufacturing costs by 20%. However, it seemed to have no effect - the tooltip for both the Basic Factory and the Xeno Farm said the cost was 30 before and 30 after. Admittedly, the problem might just be that the tooltips didn't update.

[quote who="dragoaskani" reply="14" id="3512597"] Quoting Saareth, reply 5 It's been awhile since i've played apologies if this is already in Some races should generate unrest when flipped, remember not everyone is human in this game, so human logic does not need to apply so readily, and saying that not

Looking at rush buying in more detail: if rush-buying costs 15 credits per mp, that means you need to have at least a +6000% bonus to economy to make economic stimuli more viable. In actuality, the bonus would have to be larger than that, because it would also have to outweigh the added production you'd get by having more manufacturing structures instead of wealth structures. A max-leveled Financial Sector gives +220% econ, so you'd probably need a world that could fit ove

One extra side-effect is that this would solve the problem of Artifacts rushing projects - since the project is outside the building queue, it would never get selected to be rushed.