Tohron

[quote who="dgarneau" reply="14" id="3507821"] 2. Constructors take WAY too long to build vs. combat craft. Especially when considering you need multiple of them to get a starbase up to any useful state. You can build enough combat ships to conquer the galaxy long before developing all the resources lying around. [/quote] You might want to build the constructor without some of the support modules it has. Once you get +20% St

I have a Trade Capitol in Altaria, but the Level seems to be one higher than it should be: It gets 1 level each from the Civ Capital, the Tourist Haven, and the Trade Post, but that only adds up to 3, not 4. Likewise, the Trade Post is only getting 3 levels from the Trade Capital, but it is also level 4. Not sure what the problem is. Should I submit my save

[quote who="abiessener" reply="6" id="3507416"] There is an "honorable mentions" page forthcoming. [/quote] Any chance of us being able to vote some of those honorable mentions into being included in the game too? I know there were some really cool designs in the ship thread that didn't make it into the contest list.

Still waiting for the Hyperion Logistics System to get fixed. And on that note, there's another problem with the improvement: right now, it gives a flat bonus of 0.05 per Military level to your Logisitics cap, which is obviously pretty irrelevant. I think Flat was supposed to be Multiplier .

[quote who="Gilmoy" reply="1" id="3507177"] Extreme sensor capability is -- cute, but how do you actually use that to (help) win? Does it mostly help you to not-lose, cf. Battle of Britain? (That requires an enemy who's actively attacking you.) Have you been building new sensor wagons throughout the game, e.g. whenever you get a larger hull or new sensor tech? I assume you didn't just go from sensor range 6 to 77 in one jump. [/quote] </

Take a look at the galactic map in this GalCiv3 game I've been playing: Note how I have vision on nearly the entire map. That's because of the Panoptic Eye, a cargo hull with 136 space, equipped with 10 Field Detectors (and 1 Navigational Sensor to fill up any remaining space). It has a Sensor Range of 77. The current cost is

Yeah, this is a bit of thread necromancy, but I'd just like to say that I don't like how the ability to add multiple construction modules was (apparently) removed. Being able to add a bunch of construction points with one ship would save clicks (along with a bit of construction costs) in the mid-late game. When creating new starbases, you could just pass a numSpareModules variable to the CreateStarbase function so it knows how many construction points to add to the new sta

According to the StarbaseModuleDefs, the Enjoyment tech should give the Altarians access to the starbase Recreation Center Module, but the benefit is not listed in the ingame tech tree, and you can't build it on starbases after researching the tech. It turns out that Enjoyment in StarbaseModuleDefs needs to be changed to EnjoymentTech - this fixed the problem for me after starting a new game.

I'm looking through StarbaseModuleDefs, and it seems like the various economic modules (the ones that boost gross income in the starbase AoE) have their requirements accidently set to the morale boosting modules. Specifically, the Orbital Shopping Center upgrades from the Recreation Center Module (should be the Starbase Market), the Starbase Promenade upgrades from the Orbital Resort Module (should be the Orbital Shopping Center) and the Franchise Center requires Zero-G Ballet (shou

Here's mine: an Altarian dreadnaut called the Archangel: Came out looking a bit like an Eradica titan, but that's not a bad thing :)

Another problem is that right now, several of my planet groups have considerably more production than is needed to make a basic constructor, so I end up having to build multiple shipyards and micro which planet is assigned to where so I can get 1-turn constructors from each shipyard. Overall, I agree that adding full overflow for both production and research (along with the possibility of completing multiple projects or techs in a single turn) should be a priority, It's been

[quote quoting="post"] ... Event Frequency & United Plants Frequency [/quote] Plants of Galactic Civilizations! For too long have we been oppressed by the terraforming of the major races! Now is the time to unite, to rise up and throw off the yoke of our non-photosynthetic masters! <p style=

1. I like being able to purchase anything that isn't a key strategic resource to the AI for the right price. It's important that the AI be able to value things well (the GC2 AI undervalued low-population planets, overvalued high-population ones, and greatly overvalued influence points on large maps). I also like having an AI that is consistent in its dealings - if it has an honorable personality, you can count on your favors leading to a lasting relationship - this i

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="2" id="3489158"] Your assessment is forgetting something. Most population planet improvements are flat increases to population (the exception are supposed to be limited, from what I've seen). Factories, labs, and markets are percent increases. Percent increases are more powerful when you have a large base number to work with. If I recall correctly, the base farm is an increase of 2. If you had a population 10 world devoted to manufacturing, and you cou

I had a brief question regarding how you're thinking about implementing distance penalties for shipyards. Say you've got a planet, you've set it to use 60% of its production for military production, and you've set it to transfer that production to a distant shipyard with a 50% penalty. Does that mean that the planet can only send 50% of its production rather than 60%, or does it mean that it sends 60% of its production, but half of that production is wasted? <

[quote who="Tridus" reply="1" id="3435278"] It sounds kind of like now I envisioned the announced ship roles working, except those are likely ore-defined in the game. Do you have weapon ranges, or the front ships providing cover, or some mechanism to prevent my entire fleet from shooting your snipers with every weapon I have?[/quote] My system does assume weapons will have certain properties like range, accuracy, and effectiveness against different defensive typ

There has been a considerable amount of talk about how the combat in GalCiv3 will work. The combat in GalCiv2 was fairly simple and hands-off, so there are many people who are looking for more depth in the sequel. There are also people who don't want to get bogged down micromanaging every battle to get the optimal result. All I've heard from Frogboy on the subject is that they want more focus on assigning ships roles. While my proposal may not

[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="10" id="3434150"] Part of me wants that, similar to Jagged Alliance 2 "tonnes of guns" (in this case - tech), but how difficult it would be to develop that for Stardock? Another 20 millions? And most importantly - how interesting it would be to play this game.[/quote] I doubt it would cost even 50k just to expand the tech tree - and if Stardock is in need of tech ideas - I'm happy to provide (I can throw in modules models and building images

The problem with trade in GalCiv2 is that it only provides a static bonus - once you have the maximum amount of trade routes, there's nothing you can do to further boost your trade income - so it eventually is dwarfed by your planetary tax income. As a result, it can be useful in the early-mid game, but then fades into irrelevance. One thing I'd like to see is having trade tied to strategic positioning. One option might be to have trade routes be lines between trad

[quote who="Dumhed" reply="40" id="3431688"] Just to chime in: I'm not a fan of single building cues. It just lacks logic - though I understand it makes it simpler. If I had my way, there would even be the option for one planet to be working on more than one ship at a time. I mean, really... 10 billion people can only build one ship?[/quote] You could counteract that by being able to que up 10000 ships at once, and have your

[quote who="Darvist" reply="4" id="3428460"] Remember its not necessarily just making the players interest more enjoyable. The AI has to be able to understand and use the tech tree to. The more complicated it gets the more Computing power needed put into make it think and more likely to error or make bad choices. All in all its not a bad idea and its one approach to the tech tree. [/quote] To me, it seems that in order to use a tech tree like what I'm

The problem with having the tech tree be "mysterious" and "random" is that it undermines your ability to make long-term plans. If you don't know what benefits a tech will lead to down the road, then you have to always choose techs based on what you need right away, rather than forgoing short-term "gratification" so that you can build up the tech combo you need to turn the game around. I'm happy with things like race-specific techs - these allow for things like cool race-

I've got a sizable post (including an example program written in Java) relating to tech-design over here . To summarize, I think there are several things that can be done with tech design to present players with a more interesting spread of choices and (as a result) improve replayablity. Some of the examples were: adding "optional" tech prerequisites, where you only need one of them to research a tech (so there are multi

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="2" id="3429367"] A per planet basis is nice, but there are several planets that function the same way in many aspects. I have a group of research planets that I want to research all at a higher status than produce things, but then I've got economic hubs where I would prefer to have them at a higher money making aspect. So, it would be nicer for the player to set up profiles for a planet that sets all these aspects and you can cho

[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="1" id="3428429"] I'd like to let you know that your download is only a black code box, there's nothing in it. All the files are there though; did I do something wrong? That being said, this is a wonderful idea and it is very well-made! I do take issue with one thing however; you should be rewarded in some way for having multiple "optional" prerequisites and not just have them as "fluff" more-or-less. This I fear would make it boring