easymodex

Interesting. I didn't do much fleet design work or stacking. My general notion was to do: 1. Giant tank with extra thrusters and short-range weapons (kinetics) to blitz the enemies and soak fire. Heavy defenses. 2. Giant support ship with every "aura" system under the sun. 3. Spam pewpew ships with light defense based on a [mass minus overhead mass] : [logistics] ratio. E.g. small/medium ships have excellent mass:logistics ratios, but the overhead of drives

My basic observations of starbases: All starbases should have a clear purpose that is very distinct from the others and where their purpose is filled by that type of star base very well. Culture = influence spread. I think this works well enough. Mining = mining, straightforward. Econ = econ. My point here is twofold: 1. Non-mil SBs have so many basic Mil capabilities (weapons, defenses). You can literally build a shitton of military construction on the non-Mil

I'm ambivalent. It costs a lot of money -- that is, if you couldn't upgrade one of your Pragmatic Constructors into it for cheap. I think the upgrade calculations need revision tbh.

Random addition: some Galaxy-Unique buildings cannot be rebuilt if destroyed. I just had this happen to me with a Singularity Power Plant. I wanted to move it one tile so I destroyed it and had no option to rebuild. Unless the AI built it in the middle of my turn instantly, it's a bug. I think it happened to me in a prior game with the Restaurant of Eternity, but I don't remember since I didn't care much about that one. Edit: Also, I can't

I think a simple solution here is to just have the mass and cost/maint for the modules be tripled (or something - 5x?). Also the assault vs. other fighters I would consider a bug of some flavor and should simply be corrected. I think the rebuilding of the fighters should be left alone for a "long-term fix". It adds micro which can be good for a full design, but for a quick fix I'd just leave it alone and make the module cost high maintenance to compensate.

For the smallest worlds, the basic general minimum is as follows: 1 morale building 1 food building The end. Two tiles. For planets with a few more tiles, the profile shifts more towards: 1 morale 1 food 1 spec We're still talking tiny planets here. For anything larger you will want a manufacturing building so that you can build/upgrade more stuff in a timely fashion (a research planet is taken out of commission for a LONG tim

I disagree. This entire post is off-base. The colony-unique buildings don't need to be "better" than the regular building if you're only making 1 of that type of building. Who says it should be that way? You? You who? The design is extremely apparent: the colony-unique buildings are obviously intended to be strong when you rack up adjacency bonuses. They are weak when you don't ... ok? You have a problem with the Thulium Data Archive? I can see that

[quote who="Ex Mudder" reply="11" id="3556665"] The lack of stars makes expansion problematic, even on abundant. I use Gigantic maps. [/quote] That actually sounds like it makes the map interesting. I'm personally not a fan of when "the vast reaches of empty space" is cluttered with tons of objects. Kind of makes it ... awkward.

[quote]If the focusing wheel for individual planets had not been there would it not be even smoother?[/quote] Uh, no? The wheel is fine. I click on the spot or area-ish that I want. My only criticism of it is the lack of "snap-to" precision. Like personally I will always set the sliders to increments of 5%, except the 1% manufacturing for projects. So fiddling with the exact "multiple of 5% spot" is a minor inconvenience. The one suggest someone mentioned to set it to 100% by

The tool is inherently good because it makes the game easier to interpret and smoother to play.

I'd generally like to point that in terms of general concepts and their orders of magnitude, I don't find "cost" of ship weapons or defenses to be a meaningful factor. If balancing is done around weapon attributes (or attibutes of defenses against them), then I think "cost" should be weighted low.

[quote]Issue 1: Managing a planet through various maturity stages is micro intensive[/quote] Unless you're trying extra hard to min/max, I find this level of micro fairly irrelevant: 1. You max manufacturing until everything is built. 2. You 99% your research/money/military manufacturing (or throw in some extra % of social mf for pop growth). Every time you get new relevant building techs or terraforms, you repeat #1 and #2. It's a fairly short cyc

Yeah but that doesn't help organize the list of 15/20+ 'core' ships. If I'm looking for a medium-size kinetic ship, I wish I could simply filter or open a category or tab for "medium hulls" or for "kinetic".

I think the core issue here is a matter of design priorities with difficult build queues. 1. Making buildings on a planet is never the end goal of the planet. As a result, it's always possible to dial down production to "5%" to not cause wasteful overflow. 2. Building ships is an end-goal of a planet. It's too easy to haphazardly optimize a planet to crush ship production queues -- although I don't think this is necessarily to

I noticed this last night and I thought it was fantastic. I have a reasearch-heavy race and I hunkered down to build up my worlds for several turns. Then I unleashed the tidal wave research points upon my tech tree and started racking them up. Working as intended for me!

Howdy, I just picked up GalCiv 3. I've been a long-time fan of 4xs, but I sort of stopped playing them after they started getting very micro-heavy with poor automation and interfaces. I decided to pick it up because its predecessor was fairly well-regarded and it seemed like a good time to jump in. Overall I'm having a lot of fun and the game seems like a great platform. Had a bit of a learning curve, but it seems like a lot of effort was put into making the game smoot