BuckGodot

Finally had some free time to start poking about with 4.0. Awesome as always. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] I know that you're planning on making this a full replace mod eventually, but I have a highly idosyncratic setup myself, so I've been picking and choosing want I want for my home games. In doing that I think I might have made an interesting discovery that might or might not already be known. In your mod, you have a full replace for StarSystemsDefs

[quote who="Seilore" reply="2" id="3633115"]Hmmm... It's not pulling in the general list of topics must have missed it. So I apologize for not seeing it. Thanks for pointing that out.[/quote] For what ever reason none of the patch notes ever show up for me on the list of topics. I have to go to the Support forum itself to see if there's been an update or not. Been that way for me ever since mid way through the beta.

Finally had the chance to really put the new starbase system to a test on on the whole it's a massive improvement. There are a couple of cosmetic changes that would be nice (being able to cycle through starbases from the Sponsor screen being the most urgent), but on the whole it's very welcome news. There is one thing about the new system that irks, however. One of the new innovations of 1.7 is being able to "auto idle" shipyards. Grea

[quote who="Zhen724" reply="36" id="3632472"]Plese don't forget we are speaking about an OPTION of removing stacking bonuses.[/quote] This still doesn't address my point about overloading a game with options. GC III is already rather (in)famous when it comes to options and customization. It's a factor that should be considered when thinking about adding even more. Doesn't mean no more options should ever be added. But I still think it's a no

Sometimes/oftentimes Steam will still say "opt in patch" even though you aren't currently using the opt-in, Don't ask me why, just file it under Steam Gonna Steam. If you are worried that you aren't on the latest version, check the actual GC III app in your steam folder. If it says 1.7.0.16, you're good to go! :)

[quote who="Zhen724" reply="31" id="3632362"]Please speak for yourself. You didn't conduct an opinion poll to know who is in majority and who in minority. . [/quote] No, but I have been around the GC community (mostly lurking) for at least eight years. I [b]strongly[/b] suspect what kind of crap storm would ensue if bonus stacking was taken away. :) As for the "Starbase Civilizations" comment, AIUI nearly all of that is regarding constructor spam. &nbsp

[quote who="Zhen724" reply="26" id="3632295"] Ok you like bonus stacking and I don't. Why not make a game option removing bonus stacking so that both of us could enjoy the game? [/quote] Not to speak for Paul, but because balancing becomes a huge issue. If (the attempt at) game balance is set at one set of core assumptions but there is an radically different option (and this would be pretty radical), how do the devs balance the game for both? Not as easy as it soun

UPDATED TO 1.7/Mercenaries https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0By8Y969dyvLHdF9vUWE3Nng5dG8 The Full Change Log can be found in the README in the zip file and in the OP. Here is a partial change log with the most important changes: 1.6 to 1.7 Sensor Optimization 1 and Energy Field Focus 1 stat modifi

What I have seen is if your starbase radius falls within the radius of [b]ANOTHER[/b] faction's starbase and that [u]second[/u] faction's starbase is mining/studying something, then it will appear in your starbase list, but greyed out as "being claimed by another player". I suspect what is happening under 1.7 opt-in 4 is that it is no longer greyed out but still listed as being claimed by the other faction. If it isn't that, then ignore this comment. :)

[quote who="trekkie02" reply="66" id="3631885"] Got a bug where only one ship with the precursor modules can be built. If that's how the gameplay is supposed to be than please update the descriptions. [/quote] After a suggestion made here ( https://forums.galciv3.com/476612 ) that is now working as intended. As you say, the description might need to be updated.

As of opt-in 4, the Military Starbase ring now has no additional range bonus: StarbaseRange Starbase Flat Is this intentional or a bug?

Thought I'd let you folks know that it looks like none of the adjustments made to all of the tech trees regarding the Diplomacy nerfs made it into any of the Campaigns. All of the tech trees in all of the Campagins still show the 1.7 opt-in 3 tech tree values for DiplomacyTech, InterstellarAlliances, EminenceTech, and MajestyTech. Just a heads up that you will probably want to fix those as well before going live. :)

For an example of what I mean by pace and a long game, the game can be set up to it takes a [b]LONG[/b] time to go through the tech tree. Thus even if one has fast ships and long scanning ranges, it can still take a long time to complete the game. But the exploring and moving of ships will make it seem like a quicker game because there will be more to do on indvidual turns. For me at least. Others like their pace from the speed of tech research. Thus they can

[quote who="Surge72" reply="24" id="3630612"]I don't understand why people want things to scale with map size. [/quote] It's been explained more than once. But to try once again in a slightly different way, there's a sweet spot to scaling and sizing. One can want to explore and play on a large large map while not having it be excruciatingly slow. Different experience doesn't have to mean an excruciating one. One can want to have lots of things to

FWIW, one can mod in the old system of how Sensors worked as "SensorRange" does still work as an Effect Type. I tested this by putting in the old ShipComponentDefs.xml into my mod directory and loaded up an old tech tree that still had techs that modified by SensorRange instead of SensorPower. Game loads and runs as it used to. So a replace mod should work where one puts back in Sensor Range everywhere and takes out Sensor Power (making sure to take out the new values for S

This is more feedback than anything else, but The Scout Mega Event now looks to be very under powered for the Benevolent and Pragmatic choices. Unless I am very much mistaken, those two choices now only add one unit of "sensor power" and two units of "sensor power" respectively. This isn't very much at all in the grand scheme of things with the new sensor power structure. Looking into components, the Pragmatic choice seems to be the same as exactly one Navigational Sen

Not sure if this has already been mentioned or not but in the Ship Designer, the tooltip for Sensor Range does not display any information when hovered over. It [b]DOES[/b] go up as various things that effect Sensor Power are added to a ship. But the breakdown of what is affecting Sensor Range is completely blank. I have a screenshot showing this in action: [img]http://i.imgur.com/iHJHOQg.png[/img]

Title say it almost all. :) Minor bug, but one all the same for custom races built on the Generic Tech Tree. It's also a bit more problematic for folks creating a custom race, as the Tech Tree section of the Customize Civilization screen will display "Terran Tech Tree - A balanced tech tree" twice. Once for the actual Terran Tech Tree and once for the Generic Tech Tree. The bug is occurring because the TechDefsText.xml file is saying:

+1 on the components scaling to hull size. As someone enjoys stacking things, that is more than an acceptable compromise in my book. Maybe because it's what I was used to in GC II, but that's a side point at best. ;P

Thursday? This is blasphemy! This is madness! MADNESS?!? [b]THIS IS STARDOCK!!!![/b]

[quote who="Surge72" reply="45" id="3627246"] Quoting Larsenex, reply 43 Sensor stacking has been in game since ALPHA and is also normal This doesn't make it a good idea. [/quote] Doesn't make it a bad idea, either. ;)

[quote who="alphaprior" reply="13" id="3627054"]Although I think it would work just by deleting them entirely and renaming the file so the extra traits are added and don't replace the original xml. Right? [/quote] Yeah, I know which mod you're talking about. :) I use it all the time, myself Just go ahead and dump PlanetDefs.xml from the mod, as all the "extra" planet traits are in a separate xml called Planets_PlanetTraitDefs.xml. What PlanetDefs.x

[quote who="alphaprior" reply="11" id="3626969"] I can confirm the bug occurs in my game 1.61. I researched Aquatic just to colonize a specific planet close to my borders but -50 Production is still there. It's dissapointing because game feels broken so 2 days of playing for nothing. Please fix it. [/quote] Strange. It's working for me: [img]http://i.imgur.com/ooVcaPb.png[/img] Are you sure you started this

Now that you mention it, I think I've been only getting one per type as well. In my latest game I've now cycled completely through the precourser list and started getting regular colonization events as well. I suspect this is in fact what is happening. Why the game isn't doing them randomly and is doing them one-per instead, I haven't got a clue. Checking ColonizeEventDefs.xml, I see there are 30 normal colonization events. Take out no events

[quote who="altaris1024" reply="2" id="3625798"] @BuckGodot Does decommissioning them make the resources spent on them available again?[/quote] It most certainly does. :)