Azunai_

easiest way to change the home planet of a freighter in my experience is to simply add that planet to the sponsor list of the shipyard that builds the freighter. the designated home planet doesn't even have to be anywhere near that shipyard. when the ship is launched, you can pick the home planet from a list of all sponsors of taht shipyard. i actually used that little trick to make freighters closer to the target planet so it wouldn't take such a long time to establish the ro

i think the planetary wheel is a really redundant design element. it's an improvement over GC2 since it allows us to specialize planets, but it's also redundant because we already specialize planets by building the appropriate tile improvements - do we really need to tell the planet that is nothing but factories that it needs to shove the "raw production" (or whatever it's currently called) into manufacturing? feels really redundant. it's obviously tied to the whole raw produc

as naselus pointed out, the midgame you describe is a result of your settings and your early game. try playing with rare or occasional habitable planets. the "early colony rush" and "midgame consolidation phases" are only distinct phases when there are too many planets to grab. with less planets you have a more organic growth model. there aren't hundreds of worlds to grab so you'll automatically build up your core planets while exploring the outer reaches for more colonizable planets.

i don't like that system. the penalty itself is annoying, since you have to go back and refit planets that were "green" after you get enough new colonies. lots of pointless micromanagment. it would be far less tedious if there were a way to export approval. they could have used the tourism concept for that. instead of building a new stadium on 50 worlds, you'd just build up a few worlds as "holiday worlds" with lots of tourism stuff that export enough approval to keep the other worlds

the benefit of tourism is that it's NOT based on your production allocation. for a market to have ANY effect, you have to assign production to wealth. tourism is free income, wealth (markets) is a tradeoff (lose manufacturing/research for money).

the projects could be buffed to a level where you can just let your research worlds run at 50/50 manufacturing/research with the research project as the final item with minimal loss. would kill a lot of pointless micromanagement. i'm sick of moving those sliders back and forth every time there is some new building upgrade available. tbh, it would be good enough for me if all the projects did was to (temporarily) set research/wealth to 100%. you'd lose the tiny bonus you can cu

imo they should scrap the whole carrer implementation and introduce "space fighters" as a 4th weapon research line. you'd research them just like you research missles, lasers and mass drivers and equip them on the ships in the same way. no more stupid double dipping in hullsize increments & module miniaturization, no broken OP assault fighters, no targetting priority issues etc. EDIT: that's basically the way fighters work in Distant worlds, and that system works fin

i guess color coding would help. i think they had color coding in GC2. doesn't make a huge difference to me anyway. the way i see it, NOT using a terraforming option mid game just so you can have an extra tile you'd otherwise lose in the late game isn't worth the tradeoff. i use the techs as i unlock them to create/improve adjacency hubs. delaying them until you get ultra terraformer or picking up other tiles that aren't adjacent to to already developed stuff see

if you want an easy victory, build lots of carriers. those things are overpowered. if you want a fair game, destroy their forward starbases so your planets are out of range of their fleets, and tech up until you have enough firepower to kill their fleets with conventional ships. you may not even have to tech up that much. IIRC there's quite a lot of resources on that map, so instead of researching higher tier weapons, you can grab all the resources, get some mining techs to

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="11" id="3563599"] Yes Thrusters do add to your 'agility' which can also increase miss chance. [/quote] hmm i don't think that's true. thrusters provide tactical speed and acceleration, but no agility/jamming/dodge chance. could easily break the game if they did that - just fill up a cargo hull with thrusters until it's at 100% dodge, set the role to "escort"and win the game effortlessly since now you have a

thrusters don't add "dodge" chance afaik. there's a line of "jamming" modules (i think it's a side branch of sensors) that improve the dodge chance. there's also a module that reduces hit chance of enemy fleets, which i guess boild down to the same effect. the thalan tech tree has 1 or 2 extra techs that give them some extra passive dodge (probably because the stock thalan race is the race that has the "agile" trait)

to be fair, if you make the starvation based on the amount of missing food, you'd also have to make the growth based on the amount of extra food. which is not the case. it's always the same +0.1 growth (plus percentage modifiers based on that rate).

@OP: your math is wrong. you control 64% of the galaxy and you need to control 76% of the galaxy. if you increase your current influence by 21%, you have the required 76% (a bit more actually, 64 * 1.21 == 77.44; i guess the numbers are rounded down for display)

the ship components cost decrease is a bit questionable, that much i agree with. the main reason being that flett sizes are capped by logistics, so "larger" ships with the same logistics cost are usually superior to more cheaper ships - since you can't take advantage of the superior number when both fleets are at the logistics cap. it's different for buildings, though. i actually like the cost reduction for the two main building types (manufacturing and research). most of my p

it's quite possible that tactical repair has some glitches, but your description sounds more like the battle viewer doesn't show an accurate representation of how the battle actually played out. take a look at the ships that are randomly cruising along. chances are that they actually show 0 speed, i.e. they are shown as "crusing" when they are actually sitting in the back, out of range.

that guide isn't really a good way to learn the game. contains a lot of misinformation and bad advice. you're better off playing by your own strategy.

when i destroy a few farms and have pop > max pop (which is the same as food for all races except synthetics), the population slowly starves to death at a rate of 100 Million per turn (aka 0.1 "population points"). if you can reproduce the situation where pop doesn't starve, that' would be a bug and you should probably send a savegame to the devs.

i wonder why they used that seemlingly arbitrary set of techs to track victory progress. wouldn't it make more sense to just track the total number of unlocked techs? simply counting the unlocked techs would yield a better comparsion. you need 180 unlocks to open up the final age (the one with the 3 victory techs), so comparing the total unlcoks would seem like a better metric to compare the progress. granted - only 3 branches acorss the 4 trees are actually required to get to the vicotry

i always found the score system a bit backwards. seems to emphasize stuff like influence, population and money way to much and turn time way too little. maybe i'm missing something, but it seems you get more points for delaying a victory and pressing "end turn" for a few hundred turns while population, money and influence pile up. strange system. not that it matters much, but still...

the very slow pacing will probably hurt the AI more than the human player. the penalty is hardly noticeable when you secialize planets - which is something the AI is bad at, and players are really good at. other than that, your settings sound quite... challenging. knife fight in tight quarters from turn 1 ;)

while you're at it, please also fix the production cost tooltips when you have relevant technology that reduces the cost of a building/upgrade. at first i thought those specializations don't work at all, but after some (tedious) queue shuffling i found out that they actually work, but don't update the cost in the tooltip (i.e. with 40% cost reduction upgrade from t3 lab to t4 lab costs ~62 prodcution, but still displays the default 101 production etc.)

remember that the population > production formula was reverted to prod = pop recently. the other formula we had for a few patches around release (prod = 2 * pop ^0.7) made high population less efficient. the new formula doesn't. combine that with a race that can cheaply manufacture population. voila, there's your explanation. not sure if "overbuilding" is such a big issue. they'll be over the cap thanks to the overbuilding, but they'd probably steamroll everyo

no matter which of 3 available specilizations you pick, you can always progress in the tree afterwards. the 3 picks in the specializations are mutually exclusive (unless you can get the other options via tech trade), but they have no influence on the availability of techs further down the tech tree.

sounds interesting. i remember playing MoO. didn't have a PC back then, so i played it with a friend. then proceeded to bug may parents until i got a PC - just to play MoO and Civ 2 :) MoO2 was also pretty awesome. spent loooots of much time with those games. MoO3 was ok-ish. nothing more. unfortunately. will be interesting to see if they can actually deliver a decent game. i doubt it will be as good as MoO or MoO2 - there's no way for a new game to live up to the nostal

fleets are limited in size by the "logistics" value of your civilization. you can increase that value with advanced technology. each ship size has a size attribute which determines how many logistcs points it uses. a tiny ship uses 2 logistcs, so you can stack up to 5 tiny ships in a fleet when your logistics cap is at 10 points. larger shipts cost more lgistics points, so with the same 10 logistics cap, you can only have 2 medium ships (size 5). later in the game you'll probably