I too think returning to a shipyard is the best option. Being able to upgrade anywhere doesn't make sense, because ships don't fly around in deep space with their own personal shipyard onboard.
When I am planning buildings in the planet screen, I like to build as many farms as possible while keeping approval at 100%. I find this to be the most efficient planet design in terms of maximizing population and approval bonuses. But, on the planetary screen, while I can see that approval is 100%, I cannot see how much population can increase before approval will start to suffer. To get this information, I have to open the tool tip. I'd like to see the approval information include the r
I upgrade constructors to restore double constructors. This is a hugely more powerful tactic than you would think at first. What it means is, once you've built a few constructors, you don't need to build anymore constructors as you can keep refreshing your existing constructors. This frees up a huge amount of production at your shipyards, due to the fact you no longer need to constructor spam. If you are playing peacefully, you can then start demolishing your factories on your planets
I also prefer a more realistic galaxy with fewer habitable planets. I always set habitable planets to rare when starting a game.
I support the call to bring back the shutdown button. Sometimes when producing a ship that takes more than one turn to produce, I want to stop sending production to the shipyard. "Automatically idle" can't stop production mid way through a ship. Having both options would reduce micromanagement significantly.
Great video, shows how much production can potentially be deleted, which is a pretty serious bug. As a result of the bug, I avoid using military manufacturing altogether, which adds greatly to the amount of micromanagement I need to do. I think the best solution is to make it so that production overflow is not deleted when military subsidies is used.
I figured out to get around this you need to do a "quick battle" (not "view battle") and then invade with a transport. Something about viewing the battle causes the drones to instantly respawn. I guess this will be fixed in a patch before too long.
I am trying to invade an undefended Iconian planet. It spawns free drones to fight when it is attacked due to the Iconian "paranoid" ability. Attacking the planet with a fleet of warships and a transport I am easily able to defeat the drones. The problem is, I am not then presented with the screen to invade the planet with troops from the transport. I try attacking again the same turn but the drones have respawned and the same thing happens. Sending in the transport by itself results in a pop
I find Galactic Civ 3 is generally pretty good at keeping track of production overflow. However, I've noticed that when I choose military subsidies in the social manufacturing queue, then the existing accrued production overflow isn't sent to the shipyard, it is simply lost. This can result in the loss of a large amount of production as I tend to play with social manufacturing set to 100% and rely on military subsidies to build ships. I am playing the opt in 1.7 update. &
I've noticed there's also a few "missing info" tooltips in the space ship stats in the designer, regarding weapon or other bonuses.
I build a transport and populated it. I moved the transport to another planet where I had other ships. Next turn, when I went to move the transport I got the popup asking to populate the transport. This was because the population on the transport had disappeared. Edit: I figured out what happened. The population of the transport automatically joined the other planet.
I can confirm this bug. Getting an AI to pay cpt actually seems to sweeten the deal for them. For example, if a trade is setup up and the AI labels it "fair", just add some cpt for them to pay and suddenly they find it very generous. Then you can crank the cpt they pay to the maximum they will accept.
[quote who="trims2u" reply="10" id="3594583"] Frankly, the best fix is twofold: 1. add the ability to refuse gifts. That eliminates the "dud specialization" exploit. 2. lock out the other specializations, even for trading. Once you specialize, you should NEVER be able to get another one of them, whether via by research yourself, trading, gift, or Galactic Event. Specializations should absolutely be single-choice only, no-going-back fork
[quote who="a0152570" reply="8" id="3594542"] Quoting Pyro59, reply 7 Why not allow the player to research multiple specializations That's what we started with (back in beta). Dev's took it out because.... well, if you can research them all it's not "specializing"
I had a better idea. You can already have multiple specializations if you trade for them. Why not allow the player to research multiple specializations for themselves if they want to? It will negate the impact of being gifted dud specializations, and present the player with a trade off between taking the time to research additional specializations for the bonuses or choosing to prioritize advancing along the tech tree.
I can confirm this playing as Terrans. The "Research Treaty" specialization for the "Diplomatic Optimization" Tech unlocks the "slave brokering" treaty, which gives a "5% bonus to colony manufacturing and wealth due to the other civilization agreeing to open slave markets". These kind of mistakes are nothing unusual; there appears to be quite a few mistakes in the tech tree if you look for them.
I think a decline option is adequate for the short term. I'd like to see some adjustments in the balancing of research specializations in future patches.
I have noticed that when the AI gifts certain research specializations, it can be more of a curse than a gift. For example, for the research optimization specialization, one of the choices is "sustainable research" which reduces the maintenance cost of research improvements by 10%. This is a negligible bonus compared to the specialization that increases research by 10%. I had "sustainable research" gifted to me by the AI, and therefore was stuck with it as it can't be declined. There
There is an issue with tech trading where civilizations can trade tech when they don’t have the prerequisite for it. For example, giving/receiving "medium hulls" when they/you haven't discovered "small hulls". Its like teaching someone how to run before they can walk, or teaching a primitive civilization how to build aircraft before they have discovered the wheel. It also makes tech trading unnecessarily confusing due to the sheer number of techs that show up to trade. You sho
Yep I've seen this too, definitely seems out of place like it wasn't meant to be there.