sjaminei

[quote]Option to select rough position on the galaxy e.g.: Do not put me on the edge of the Galaxy, or in the middle of it, or right next to another CIV [/quote] I made a mod to regenerate better random galaxies with specifications like that, but it's hard to get right. It's essentially scripted image maps (stars go here and not there is what you can do pretty much), and then you have to fix the number of habitable planets etc. for map sizes and whatnot. I mad

I am a bit worried that the lead designer on this game spends more time watching the AI than playing the game itself during these streams it seems. However, that kind of makes sense in why it was so broken for so long... :( Lead designer. Please play a bit more, and leave the programming and annoying work to the plebs? ok? ;)

[quote who="naselus" reply="81" id="3593508"] Diplomacy need to offer that kind of freedom. The problem is an AI one. [/quote] Yes. Why you are at "Friendly" at the start needs to go away. You should have to work hard for tech trading benefits etc. That is the main fault with the current system, not AI or whatever.

Weapon and defense defs are located in the ship components file. Not sure what you mean with tech bonus, but if you mean the specialization thingies (like +5 logistics) it should be a modifier in the tech itself you can just tweak.

Two people agreeing on the internet after an argument? What sorcery is this? [quote who="naselus" reply="74" id="3593368"] 'Points that appear to be aimed at mind control' is also known as 'reasoned discussion' unless you're attempting to imply that I'm a super villain. [/quote] Guessing the mind control worked? Super villain confirmed! ;)

[quote] The prerequisite is LosslessSupportSystems but there is no tech named that in Yor [/quote] There is. The generic name of that tech is named that, and prereqs back to itself. Not sure why it works without error in the default game, or if it's a bug that it isn't showing up in the default Yor tech tree in game. Either way, just remove the whole thing unless you want to experiment with the prerequ tags to actually add the tech to the tech tree some

What is the problem? TechSpecializationDefs not working? You have remembered to put the new tech tree name in the faction file right?

[quote]I am using starbases, though I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the political government bonuses (are those just bonuses from tech research?)[/quote] The top part of the bottom tech tree. You get 10% first tier, then 20% and 30% next in the second tech age. These are raw production modifiers, so they boost everything. And about economic starbases, one economic ring boosts raw production by 10%, so try getting 4 starbases up around your most important planets asap. The modul

[quote] Economics/Upkeep: I seem to not be able to climb out of a serious credit debt that gets significant mid-game. I'm basically forced to sell techs to minor races for income-per-turn to keep afloat. Once the military build-up begins I can't seem to come close to supporting the ships I need. I notice some of the leading AI will field massive fleets when I check how many ships they have, and to keep a comparable military I'm non-stop churning out ships and going deeper int

Just create a new xml file with just your component in it. You only need to copy the top and bottom part of the original file to make it work. If you do it that way it should be "patch proof" :)

[quote who="a0152570" reply="2" id="3591440"] TerranFrigate_Class_NameNEW in my ShipClassDeffs block and the define TerranFrigate_Class_NameNEW in English/Text/ShipClassText.xml right? [/quote] Yep. Just put that name in a label in the file, and then edit the string to what it should be named. Though I am not sure where the M# suffix (version of the ship) is supposed to be edited. Can't find it in either blueprints or that text

Thalans are supposed to have lower growth rate and population than other factions to compensate for the power of the hive etc. Obviously that is not working properly at the moment ;)

You need to create a blueprint as well. (ShipBluePrintsDefs.xml) Just be warned, ship blueprints was not easy to mod before, and unless they've changed something recently, you might be in for a rough ride. [quote]and if so what name will show up in ship designer [/quote] TerranFrigate_Class_Name This decides what name shows up. But the string is located in English/Text/ShipClassText.xml, so you ne

I think they should have added some more terraforming options to compensate though. I think there are 5 tiles max you can improve now with buildings? 2-3 more tiles would be fine and great for builders. It's easy enough to mod, so not a big deal really.

This was hidden far away. :P Anyways, anyone here have some experience with modding events? I am trying to create a custom race that can't colony rush early, and want to create a on colonization event that spawns a third habitable planet in their solar system to boost them off since they can't colony rush. (similar to the benevolent free planet, the class 16 one) Is there any way to create unique events (only available once) this way? Because as I have it now, I

Yeah, that happens with save games. Don't know what they are doing wrong with it, but you can get missing units etc. too, and it's not limited to this game. FE had the same bug.

There is room for improvement, but the core game good enough now. My guess is with an expansion, and some balance mods to enhance depth, this will be a great game to have for years to come so it's worth it. Just don't expect GC2 awesomeness, yet. ;)

[quote who="naselus" reply="11" id="3590521"] I tend to disagree. Nothing should allow us to dictate what the enemy shoots at in any way. That way is so gamey, and also makes for an easier to exploit system. An all-armour no-weapon hulk shouldn't be a valid option, ever. [/quote] Yep. The current system is confusing and stupid anyways. Why should you set roles for a ship when you are building it? If there is to be some tactical depth to the combat system with roles

Without upgrade exploits?

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="5" id="3588320"] The Anti-Matter Power Plant should also be in this conversation. It is worse than worthless. It has nothing but a 2X adjacency bonus. I have never been tempted to build one. [/quote] It's alright for military improvements. You want one on your planet with the hyperion buildings.

[quote who="naselus" reply="32" id="3588028"] And secondly 'exponential' is not a word which is open to linguistic evolution. It is a formal mathematical term. These do not evolve over time, largely because the entire point of having them is to have an agreed meaning that remains the same throughout time - that's why many are in dead languages. Exponential means exactly the same thing now that it did when it was first formally defined. [/quote] It

[quote who="MottiKhan" reply="9" id="3587701"] For the first turn, set it to 100% research and rush buy a factory. That way, you can start producing on your second turn and won't have the lost production from the rush buy. [/quote] I thought it just went into "overflow" anyways? (meaning it would carry over to the next thing you actually build) Do we really lose production from rush buying? Isn't that just a Galciv2 thing?

I think this has gone a bit under the radar, so I'm posting a proper bug report. (hopefully) The multipliers in PacingDefs.xml targets the same range as normal factories/research labs, making the effect negligible. (Meaning the penalty is literally -2 factories worth of production instead of a global penalty as it should be) I tried modding it to raw production instead, but it faces somewhat the same issue there. (same targets, the approval bonus countering it etc.) If you

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="23" id="3587771"] If you guys think my post style is childish and immature, so what? I don't know who you are, and you don't know who am I . Why should I care what you think of me personally? Do we know each other in real life? Consequently, your opinions of my posting style are unimportant. Consequently I will do as I wish. As long as I do not insult you personally (which I have not done), and keep my statements grounded in

Just make it so the added population above the cap doesn't count towards raw production. Easy fix. Makes no sense that these starving people (energy or food) would actually work productively anyways.