Updated. V3.0 will probably be about weapons. EDIT: The sensors follow this curve, almost (the values in the graph are outdated, but the concept remains). In this example, 7 sensors would give less range than 6. Tooltips are updated with an explanation as to why this is (I call it interference).
Ah got it. Too bad really, would make my files much smaller.
Thanks, good to know
[quote who="Ronnar" reply="3" id="3553545"] Quoting DarkNeuron, reply 2 Good work. Tbh, they should remove the label column from the xml. It serves no obvious purpose. It does have a purpose if you think about translations. English is not going to be the only language supported. So
So the ModdingReadme.txt says this: Append Method: However, if you only want to add new xml you should use the second method. This is done by creating new xml files that are uniquely named that match the formatting of the xml you intend to append to. The advantage to this style is that you can create mods that can be combined with other mods that simply append new xml in this style. However thats pretty vague. I've tried mak
Good find. This has to be modded in to crash though, right? If not, I'll add it to my mod for good measure.
[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="131" id="3554092"] Don't go to crazy on the scale thing, we still want the insane map to be epic in scale... anyway good work so far. [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] You're right, no point in making everything too mathy.
Woops, the edit and quote button looked alike for a sec.
[quote who="Bellack" reply="28" id="3554174"] Quoting joeherbert48, reply 7 But Elemental still leaves a bad taste in a lot of people mouths. The first Elemental War of Magic where they ended up giving TWO free expansions because the uproar was so great they almost had to. Still the taste is there and I'm still much sk
You know what was changed: The version number. I'm sorry [e digicons]:grin:[/e] Couldnt resist
[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="129" id="3554056"] Yes... I agree 8% seem like a better start. You will get almost a maximum range of 8 with six sensors that way and after that a diminishing return. Will you add the same diminishing return on engines as well in your mod? [/quote] I might go lower with engines tbh, maybe 5%. I'll make some more graphs to see how it would play out. Will also make that map dependant, definitely. I need to
[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="126" id="3553956"] I did the same for engines... if it becomes too little for the maps just add in a map modifier to the sensors so lets say insane map (MapSizeDefs.xml) give a +10-15% bonus to sensor range. There already is one for range where an insane map give +100% range. Or add a device that require Thulium that give say +25% sensor range in the late game. You can also lower the modifier to say 8% so the fall is not as bad,
[quote who="tralken" reply="124" id="3553946"] Quoting DarkNeuron, reply 123 Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 121 I have done th
[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="121" id="3553888"] I have done the following modification which is satisfactory to me... All sensor and engine modules give a -10% penalty except survey modules and fleet wide engine boost modules give a -5% penalty. All in addition to their flat bonus as normal. Ship hulls give.. Transport: Range +20%, Speed -10%, Sensors -10% Tiny:
If that's possible, then that's not really something I'm interested in right now. Would be a maintenance nightmare. :)
So I made a mod that tries to address some of these issues: https://forums.galciv3.com/466029/page/1/ Basically: Sensors more expensive. Starbase sensors much better. Feel free to use it, or not.
Info: I'm taking a break from the game, until 1.1 rolls out. So don't expect any updates until then. Description Tries to rebalance parts of the game which I, personally find imbalanced (multiplayer is not forgotten). Currently the
[quote who="ForesterSOF" reply="26" id="3553674"] There is an easy solution. Do not use it. Let the game use the default economy settings from the start. [/quote] Was already said, was already replied to.
[quote who="Arumba" reply="21" id="3553574"] Some players have to play as efficiently as they can, and when they learn of a new way to play they can't NOT play that way anymore. Saying "Just don't do that" doesn't work. [/quote] And Franco should know that from a "certain other topic". ;)
Anyone know if you can mod shop components, such as attributes, cost etc? I've looked for it, but I can't find any XML that contains it. EDIT And then I obviously find it: ShipComponentDefs.xml Maybe it can help someone else.
Good work. Tbh, they should remove the label column from the xml. It serves no obvious purpose.
[quote who="Syrris" reply="116" id="3553295"] My thought re: limiting the number of sensor modules is that rather than "one sensor module, period", make it "one of each type", with the first module giving a decent radius boost and each successive type giving a smaller boost (so that the number of new visible hexes remains roughly consistent with each additional component). So your "Basic Sensor Array" is enhanced by a "Thulium Resonator" and then a (whatever the third one is calle
[quote quoting="post"] And sorry to say that, but having to tweak the govern wheel between gold, prod and research is not. It is only time consuming. It is not even interesting from a "strategic" point of view. No need to be a genius to see that gold is useless at start, so you painfully need to adjust to research and prod. Then of course if you specialise a world with 6 research centers, it means that you want it set on research.... But when a building improvement arrive, you have to se
[quote who="Starchaser12" reply="109" id="3553174"]Note, turn 352. and I'm just finding my opponents.[/quote] You were talking about strawman arguments earlier? We're not talking about the lategame! The issue has never been the lategame! The issue is the early game... Why are you talking about the lategame? Why don't you listen? Can't argue with people that ignore your arguments. I'll let the devs decide what to do. In
[quote who="Starchaser12" reply="98" id="3553124"] Quoting DarkNeuron, reply 95 Quoting Franco fx, reply 86 I would be willing to be