Wer900

[quote who="adamb1011" reply="8" id="3547019"] I think you should be able to dump production into repair - using shipyards. So you can repair in 1 turn if needed, but it will basically cost you most of the production used for the ship. The game also probably needs a repair module for military starbases, available fairly early. [/quote] Not a bad idea. Replacing damaged weapons systems and rebuilding hulls does require industrial capacity.

[quote who="joeball123" reply="10" id="3546875"] Quoting Unknown_Hero, reply 6 This should be clearly explained in the tooltip. Raw Manufacturing: +11 * Colony Capital: +5 * Population: +3.8 * Approval Bonus: +25% The approval bonus is a bonus to base production

They ought to change it so that 1 unit of social manufacturing is simply transformed into 0.5 units of something else. If it doesn't change by release I'm definitely modding it in.

Perhaps total production should be calculated by: (raw production bonuses + pop^(approval rating)) * (%bonuses)

[quote who="Empress_Fujiko" reply="6" id="3546804"] Can't you demand the starbase in tribute? I think that option existed in GalCiv 2. [/quote] I don't think that Demand as Tribute has yet been implemented as a feature. It's an important and necessary component of diplomacy which unfortunately will not make it in time for release.

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="23" id="3546620"] That is way too easy to overcome... that will not stop a player from expanding in any way. You need to make that a -1 for each time you double the empire to really matter, otherwise it could be a nice solution. [/quote] Then you could just remove the coefficient, to get the following values of morale reduction: 1: 0 2: -1 4: -2 8: -3 16: -4

It's a bit annoying that the current combat system is all-or-nothing. I think that as in Civ V it should be possible for two relatively evenly matched sides in a battle not to kill each other off completely; it's very immersion-breaking that the system is all-or-nothing. Furthermore, it should be possible to capture undefended colony ships and constructors rather than destroy them. I remember it was mentioned in the dev streams that such combat would not be implemented so that

Indeed, Prolific should be modified as you suggest. It is far too powerfup right now and (ironically) has allowed me to come ahead of the Krynn Consulate as the Terrans with little effort. The Patriotic trait ought to merely halve rather than eliminate the large empire penalty, which should itself be calculated based on ln(number of planets) rather than number of planets to better scale with map size.

[quote who="Stalker0" reply="8" id="3544884"] Quoting peregrine23, reply 4 1) Allow them to ignore presence of other factions' starbases for the purposes of minimum range from other starbases. 2) Give them a "deconstruct" command that allows you to destroy the starbase and get constructors equal to 1/2

Once, when I surveyed an anomaly in the game and ended turn too quickly, the game iterated through all the anomalies, made the end turn sound a number of times, and crashed. Also it seems to run more slowly than before, going through a short "not responding" phase when it did not do so before.

[quote who="Seilore" reply="31" id="3543187"] No option anymore to download the factions?? [/quote] Doesn't look like it; that's unfortunate.

[quote who="Niedzielan" reply="9" id="3542144"] Quoting Icrushthee, reply 6 You guys think this is Iridium specific? Happened to me too with those guys. No, it happens with all races on all planets, regardless of ideology and buildings. It is an issue with invasions. The devs put something in

[quote who="scifi1950" reply="99" id="3542210"] Quoting AlLanMandragoran, reply 98 Is it too late to ask for squares instead of hexes? I think that boat has sailed. [/quote] Yes, it did long ago, unfortunately. Hopefully TBS games transcend squares, circles, tria

[quote who="Incanus" reply="48" id="3541375"] Political boundaries and exclusive economic zones should be definable either by treaty with other civilizations or by United Planets resolutions. They should not expand with cultural borders, which represent only the spread of culture, not politics. Violation of EEZs would be legitimate cause to remove or occupy the offending starbases, while violation of political borders would create a diplomatic penalty and could cause wa

Political boundaries and exclusive economic zones should be definable either by treaty with other civilizations or by United Planets resolutions. They should not expand with cultural borders, which represent only the spread of culture, not politics. Violation of EEZs would be legitimate cause to remove or occupy the offending starbases, while violation of political borders would create a diplomatic penalty and could cause war. The Open Borders treaty would nullify the diplomatic penalty withi

Perhaps in an expansion human and AI players could agree with other players on existing political borders, boundaries of settlement, etc. Violating such agreements with other players would give a relations penalty and when done repeatedly constitute a legitimate casus belli.

I like the ideas to do with dead planets, but am not too sure about limiting the number of starbases. Instead of a hard cap it should be an improved diminishing-returns model.

There needs to be a little bit of polishing. " - You are trading with an inf a del", for example, needs to have its spelling fixed.

Congrats on the launch! I am confident that the game will continue to see improvement and refinement after release.

[quote who="PickeringJ" reply="34" id="3539940"] Trading techs is fine, but I feel trading specializations just results in no difference between player choices. Since its not that hard to trade techs. I feel specializations should be in a way, like ideology, to individualize your build WITHOUT the option to simply melt it into the "I have everything" build. [/quote] In that case, researching one specialization should make it more difficult, but not impossible, to

[quote who="Xenophage2112" reply="34" id="3538808"] When will starbase sponsor distance decay be implemented? [/quote] It already exists, but Terrans do not suffer from it due to their Engineer trait. If you've only played Terran this probably explains it.

[quote who="Starus" reply="13" id="3539851"] Quoting Wer900, reply 10 A new religious movement has arisen in the galaxy, valuing austerity and simple living and generally shunning the modern and galactic way of life. The most committed members of this movement have embarked on journeys to hitherto unknown sanctuary worlds (~5% o

Would there be any way to mod out mutual exclusivity for specializations if we so desired? Or is it hard-coded? Esp. with regard to colonization techs, exclusivity could be a problem.

Several new mega events should be added, in addition to the old ones from GCII: A new religious movement has arisen in the galaxy, valuing austerity and simple living and generally shunning the modern and galactic way of life. The most committed members of this movement have embarked on journeys to hitherto unknown sanctuary worlds (~5% of the galactic population starts a major civ and creates transports leaving from core worlds of existing divs, moving to new worlds with stron

[quote who="node10" reply="76" id="3539413"] If a starbase could 'build itself' once plonked down by drawing small amounts of resources from nearby friendly worlds, in a similar way that shipyards tether to worlds for their resources, then almost all of the interminable tedium of contructor management goes away: you build one constructor, you place your starbase with it, you decide which worlds sponsor your new starbase, and you set up your build queue within the starbase itself