There is some misleading information in the above post. But regardless the "mostly farms" strategy is viable and better than what the AI can do, so more power to you. Focusing provides superior numbers, if one can work out how to manage them well.
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="10" id="3608483"] I am a fairly new player to g3 but a long time veteran of g2... i would guess your machine is not processing efficiently for whatever reason? More experienced players can chip in here? I have an i7,,,, plus i have a solid state HDD,,, don't know if that helps [/quote] Nope, not buying the hardware excuse. This is a coding issue, plain and simple. In any case, it exemplifies why I won't let the AI govern m
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="8" id="3608477"] Never seen anything like it from an AI as yet! is your computer under powered? [/quote] This is admittedly the worst I've seen, but it was the first planet I conquered post 1.4, not a good first impression. I routinely see very boneheaded setups since then. I5-2500k is well above minimum specs.
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="5" id="3608468"] A farm in the center of five factories?! hahahaha Now go and find a screenshot of an AI planet doing something like that?.... i bet not! [/quote] Brother (or sister), that was a planet I had just conquered from the AI, no modifications. Normal difficulty. It was a minor race, IIRC.
This came from my first game after the post AI patch (1.4). Conquered this minor on normal difficulty and found this. I'm not letting the AI touch my planets after this.
For wealth/research, I've been going with a 3-2-1 strategy: 3 research wealth, 2 farms, 1 factory (to assist building time). Maintain that ratio. There are too many factors to say whether this is optimal, but in my empirical tests it worked out near the top in terms of output/time.
Rhonin, too difficult to cut and paste and edit the quotes on my iPad, so I'll respond without doing so. - Focus option on main planet list: that list already shows manufacturing, research, and wealth numbers. To focus, just click on one of those and it highlights, applies the focus, and updates the numbers. No more space needed. This isn't a deal breaker for me. Just seems ultimately logical, intuitive, and beneficial. - I don't really design ships much, so not a
I came up with another one, a real pet peeve. Stardock you need to do something about the ship list in the shipyard. Your "All", "Core", "User" categories are close to the bare minimum that you could do. The list expands as you unlock new techs, making it time consuming to find the ships you actually want. The "obsolete" process sucks because you do one at a time and each time you do the list scrolls back up to the top. There is no sorting, no categorizing. It's an alpha-quality interface
The bugs keep on coming: - Drengin's 2nd approval building (the one after Fighting Pits) has missing art - had a galactic event, the option I took was supposed to give a 10% boost to all ship capacities, but didn't. Things that suck (just the things I remember from most recent game, and just the tip of the iceberg): - I tried to give a civ some money to improve relations. Instead I got a minus to relations because I was "taking pity" on them. Can't
Paul, please go back and play GalCiv 2. That is how we want the colonies tab focuses to work. Jeez, why aren't things like that a given?
Looks like there are four new diplomatpic options, not two. I'm in the middle of a game right now (Drengin, not Krynn) so I hope to try these out.
Wait, the "Diplomacy patch" will have just two additions to the diplomacy options? Eh, just a patch, can't ask for too much.
Thread necro, but yeah, agree. It has now been pushed back to January-February. Pretty bad for something they wanted to get done by release.
I must admit I didn't understand the coercion mechanic after reading the OP three times, and I posted two replies with that misunderstanding. The use of the term "Goods and Services" harkens back to early betas, being replaced by Morale. Now I understand it is a morale-altering mechanic. So, if coercion is implemented can we get rid of the Large Empire Penalty? An immersion issue arises for me, and it was stated in other posts but I will repeat it. If my planet is 90% rese
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="30" id="3600020"] What we want to avoid is the call to having zooming out turn into "now that we've got it zoomed out, can you put icons on the map?" path. [/quote] We won't really know until we get our hands on the heat maps. What is the ETA on that? If the heat maps don't cut it, then we don't get the high zoom out. If we don't get the high zoom out, we don't need the heat maps. Chicken and egg.
In the dev streams Paul initially placed starbase micro on the roadmap for 1.4. When 1.4 became the AI patch he pushed it to 1.5. Now it seems it's been pushed to 1.6. I guess roadmaps are subject to change depending upon what people are most interested in seeing improved. Starbase micro was a huge issue early on, but nobody seems to talk it about anymore. I wonder why that is.
ASADDF, I like your ideas. Last one especially.
It would really help us to better understand your intentions, and help us understand what is within the realm of possibility given your roadmap. Right now on your screen there are no abstractions of any of the units or buildings aside from presumably the empire tree. In the strategic view we are able to see unit blobs and control groups. Is that generally the rules of the UI that we are dealing with? Or do you have plans to present some form of unit/building abstractions that provide addition
[quote who="lyssailcor" reply="64" id="3599668"] I hate caps. [e digicons];P[/e] [/quote] Fair enough. Whether it's a simple, easy to understand hard cap like I said above or a convoluted soft cap like the coercion idea, caps are coming.
Here is what happened: they created an economic system that has exponential potential because adjacency is fun. But it worked too good, and now they are considering adding diminishing returns to combat that. But all they really want is to limit production. I'm going to propose something radical, but hear me out: Let them put on a cap! Not a rigid cap like 500 points per planet, something like a cap of 30 points per planet class (I'
I will not be turning this on. Hopefully multiplayer will enforce the same planet wheel settings. Keep in mind what is happening here, folks. By turning this on you are acknowledging that Stardock does not have to field complaints about balance or micromanagement regarding the planetary production wheel. The de facto answer will be "you are the one who decided to enable an unsupported game mechanic, so we are not responsible". On the other side perhaps it will open up modding opportunities, w
This was the first planet I invaded in 1.4. The only one so far. I let the governors control 11 of the 12 planets I colonized. About half of them are reasonable, the other half are silly. Not a good track record in my experience.
This is a planet I just successfully invaded. Reply when you see it. (Version 1.4, normal AI)
Don't believe a non-Stardock person when they say X will be in patch Y, unless it is documented. And even if a Stardock dev says it, be skeptical. Initially 1.4 was going to be the starbase governor patch. It was pushed to 1.5, though actually we haven't heard much about that recently so who knows. Overflow was implemented in beta 5 (not alpha), though the devs thought it was working in beta 3. Trims had a couple of "probably in 1.5", but I don't think any of those are backed up b
A lot of the things you ask for came from GalCiv2 expansions. And we will be seeing them return in GalCiv3 expansions. This is not an excuse, just information.