eviator

Awesome, I made this request just yesterday, and you happened to deliver same day! https://forums.galciv3.com/469514

Due to constructor spam for resources I have turned resources off for maps of Large and bigger. Need those governors man, ASAP.

[quote] If the game developers had infinite time, they would create a second system that runs along with the first system. So that way players can choose between systems. Fine by me. Except that I think they have better things to deal with. Every time you colonize a planet you can tell the governor to turn off automatic upgrading. [/quote] Well if planet production micro isn't something they care to impro

When you have no buildings to build or upgrade on a planet you must build a project or set social production to 0 to get past the "Idle Colony". Many times I don't want to build any of the existing projects, I just want to put that unused manufacturing into ships. Right now I'm forced to set the planet slider to 100% military. Instead, I would like to build a "Fund Shipyard" project, which gives the social production to the shipyard with no loss. This project should be available at th

The 1.10 patch notes say "Request Constructor Button currently builds a basic constructor instead of latest constructor". I have not found this to be the case. This image shows me requesting a constructor, while researching the Life Support tech. The one and only shipyard on the map fulfilled that order with a Shaper M5.

Good thought. However in this case it queued a new M3 constructor in the shipyard.

shameless bump, don't ban me please.

Re-read, brother. My OP in that thread provided a few solutions, including yours. I called them Profiles or Templates instead of Groups. Your idea is a good one, but not novel.

Already discussed here: https://forums.galciv3.com/469307

[quote who="Rennno" reply="79" id="3576232"] Question not 100 sure if my game version is upgraded it still shows ver 1.1 . Is it suppose to show ver 1.12 now? [/quote] Browse to the GalCiv3.exe executable, hover over it, and it should say 1.1.12.0 for version 1.12.

Did a search, couldn't find a result. I'm running 1.1, according to the title screen. Steam says my game is up to date, and I have no "betas" I can opt into. Executable version says 1.1.12.0. Patch notes for 1.10 says requesting a constructor now queues a basic constructor instead of the normal version. I just tried it, and it queued a "Shaper M3", the latest version I have (Krynn). I did not obsolete anything. What is wrong?

First, the devs acknowledge there are many legitimate game-breaking exploits in the game that could make the game less fun. Option 1 would be to let the AI do them too. Option 2 is for the player to choose NOT to use them. I like both options, though I would like a toggle to prevent the AI doing them sometimes. Second, the formula for population to production was changed in the mid beta stage to have diminishing returns. This was reverted soon after release for some reason, which thro

This was a topic in today's dev stream. Some devs want to remove the per-planet production wheel, others want to make improvements. I think we can all agree that in the current game you must manage the production wheel on a per-planet basis to get the maximum production and benefit from specializing. I think everyone can also agree that micromanaging the per-planet wheel gets unwieldy after a dozen or so planets, and ridiculously time consuming, repetitive, and annoying as you get in

Oh right, I forgot this is why they changed to population to production diminishing returns. So this is back now?

What I want is for opinion to line up with facts, and that includes factoring in facts that don't support preconceived notions, something both the alarmists and the deniers repeatedly fail to do. It's not as settled as they think, one way or the other; they're only looking at data selectively. That is bad science. In fact it's far closer to a religion. That's right Fuzzy, your opinion on climate change is akin to a religion. The truth will set us free. If the denie

I may be wrong, but I think Stardock operates under the economic model that the games they are working on are fully funded through the full development cycle, and do not rely upon founder/pre-order money to finish the game or provide expansions. My guess is the money this game makes goes into the bank to fund the next idea.

Fortunately the devs are aware and surely have plans to correct this.

I'm jonesin' for some new stuff in the founders vault. Do you have any bones to throw us?

The reason I don't think it is okay as it is right now is that, even with OCD-like micro on a manufacturing-specialized planet, the extra wealth/science gained (compared to just setting the slider to 100%) is minuscule. No, a manufacturing-specialized planet should not be able to compete with a research-specialized planet in the amount of research it can produce, but I think the projects have to be more than just marginally better than not running the project. Otherwise they effectively s

I think in many games you eventually get to the point where you spend that ever accumulating overflow on one of the special projects. Saving it for the ultra-terraformer isn't a bad idea either. The overflow does not decay. Also if you have overflow, you can shut off manufacturing altogether and the planet/shipyard will continue building anyway until the overflow is used up. So it's a way to, for example, focus manufacturing 100% on ships while continuing to upgrade improvements.

It is actually not wasted. We've been calling it "overflow". You can see how many build point are currently in overflow by hovering over an empty spot in the planet and shipyard queues. I don't remember if there is a way to see research overflow. For some technical reason they don't show progress in the progress bar for the next thing in queue. It's clearly not the most obvious UI design, but it's what we have right now. And it means you do not have to babysit the producti

But how can a developer ever release a finished game if the community cannot agree on what finished means? Seems an impossible task. For example, I don't assume a game absolutely needs extreme zoom as long as battlefield context can be obtained some other way. Even more if no strategic zoom is a principle design decision.

[quote who="joeball123" reply="29" id="3561668"] The approximation fails to be less computationally complex to any significant degree and moreover is for something which should not need to be computed with any significant frequency, meaning that what little you gain in reduced computational complexity through the use of the approximation is essentially meaningless. [/quote] Agreed. [quote] That it fails to produce the right answer a

I believe every 10 manufacturing gives you 10% more bonus. So if you set social manufacturing to 20 points, you will get a 20% bonus. It's not as simple as that, though. There is a round up in the calculation. If you have 25 social manufacturing points, you get a 30% boost. What people have found is that if you have a manufacturing specialized planet and set your wheel to 99% wealth, 1% manufacturing, you maximize the wealth you get, but only by a few bc. And because that is a pai

[quote who="Daiwa" reply="2395" id="3561598"] Quoting eviator, reply 2392 Sort of. Models are simplifications of reality. Sort of. Models are oversimplifications of reality. There. Fixed it for ya. [e digicons];)[/e] [/quote]</p