eviator

I don't see how the game will be able to provide battlefield context without icons, but I'm willing to wait to play the game before I worry about it at all.

Today I tried all stock AIs on gifted, Gigantic, uncommon habitable, figured it would be a challenge since I clobber the AI on normal. On turn 56 I did a cycle through of trade and found my two nearest opponents had double the number of planets I did and their average class 14 while my average was 10.5. I thought maybe gifted got planet class boosts, but maybe I just got unlucky. Well now one of them, the Krynn, are chugging out medium ships and noticed I don't have any military, so they

I had one instance where mouse scrolling stopped working mid-game. If I can repeat it I will submit a bug report.

[quote who="joeball123" reply="9" id="3556253"] [total output] = (1 + [approval modifier] + [production modifier])*([flat production bonus] + [population-based production])* (1 + [manufacturing fraction]*[manufacturing bonus] + [wealth fraction]*[wealth bonus] + [research fraction]*[research bonus]) + [flat manufacturing bonus]*(1 + [manufacturing bonus]) + [

The approval boost to base production starts to be better than the improvement production bonus as the planet matures. There is no specific number because of adjacency considerations, but ballpark it's somewhere around 400% bonus where, if you cross that point, you are better off using a tile to get approval to 100%.

I have not had a crash in 1.0. Sorry, I empathize with how frustrating that can be.

I recommend photobucket for sharing screenshots. Lots of free space, reputable, easy organization, and easy direct links to post screenshots on forums such as these. That's it, I have no response to the rest of your post.

[quote who="Yavrim" reply="4" id="3556020"] I can then build a Xeno factory directly on a blank improvement tile without needing to build the basic factory first. [/quote] Actually you can't. It may seem from the UI that you can, but if you try to build on the blank space, the Xeno Factory icon still only goes over the upgradable factory. At least that's what happened when I tried it last week.

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="5" id="3555982"] You make all of the planets identical. That's my solution. [/quote] Yep, that's essentailly what I end up doing on large maps. Generalize all planets and just use the global slider. Bores me near to tears.

Thread necro!

Personally, I only complain about greed when it is clear someone is taking some people down in order bring others up. Most government action does this. Capitalism relies on a bit of greed, and it works great for improving lives when not taken to the extreme.

What is reading that chip? I sincerely doubt it has GPS and transmission capability.

I agree with most points, especially those involving micromanagement and map effectiveness for large empires. Your layers idea is great, I had never considered it, but it makes a ton of sense. Your triggers idea is also great. I've posted similar ideas, but it got little notice so I'm not sure anyone besides a minority of people care. As I recall you could research multiple techs per turn in Galciv2. Now you just build up unspent research points. Stardock has doubled down on p

[quote who="Seafireliv" reply="17" id="3555909"] I still get defeated by the AI on Normal. Perhaps you guys constantly reload or are using some other exploit that you happen not to mention? [/quote] I hope you are not serious. The game forces you to keep your planets, shipyards, and research busy. You have to expand as quickly and prolifically as possible until all reasonable planets are taken. Usually the AI doesn't do as good a job at this as you can. Also the AI is no

[quote who="node10" reply="5" id="3555665"] It's things like this, and the great many linear stacking bonuses, that make GC3 a non-starter for any kind of MP that isn't just teams; GC3 ceases to be a 4X game with any sense of narrative and instead becomes a 1X (eXploit) game. [/quote] This seems to assume balanced versus multiplayer was a core design goal. It was not, and the devs have said as much multiple times.

[quote who="Osbot" reply="2355" id="3555741"] The issue isn't whether or not there is a cyclical climate shift based on variables like the wobble in the earths orbit of the sun on an 18,000 year cycle. The issue is, are we speeding the process up. I would argue we most certainly are. To put it another folksy down home way. Your house is on fire, it's a really big house. You probably can't stop it from burning to the ground and you didn't cause the fight, but yo

Thank you, that's very helpful.

[quote who="Space Cadet Stimpy" reply="2352" id="3555471"] And after 30 years of "the sky is falling! The sky is falling!" from the AGW crowd, with nothing of the sort occuring, the public at large is just tuning them out. They've become white noise. Look at all the surveys around recent elections, and the issues voters are most concerned about - climate change ranks towards the bottom in every one. [/quote] And yet many politicians, inc

Don't you know, the future is tool tips!

[quote who="starkers" reply="12" id="3555201"] ...snip... [/quote] No disagreements. Unfortunately our public schools and media have turn the average citizen into content sheep. The only chance of a wakeup call is if the government turns truly tyrannical, i.e. killing classes of people, and I think politicians aren't dumb enough or insane enough to try it. Alas, who is John Galt?

[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="28" id="3555098"] Last commit on github 5 months old, probably vulnerable to the recently discovered Logjam attack = useless browser. [/quote] Another one bites the dust. A company called Bromium is doing hardware-based sandboxing, charging a fortune for it, and it's not so simple to implement correctly. I do not think it wise to put much stock in software-based sandboxing.

90 hours is a lot. Unless you started with high expectations, kept giving the game a lot of chances, but ultimately decided it did not meet your expectations. I'm sure there are a few of those. Of course, we have seen countless threads here where people essentially rage quit because they didn't get the one feature they, for whatever reason, decided was necessary for the game to be any fun for them. That I don't understand.

Without putting on a tinfoil hat, I think there are four groups responsible for this mess (there is some overlap in these groups): 1. Elected officials in office who don't want a catastrophe to occur on their watch because they may not get re-elected 2. Government employees who truly don't want people to get hurt, and are willing to go against the Constitution to that end, whether knowingly or not 3. Citizens who want Big Brother to take any means necessary to

[quote who="Abiogenesis" reply="2346" id="3555042"] First we should clarify that it is neither called "global warming" nor "global cooling", it is climate change. That is because this change might occur in form of warming in Middle East, Anatolia, Central Asia while some other areas like Indochina or Europe might cool down due to unbalance in the system. Yes, it happens regardless our activities, what scientists are defending however is that humans are accelerating this process so much.

I crushed the level above normal. Already at that point the AI is cheating some. I'm sure there is some level that will give a challenge, but only after the AI is getting significant cheating bonuses. At normal it is already using its full bag of tricks. I seem to recall one of the big selling points of GCII was that the AI put up a good fight without cheating. I guess I have to just accept that the AI in GCIII will not be able to play better than me any time soon, that the game is just t