[quote who="Larsenex" reply="11" id="3552328"] My point is we are talking about a single player game. Rather than looking to nerf things why not have ideas to counter the currently strong abilities of carriers? I know carriers are OP. We discussed it at length right after they came in Beta. Still I would call for discussion of counters before we call for nerfs. So if they never changed Carriers, what would you change t
[quote who="Echillion" reply="12" id="3552310"] Quoting Osbot, reply 9 Makes me loathe to even play the game. Currently 150 turns into an immense game with 30 AI and without question the end of the game will be spoiled by this bug. Think of all the ships you can design while playing it though?
Makes me loathe to even play the game. Currently 150 turns into an immense game with 30 AI and without question the end of the game will be spoiled by this bug.
[quote who="BigBadB" reply="56" id="3552223"] Quoting Osbot, reply 54 If we want to allow missile boats to keep range, then we should also correct the issue of missiles being actually effective weapons. Missiles would not be an effective weapon for general ship to ship combat. Point defense and escort screens us
This needs to be hotfixed IMO.
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="8" id="3552187"] Nah, Lets not call for nerfs. Lets call for an AI that can build ships to counter carriers. Its fun to make assault fighters. Fun is what its all about. Rather than NERF stuff, lets figure out how to take the existing and get the AI to use and counter it. That would provide MORE fun! Ideally you want a carrier along with some guardians, some Assaults and a couple of Capitals. This is exactly what I do I put
[quote who="Firehawk153" reply="53" id="3552150"] At some point Brad mentioned that they were planning on implementing a "hardcore" combat mode that would take weapon arcs and ship facing and other factors into consideration. If you are going to all that trouble why not just implement tactical combat anyway but whatever...it's their game. [/quote] I actually see an ENORMOUS potential for the tactical ship to ship combat in this game. I really, really, reall
If we want to allow missile boats to keep range, then we should also correct the issue of missiles being actually effective weapons. Missiles would not be an effective weapon for general ship to ship combat. Point defense and escort screens using kinetic and beam based point defense would make it almost impossible for even hundreds of missiles per volley to make it through. Missiles would be at their most effective on assault (carrier based bomber type) fighters
[quote who="Azunai_" reply="6" id="3552182"] actually that last carrier upgrade works the same way as the first carrier module, the only difference is that you get 5 fighters instead of 3, but both modules spawn the same assault fighters with all 3 weapon and all 3 defense module types (not sure if they use all if you don't have enough hull size % increases and/or weapon/defense size reduction% techs). in the campaign, i lost some of the weaker excort ships of the crusader, so i buil
I was thinking about this issue. For me the problem is in the weapon systems. In an effort to balance weapon systems we've run into a balancing problem. Kinetic weapons should scale based on the size of the ship. A rail gun mounted on a single seat fighter should have no chance of damaging a large battleship. Beam weapons should do damage, but the damage should be lower but consistent. The only real way for a fighter to do damage, should be via missiles.&nb
Would you mind uploading the race traits mod stuff that you have done already? I was thinking about doing this myself, but I see you've already started and it appears you've done that stuff already?
GalCiv3 Forums
This is how the game works. It's easily noticable if you use a custom faction and take the "knows extra research" racial ability. I forget what it is called. It gives you 150 research I think. So on the conclusion of turn one you get like 6 or 7 free tier 1 techs.
I did more looking around, and as it turns out, it might not actually be missing. Logistics is handled differently than the other 8 fields. It actually is weighted to various levels by each of those 8 priorities for the different faction specific tech preferences. That said, those preferences need to be looked at because the AI is not choosing to research logistics in any reliable way.
My base faction Drengin don't tend to have issues with logistics. I believe the reason is this. The AI has a set of AI strategies. The majority of them will not prioritize the proper techs until they are actually at war. There are a bunch of age of expansion strategies that tell the AI to basically avoid military research, and even the strategies for the aggressive AI like the Drengin, actually set fortification at a negative value (fortification is one of the primary weig
Ok, little update. I've been digging at this for a few hours now. My first attempt to fix this was to give all the factions an AI priority with logistics. Then I discovered that each faction had AI plans which also ignored logistics as part of their priority. So I modified both, adding logistics to the AI priorities. I ran two games to turn 100 and saw the same problem, custom factions tend to get logistics a little more than base factions do, but it's a total crap sho
Is it possible to export custom factions as an XML?
[quote who="AlLanMandragoran" reply="28" id="3551230"] Conclusion: when the area around the initial position is good, it appears the AI expands fine. However, if the starting area is crud, the AI is unable to colonize the farther reaches and stagnates. [/quote] This has been my finding as well. The primary issue is lack of opportunity. I stopped using the maps th
Title is self explanatory. In the factiondefs.xml there is a list of 8 entries for AI priority. I will give the terran entry in this field as an example. 15 10 20 15 20 <
[quote who="Bloodlust1983" reply="22" id="3551039"] Quoting Osbot, reply 21 I'm definitely not seeing the AI sit on colony ships if it can colonize. It's been hyper aggressive for me. Odd? Maybe people should list the settings they are seeing this on. <br
You might want to even dig into the AI file itself if possible. I noticed that with some of the custom races that won the competition, logistics isn't even LISTED in the priorities. My custom races all tend to have logistics in the bottom 3-4 slots and they all seem to use it. I'm fighting a war right now around turn 120 and the faction I'm fighting which is custom has a logistics cap of 30 and they are using it. (EDIT) Ok, so I took a
I'm definitely not seeing the AI sit on colony ships if it can colonize. It's been hyper aggressive for me. Odd? Maybe people should list the settings they are seeing this on. I'm currently playing on; Challenging /w 20 AI Immense Spiral Galaxy Occasional Star Frequency Common Planet Frequency. Common Habitable Planet Frequency. Abundant Minor AI. Pirates Rare. Trying to think of any other settings tha
I'm playing games on immense with 20 AI. I can't say I've noticed the AI unable to colonize. In the case where the AI has struggled, it has typically been the exception rather than the rule. For example, I made all the Master of Orion 2 races as custom races. The Bulrathi (bear men who are god-tier soldiers) only colonized 2 planets when I had 10). I was worried that the AI was wonky because I had read a few threads talking about the AI not colonizing. So I hit deb
Yea, if you have any mods that bring kinetic weapons a little more in line with the others, I'd love to use it since I'm a mass driver-phile!
So far I feel like the Sakkra measure up the best with the traits available and they are beastly. Just like in Moo2, my custom Sakkra expand like crazy and breed like rabbits ;p
I remade pretty much all the main ones from MOO2 + a couple from MOO3. So far it's awesome!