[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="1" id="3490939"] you're dinner last night! [/quote] Bit cannibalistic, don't you think? [quote]Is there a way to scuttle a shipyard that I haven't seen? [/quote] Sure. Find something hostile and fly your spare shipyard out that way in the hopes that they'll attack and kill it.
I do not think that under standard GCIII mechanics it will work well (though since diplomacy is still ... negligible ... we'll need to wait and see for that). If the player is restricted to a single world, they will rapidly be outpaced, in technology, in industrial output, and in economy, by every other player on the map unless they start with an absolutely massive lead or unless the other players start with a massive penalty; even if they do start with a sufficiently large lead, the othe
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="twilight024" reply="28" id="3490014"] I wonder if anyone will make a spreadsheet [/quote] You don't seriously believe I've been doing this by hand every time I did one of these calculations, do you? Whether or not it'll get distributed is a different question; with the game only at version 0.41, I don't intend to make it available any time soon. No one will benefit from having a spreadsheet that works out the optimization problem if the optimizati
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="peregrine23" reply="22" id="3489987"] 6 tile limit is to avoid exploits. If you don't have a limit then you can set a planet across the galaxy as a sponsor just to contribute soldiers or colonists. 6 tiles has already been established as the range your shipyard can be from a sponsor without suffering penalties. [/quote] If I can manage to ship materials 200 tiles, I can find a way to ship people the same distance. Beyond that, it's an arbitrary limit tha
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="mormegil" reply="8" id="3489694"] Transports or colony ships launched from Shipyards, will take population evenly from all of its sponsor worlds, that are within 6 tiles. [/quote] A few questions regarding this: How do you define 'evenly'? If I have a transport that requires 6 billion population, and I have 3 planets in range, will each world lose 2 billion people, or will the distribution be weighted by available population? In r
At least for me (using Win7, not Vista), Fallen Enchantress shows up in the Add and Remove Programs interface. Are you sure that you didn't just overlook it? Other than that or the suggestion that you delete files manually, which you've already said you don't want to do, I cannot help you.
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="peregrine23" reply="25" id="3489582"] I'm not sure where this math is coming from. The formula for getting manufacturing is: [/quote] You need to include the faction-wide, planetary, and starbase bonuses to manufacturing somewhere in that equation, and the location where they appear to be included is an addition to the production multiplier. Unknown_Hero has assumed that DARCA1213's 100% manufacturing is a 100% bonus to manufacturing production rather tha
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Unknown_Hero" reply="21" id="3489541"] What about no Population and no bonuses then. [/quote] Using a low-population scenario to support your claim that farms are superior to factories is foolish. You can add as many farms as you want to a planet with less people than the population cap, and they'll do less for the near future than any number of production improvements of any kind you want. Let's redo your math with a reasonable number for a low-p
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="18" id="3489431"] In the end on a class ten planet what is better 9* industrial sectors of +30% (counting whatever super projects in place of the factories if need be) or 9* lossless farms ( super projects can replace some of the nine) so with that done and a 100% growth and 100% production from stuff, what is better farms or factories. (or a bit o both) [/quote] DARCA1213, you're allowed to do simple math for yourself.
GalCiv3 Forums
In the current version of the game, with this formula, the Population will always be the biggest modification factor. This is entirely false. The farms provide a fixed bonus to the maximum population, which means that the increase to output that they provide declines as you add more and more farms. Once the percentage increase in maximum population due to adding a farm drops below the bonus of a factory, market, or lab, modified by spending allocation
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="quintinparry" reply="38" id="3489356"] A ship with laser is cool but 10000 ships pitted against each other (with lasers) is epic, and EPIC is what we want. [/quote] I just want to point out that 10,000 ships is not "epic," it's pointless. There's no practical way to show a battle between 10,000 ships on the battlefield at a level where the detail is much more than a bunch of little specks and flashing lights. There's a reason why movies, even those de
[quote who="upsurper" reply="19" id="3489357"] But can napalm be efficiently deployed on every inch of the enemy's planet from space, because I want the sky to weep tears of fire, the seas to be filled with waves of fire, the ground to be a infernal hell-fire, and the very air to scorch the life out of any who dare to breath it [/quote] Napalm would probably be a more effective means of attaining your desired result than a nuclear weapon would be, simply because a nuclea
[quote][bug] Several AI planets had cultural and military buildings and no farms or hospitals, etc. There is no point building manufacture and research improvements that give a % bonus when your points per turn is under 9-10. You are better off making growth buildings to increase your population and get more points for all three (four if you count the starport) buckets. [/quote] Farms are only necessarily better on the low-population worlds in the long run. You get a much m
[quote]I can't seem to find the original thread on this [/quote] I am not certain, but one of the following may have been the thread you're looking for: https://forums.elementalgame.com/448214 https://forums.elementalgame.com/446606 https://forums.elementalgame.com/445788
GalCiv3 Forums
I judge a game mechanic motly by its gameplay value, and I still feel specialized planets were overpowered in alpha. Are you somehow under the impression that I want to make specialized worlds better? Because that's not what I asked for earlier. What I want is for the system to not favor one form of specialization over the others. I want all three forms of specialization to be equally discouraged by the morale system, rather than having wealth speciali
GalCiv3 Forums
This is the cost of rushing production : 15 BC for 1 MP. And judging from GCII, the cost of rushing production has little bearing on the actual cost of producing that manufacturing point in a real factory. Beyond that, it's an utterly incredible difference in expenses - if I have a world that can produce 30 manufacturing points or 8 billion credits per turn, your model assumes that I've started spending 450 billion credits per turn, covered by an i
GalCiv3 Forums
1 MP costs 15 BC to buy, so "producing" only 1 BC instead of 1 MP means taxes are indeed very low. The problem with this reasoning is that the way that the wealth slider behaves is exactly what you would expect of a spending slider or a tax slider. Increasing the wealth setting instantly increases governmental net income from that particular world, which indicates either spending cuts or tax increases. If it's supposed to represent the government cutti
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="4" id="3487390"] However, that isn't the case for the other bonuses, like planetary defense, tourism, trade route value, logistics, and so on. [/quote] Are you sure that at least some of these bonuses are not empire bonuses rather than planetary bonuses? If tourism follows the same model as in GCII, that bonus only really makes sense as an empire bonus (unless a 'tourism' bonus means that the planetary influence counts for more than
GalCiv3 Forums
Personally, I feel that the current system whereby setting a planet to wealth production makes everyone happier is a silly penalization of high-production and high-research worlds and over-encourages high-wealth worlds. Plus, it doesn't even make that much sense. The government shut down all its factories (or converted them to compete with the private market) and labs and upped the tax rate, and I'm supposed to be happier because of this? If you're going to create an appro
Another alternative for that clause would be something along the lines of "stricken by this disease, ..." If I'm not mistaken, stricken is a perfect passive participle of to strike and therefore is used either as an adjective (e.g. a stricken vessel) or as a passive verb (e.g. we are stricken by disease), which would make "strickening" an invalid form as that is a present active participial form rather than a perfect passive participial form. If you want to stay with the same verb
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="8" id="3486527"] True, but each instance in the 3x30 attack rolls against dodge, so there are more chances to hit. [/quote] While I haven't tested things rigorously, the hit mechanic appears to allow a multi-figure unit to roll for attacks until it fails to score a hit or until it runs out of attacks, rather than making, in the example given, three independent rolls to hit. One indication that the system does not use independent hit r
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="80" id="3486221"] Grand Moff Tarkin called it a "fully functional battle station." IIRC. [/quote] That would be the Emperor, in Return of the Jedi referring to the second Death Star; I don't recall Tarkin describing the first as a 'fully armed and operational battle station,' though he did describe the Death Star as a station. Regardless, as for the degree to which I care about it being described as such within the movies, may I refe
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="30" id="3486213"] SotS 1, AoW:SM, or Eador. I don't know what most of those stand for but I think its Eador. [/quote] SotS 1 would be Sword of the Stars, with the '1' indicating that it's the old one, probably including all the expansions, rather than the new one. AoW:SM would be Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, which would be the expansion to Age of Wonders II.
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="74" id="3486144"] Yes, that is true those starbases didn't move... but the Death Star did. We don't know how large the starports are in this game vs. the size of the starbaes. It could be that starbases are 100 times larger than a starport. Hence impractical to move starbases but not starports. [/quote] [quote who="charon2112" reply="75" id="3486151"] You've got me on the Death Star. I guess I just personally like my space sta
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="61" id="3486007"] Well to start off comparing 10 million miles to 1 lightyear is the same as comparing real space to folded space. [/quote] It really doesn't matter that you're comparing real space to folded space. What matters is the way that you get there and how much time it takes you. Given that stargates are massively expensive, they were almost certainly used nearly exclusively for intersystem travel, while a slower and c
Elemental Forums