Back when I proposed upping the colony pod to 500 I also made some tests with 1000; 750 etc... it was too much.... basically 2 problems arose: - Strong manufacturing worlds such as Thala will sometimes be emptied to a real low inhabitant number because the colony ships take much more away than could be bred. Considering there's usually the Economic Direction Unit there (Thala should be a powerhouse in industry as well as economy) the planet was deep into negative income (making it
[quote who="abelisari" reply="1226" id="3524733"] Maybe I could try to play disabling tech trading completely. Finding cash for buying planets should be more difficult, then. [/quote] What you could do is to do away with the diplomacy-penalties for the evil-aligned races (also Thalans) in order to level the diplo-playing field in the early stages of the game. Give them other penalties (such as loyalty, influence etc) instead or shift the diplomatic penalty to the mid-stage o
[quote who="MabusAltarn" reply="1204" id="3520567"] I've updated V5.7.2 WC1.0.2 with some spelling corrections. [/quote] Release 6 did revert these changes, and I hope no other damage was done...
Silas, just having a brief look at the WC; if you rename " " to " " in GC2Types.xml then it won't be taken over Graviton Driver I (which is cheaper) The other ethical weapons/defenses are in the right order.
Some typos that might be corrected: Tech "Communites": weath --> wealth intelect --> intellect observation's --> observations the last sentence sounds as if something is missing, maybe some native english speaker would be so nice to check it? Tech "Cooperative Society" appart --> apart Tech "Decentralized Governing" lose --> loose politicials, is this
@ Tiokon Templates actually have no influence over how the internal AI shipdesigner builds its ships. Templates are for style only. They hold certain specific functional elements to tell the shipdesigner where to place this stuff, because otherwise everything would be placed at random (red) connectors. With colony ships, transports, freighters etc that would look awkward if the functional module would stick out of the engine etc (*) The Starbase Militarization techs are also w
[quote who="SilasOfBorg" reply="1145" id="3518285"] Yep. A complete implementation of double-cyclic weapons dominance does indeed reach into many areas, some of which I'm not quite sure how to approach yet, and the testing... eep! [/quote] I've started to do some tests using your designs. One thing that surprised me was that Scatter Blaster (III) were on the same level as Seeker Missiles (also III) and sometimes Seekers would even defeat them.
[quote who="MabusAltarn" reply="1144" id="3518239"] Nor will adding 10% weapon bonus work. A player will will prioritize weapon research so all you're really doing is granting the player a huge weapon bonus for no other reason that to boost the AI. That was done before with starbases modules, tech cost, etc. It doesn't really help. [/quote] In vanilla getting all these "Advanced XYZ Weapons"-techs took the same amount of research as to research right into P
[quote who="SilasOfBorg" reply="1142" id="3518178"] Ok. I think maybe it is best to give AI a small hint, even if AIP10 and AIP11 do branch out, perhaps they'll grab a good tier over a middling one. Using my above example, if they do grab T0 Driver and T0 Beam, hopefully the "hint" of 12v6 means that they'll lean towards Drivers if they're otherwise undecided. I think, what I will do is this to start: all T0 weapons ke
[quote who="SilasOfBorg" reply="1140" id="3518077"] Mass Drivers are 10 (T0), then 12-8-8 (T1), then 6-6-6 (T2) Beams are 10 (T0), then 6-6-6 (T1), then 12-8-8 (T2) So if an AI sticks with one weapon type, they'll be fine, but if they research both T0 Beams and Drivers? What then? [/quote] This is a good solution for the AIP who stick with their weapons, that is AIP8 & AIP7. (my above tests on AIP7 got wrong results becau
[quote who="MabusAltarn" reply="1137" id="3518028"] It's a problem with their AI. Normally the AI picks a weapon tech and stick to it like glue. They never researched two weapon trees on AIP11. I posted this when I released the update. [/quote] All of the following tests [quote who="Maiden666" reply="1136" id="3517988"] I've also encountered alot of situations when an AI picked a weaker weapon to research, practically I've given the AI all Beams up t
[quote who="OShee" reply="1132" id="3517898"] - With Evil weapons, I done those changes because I don't know how AI designs its ships. Will AI pick Photon Torpedoes I, or will it still produce inferior ships with Psionic Missile? Both weapon modules have same damage, size, size mod, and only the cost is different. If AI drops Psionics after tier 4 level 1 is unlocked, then just like in CU, Evil weapons can be just cloned over with increased price. For sure it will be easier to balanc
Mabus, I think I've found a way or two to influence the AI to use his own improvements over the generic one. I've analysed all spamable improvements and adjusted their value to follow their own strength, as well as I could interlink upgrade chains. I'm currently having alot of testgame to see how well it will play out. In one I've encountered Torians researching "Mass Driver Theory" then "Missile Weapon Theory" then "Beam Weapon Theory" in a straight row (it took them
[quote who="leiavoia" reply="1125" id="3517710"] but what would happen if we simply doubled all of the stats? [/quote] It will create some negative factors. I've written alot and detailed about this already so I shall be short this time: - early bullying gets out of hand because MMR rises too fast from just few ships - because of how battle is calculated in a fleetscenario, defenses loose a ton of worth the more firepower a fleet can muster up. We already
[quote who="SilasOfBorg" reply="1119" id="3517594"] If "most" games end before Tier 4, maybe we need to look at weapon research costs. [/quote] In my case this is because I don't play huge/gigantic/immense sized games, so it's natural to research only half of the techtree....
[quote who="Bamdorf" reply="1114" id="3517531"] But I wonder how to implement this considering the huge difference between galaxy sizes and research rates that can be chosen. Others may be able to address this. [/quote] I'm afraid this is impossible to do. Although the games manual explicitly explains that the techspeed setting is of serious importance (it is the only setting where such a remark is made...) the setting is still at to
[quote who="leiavoia" reply="1111" id="3517487"] First, small tech description issue: The technology name is (i belive) Black Hole Gun but the actual weapon is Black Hole Generator (an obvious infringement on Master of Orion territory.) Recommend changing the names so that they match. [/quote] Done. [quote who="leiavoia" reply="1111" id="3517487"] 1) [Current approach] Basically keep everything even between different weapon types of the same Tier throughout the
[quote who="SilasOfBorg" reply="1108" id="3517421"] Tier 1: Beams are 50% more expensive and have 25% more power/size. Missiles are 32% more expensive and have 53% more power/size. Small hull, no mini: Beams beat missiles. Drivers win decisively against both. Medium hull, no mini: Missiles and drivers about equal. Each win solidly against beams. [/quote] Solution: Decreased size of all Lasers by -1, also Kineti
[quote who="SilasOfBorg" reply="1107" id="3517336"] There is a nice solution, which is making Harpoons cost 62 (all levels) and Photonics cost 60 (all levels). [/quote] I've taken this into the new file. As for [quote who="SilasOfBorg" reply="1108" id="3517421"] Conclusions : * Mass Drivers are too good (or cheap, take your pick). They allow you to get a lot of metal in the air, and even though pound
Ok, I see now why Harpoon + Photonic Torpedo have their costs reduced: The size of these weapons become only smaller by -1, whereas other weapons get -2 from tech to tech. So, in order to justify Harpoon2/3 & Photonic Torp.2/3 these weapons gain less cost as an extra. However, these reduced costs should also translate into less costs ingame, but that might not always be the case. Under a normal progressive setting for Harpoon; (+10% minia + medium hulls) 4*Harpoon1
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1100" id="3517222"] Hi all. I'm currently in Maryland working on an unnannounced game so it'll be at least 2 weeks before I can look at GalCiv II again. Bear in mind, we can always do more updates to GalCiv II. [/quote] It's good that we get additional time, in the meanwhile we might be able to sort out some stuff were we didn't take a look before. *** I've taken the liberty and integrated OShe
The worlds worst bunch of hackers are called NSU and if this law puts them + their associates for 10 years behind bars I would support it! *** Problems of biological markers: They are equally hackable, all of them. It has been done, and as technic progresses, becomes more and more easy. The Chaos Computer Club recently made a working fingerprint of the german Minister of Defense simply from photos that were shot by a mobile phone, and used that to breach into secure rooms. Bac
[quote who="OShee" reply="1089" id="3516705"] If you are ok with those changes I'll edit the GC2Types.xml and start working on the defenses. [/quote] I'd be very interested to see your changes ingame - looking at your spreadsheet doesn't work for me. It's far more easier to fire up the game and search for oddities right in the ship editor. [quote who="MabusAltarn" reply="1091" id="3516713"] but tomorrow ends the CU development cycle [/
[quote who="Tiokon" reply="1086" id="3516699"] The "Expenses" listed inside the Economy tab in the Finance Management window don't appear to be working properly with the Community update. While the info updates properly once in a while it usually is far off base now. The wasn't broken previous to the Community Update. Is this something that can be fixed or is there a way i could have caused this while adding the Community Update? [/quote] Could you
GalCiv2 Forums