Yes, not the best tech tree, but Engineering + Pragmatic/Coordinated lets you take core world manufacturing planets, and produce ships anywhere in the galaxy. Thats a very powerful combo which lasts ALL game (Colonizer for example, is only useful in early game, albiet can be OP if you are rushing shipyards, which may be nerfed anyways).
I think upgrading is WAY too expensive. Granted, money is usually my last priority and I ride the line of bankruptcy very close... But why is upgrading just one turn? Maybe allow you to pick how long you want the upgrade to take, the longer the cheaper? Also, I suppose I understand why you can do upgrades anywhere (apparently too many people would complain), but why not a discount if done at a SHIPYARD.
Stardock, as when I asked this directly to Paul on the June 19 dev stream, he said this was definitely a bug. Can you fix please, in 1.1 Opt-In?
Yet another rounding issue....ok, I buy that. will keep a lookout for the color of the zero.
I usually did manufacturing in the middle, on the homeworld, but lately I have preferred science. Of course is starts out manufacturing+science. It depends which traits I took. Engineering + Pragmatic/builderII Coordinated gives you 0% decay for ship building, so you homeworld can be used on any frontier shipyard. But if I hadnt chosen to go with that combo, I think Science is better for your core world, as science has no decay. And trade of course.
Well, request constructor works fine, with the exception that it takes your stock constructor, not one you've optimized with more constructors, far less range, or even less movement. Once they have some pop up to let you pick which constructor to request, I think it would be great. Then of course auto installing once the constructor arrived. These issues will all be taken into heavy consideration for the SB Governors they have talked about, in 1.2 or 1.3.
As said all too often by the devs, ZOI is NOT zone of control. From DiplomaticModifiers,xml, this is how the AI reacts if you do the same. StarbaseInZOCWithoutOpenBorders -2 ShipInZOCWithoutOpenBorders -1 Colo
Thats my point actually, for pure manufacturing worlds. And because of the linear effect of pop on raw production in 1.1, its just better overall IMO to build all manufacturing on all worlds (with half pop buildings), use birth subsidies to sky rocket your pop, then turn it all over to a research project, financial project, culture fest, or keep the manufacturing.
GalCiv3 Forums
"wasted points if rush buy" aren't wasted, its now cheaper in credits to rush. Per 1.1 update notes: Balance You cannot select food and growth modifiers as a custom faction if you are playing a synthetic race anymore Rush costs are now modified by the turns remaining You can no long stack Yor assembly projects beyond your population cap
diminishing the returns would be the best solution, if they want to add one. Taking an average makes no sense, it would just implicitly cause everyone to build specific focus SBs, which was your first suggestion. Its not a terrible exploit by any means. The constructors required to make such SBs can get expensive, and divert from other production. I think the real problem is the simplistic mtc costs they have, it should be module based by the le
yeah, I think they need more HP, or an upgrade to do so. In my last game, I spent like 20 constructor points, pimping out critical mining SBs. They still SUCKED, and it would have be far better to build combat ships and just have them parked at the SB. Granted, the ship support functions for military SBs can get impressive (the damage increase to ships, etc), but still, the SB by itself, no matter how many weapons and defenses you have can still be do
If you use birthing subsidies for growth, and dont worry about approval or growth buildings (I used always have a hospital, in 1.03), you can just forget about approval all together.... ....except if you are getting invaded. The AI invaded with Core Detonation (no counter via tech), and I wasnt prepared. 2.5 invasion force, against a 103 pop world (granted, 29 tiles if memory serves), but my resistance was cut to 50% (I didnt focus on it as I was thinking I
well, it proved to be a very fun game, so I dont look forward to changes eliminating some type of defensible game. A human would have broken through for sure. The AI just needs to invade in higher numbers (hmmm, where have we seen it else not do that?? :) ). I'd like to keep influence/tech/defensive victories possible, but perhaps at not such a high difficulty level. After learning from that game, I know I could have cranked it up atleast one more
GalCiv3 Forums
Oh, and a note on "approval". I had Patriotic (first time I played with it, I wanted it to help me keep 100% approval), and I tried an experiment to remove all approval buildings. i replaced with MORE farms and manufacturing buildings. Results, I got easily 10-15% more production out of the planet, be damned with my 20% approval (it wasnt zero because of patriotic) Now I'm sure the devs really dont want even peeps with Patriotic to be "immune" to a
I noticed one battle, where my ship at 0 HP fired for 3 more salvos (and helped kill an enemy ship), before exploding. No idea if it was "real" or a graphics replay bug.....
GalCiv3 Forums
Prior to 1.1 as I was told by Joeball123, the population effect on raw production was a non-linear function, but its peak efficiency was pop 10. Hence, higher than pop 10, you had to really pay close attention to when pop was paying off. Incredibly high pop worlds were not very efficient. Now in 1.1 its linear, 1 pop = 1 raw production. Thats great, because its SIMPLE. However, there are some considerations to take into acount: &nb
If anyone can chime in to say they've seen this, please pipe in. I saw incorrect calculations throughout my entire game on all planets. further, planets I flipped, I saw even more dubious errors. And to top it off, above 135%, I saw the game incorrect add and give a HIGHER amount. I'm starting to suspect that the this 'might' have been design intent, to try to cap it at 100%, but rather than change techs, changed in 'how they add
Not meaning to be a stickler, but the terminology used always confused the crap out of me. Now that the game uses a CONSISTENT terminology (in tooltops and in techs), lets stick to that. The tooltips over Manufacturing, Research, NetIncome, and Raw Production will be all you need. Raw Production is the basis for planetary output. colony and civilization capitals give +5. As of v1.1, each point of pop gives a +1 as well (in 1.03, it used to be an
[quote who="corgatag" reply="50" id="3566730"] In ImprovementDefs.xml line 2555, there is a space after XenoIrrigantion's internal name. I believe this is preventing players from building the next stage (BiomassResequencer) and allowing players to build an additional copy of the previous stage (FoodDistribution) <span style="font-family: courier new,courier; font-
Huge map, 6 opponents. I grabbed 11 colonies (very hard to do, as I had taken malus on any ship traits, and that hurt me during colony rush, as my colony ships had a speed of 2, with a range of 16 because I was bulky (+30% mass) :) ). Yes, factories would have done much better. On the same planet, I can pump out 2x more culture with culture fest and all factories, vs all the highest tech level culture buildings (I used Anterian tech tree as well), and 2 fact
Just like a colonization Rush, there is a minerals rush. Not much you can peacefully do about it. its not a big undertaking at all. But I think this is one of the things the devs want, to cause 'tension'. Paul did state in a dev diary they are considering that star bases can be flipped, like planets. imo, if you can flip a planet, you should be able to flip a staRbase. I suppose the question the devs are trying to answer, is how muc
I thought the base was 0.1. I never use any slow infertile malus, and I have always had a a base growth rate of 0.1. As you point out well, the biggest problem is using NO ADDITIONAL signficant digits. So, you therefore only get boosts when you have pop % modifiers above 50%, 150%, 250%, etc. However, I'm surprised with such a simplistic pop growth mechanism. It takes no account into the size of the current pop, no account of
Wow, didnt realize the carrier OP debate has been going on since January. Amazing no changes. I guess stardock doesnt think so.....
Some great discussions on having a "domintion" victory to shorten influence/conquest games, but until that arrives, is tech victory a bit too easy? At some point with your military, you can just go on the defensive, and ramp to a tech victory before the AI knows what the heck is going on. Looking back at all of my influence wins (I dont think I've ever had a conquest, as influence vicotry always pops first), it would have been far faster to have gone to a tech victory once I h
And yes, without building a single military vessel.