Ironclad Games and Stardock Entertainment are pleased to present the change log for Sins of a Solar Empire: Trinity/Diplomacy version 1.3! This is a major gameplay update for Sins that practically rewrites much of the original design and balance for the game.
NOTE: THIS UPDATE WILL BREAK SAVE GAMES AND REPLAYS
[ Gameplay ]
[ Graphics ]
[ Interface ]
[ AI ]
Probably not noticeably, no.
What is this -10 modifier of which you speak? I have scarcely any recent experience of the AI achieving alliance so how to break one is somewhat shrouded in mystery.
Lets say the AI accepts a mission against its ally because of some vast bribe. Firstly I don't understand why such a mission would be carried out, as the diplomatic penalty for failing the mission would be far less than for breaking a treaty. So I suppose that there would have to be an immediate relations penalty for accepting a mission against an ally, and of course there is a penalty for breaking the treaty.
If the diplomatic actions penalty modifier was then strong enough and did not degrade over time, then the former allies would remain apart. If it degraded over time it would depend on the size of the penalty and rate of decline. From what I understand, the subsequent combat actions do not represent enough of a penalty to keep the former allies apart. The negative cap might be quite high, but it seems doubtful that the penalty would ever get anywhere near the cap.
Of course if the diplomatic penalty for breaking a treaty was sufficiently high and did not degrade, then former allies would never make up.
That's what I know of the theory of it, anyway. I'd prefer a system where an ally realised that its partner was getting too strong or had too many planets near its borders and over time it became less keen.
If you set up a singleplayer FFA game where several powers can achieve a joint victory you are playing a very odd version of the game, no?
Trinity players are unable to log on
According to the datafiles the TEC do hate the Vasari a bit more than the advent (at worst -1.5 for Advent, -2.25 for Vasari).
I was just questioning your claim that the combat penalty wasn't high enough. The combat actions a player does can at most give a +5 bonus and at worst a -10 penalty to relations. That seems pretty large to me.
Well, destroying a planet is a -1.0 penalty, starbase -0.5, tactical structure -0.1. Oddly ships destroyed doesn't seem to do anything, which I suspect might be a bug.
Its what I usually play against AI. A 4 player FFA with two allied victors basically means it will eventually turn into a 2 v 2, but you get to pick your ally later in game. If you have only one victor alliances are not that significant because you know you have to betray each other eventually, and if you have unlimited victors you can technically win just by allying with everyone.
I'm with GoaFan on that one...4 player FFA with two allied victors is my favorite when doing SP...also fun to do 10 player FFA and ally with someone in the other star system...
So the vasari phase pact says it allows allies to use each other's phase gates. Is this just if each of you are both vasari? Because I was playing as TEC and could not utilize my ally vasari's phase gates. I hope it's a bug because that would be disappointing if it was just for vasari players.
Don't both planets need to have a phase gate even for the Vasari to use them?
Yes but i mean going to an ally planet and jumping from one allied planet to another which both have gates.
Yes, both planets need to have a phase gate, a starbase with the phase stabilizer upgrade, or the Vasari scout capital with its ability upgrade that creates a phase point.
But are non-vasari allies capable of using a vasari ally's gate connections?
Yarlen, I can't find it in the change log, but it appears that the relationship boost per planet has changed from 1.50 to 2.00. Was this intentional or a bug? Not that I mind, I think the increase makes sense.
Also, the envoys can't use their population increase on your own planets. Is this intentional or a bug? I would think you should be able to increase your own population if you wanted to. Same thing goes for other passive and non-passive envoy abilities on players planets.
Envoy's have never been able to affect your own planets, you are supposed to send them to other player's planets after all.
Or have been recently hit by a Kostura Cannon.
Is it normal that on a locked teams game ennemy AIs offer me missions ? I find it quite strange...
edit: They seem to give me only give credits/resources missions...
any chance we can get a reply on the galciv 2 board please ?
Never say never. And, no, I'm not speaking from personal experience.
Definitely was excited to see my TEC ally build a novalith! Awesome in getting the AI to build superweapons...
Marauders are considered "Scout Capitals" now?
Was this an unintentional Rebellion spoiler or am I just just hopelessly out of date?
The Marauder has actually always been a scout capital as indicated by the name of its respective entity file, "CAPITALSHIP_PHASESCOUT"...
My guess would be that the developers long ago (while the game was still in development) probably toyed around with more than just the 5 classes of capital ships that we see...in the end, they settled on the five we have now (battleship, carrier, colony, support, and siege) and probably decided the Marauder was good enough to become the Vasari support cap (either the original support cap sucked, or they never made one)...
Of course this is highly speculative...however, the file name associated with the Marauder has been there since the game was first made...
I don't understand the reason for changing the Advent Shield Pact this way. In the past it was way weaker than the TEC and Vasari level8 pact (getting ship slots without paying tax or all weapons fire faster...) and there was a better pact at a lower relationship level, the Structure pact. The new Shield Pact seems weaker for me, 10% more shield points 5% more regen and 10% PM block for me is not for relationship of 18.00. The TEC new Supply pact is impressive and the Vasari Pulse pact at the same relationship level is just better for me. What happens if you don't have an enemy playing Vasari? Other thing, this pact is not very useful for the TEC because of their low shield points.I'm missing the Anima Pact too, I think removing it was not the best idea, maybe changing it that it's not making the Vasari strike craft the most powerful? Giving 3 extra strike craft for the Advent, 2 for the TEC and 1 for the Vasari per squadron?I am happy to see that the Advent envoy now has abilities I want to research and not completely useless in the late game (allegiance restored and sacrifice). Removing the pacts that wasn't useful for all three races and placing interesting new pacts- good job Superweapons. I'm very excited to see one against me This is my opinion of the new things, although I'm not an expert so I might not completely understand everything about them.
Turchany
Yes, though we found some bugs with this that will be in the hotfix to resolve.
That's been their entity name (CAPITALSHIP_PHASESCOUT.entity) for as long as I can remember.
So I have been playing the updated game with Advent and TEC and I have noticed a few things that I dislike (don't get me wrong, besides these three minor 'issues' I really think the update is outstanding):
This was practically all I wanted to say about the new update. Oh yeah, besides these points I would like to add that the rest of the update plays out really well. I think the developers did a great job here and I would like to thank them for their continued support of this great game!
And for the next update: please fix those upper laser gun turrets on the Relevation class Battlecruiser of the Advent (they don't shoot)!!!
I agree the shield pact could use a small buff...a 15% or 20% increase to shield HP would be nice, though I would not underestimate the power of that 10% PM block...
Anima pact was just absolutely awful, almost as grossly imbalanced as the missile pact...there simply is no way to give different factions different amounts of SC, and as you have mentioned, Vasari got a far better bonus since they have less SC per squadron...I really don't think that pact was salvageable without completely changing it...they could have kept it and given a damage bonus for SC (like concentration aura) but I believe they would have still needed to add a new research entity modifier to the game engine...
They converted quite a few ability modifiers to research modifiers in this patch, so its clearly not impossible for them to do if they wanted. Plus the shared phase lane pact is completely unique, so never say never.
If you have 4 players on a team, 2 Vasari and 2 TEC (or advent), and the Vasari player each give a Phase Pact to the TEC players, can all 4 players use the gates of both Vasari players?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account