In my view GC2 went a bit over the top with their importance and it also added lots of unfun micromanagement.I like to see them still in the game but not so vital to every mechanic.
A lot of people did, but a lot of people loved it (like me). And it sounds like you did what a lot of people did with GC1 & 2, adapted what it had to fit your needs and desires and made it enjoyable for you. I have faith (in fact, I am certain) that SD will give us more choices in GC3, some that some of us will love and others hate, but all of which we will be able to adapt to and adjust our use of them so the game fits our individual needs.
The huge number of modules also caused a problem for the AI, because it couldn't use some of them. It still isn't certain whether it is a intentional limitation or a bug, but the AI couldn't use any starbase module after the 100th in the XML-files.This means, that, with the exception of five, the AI is unable to use any of the new modules introduced in TotA. For example, the Drengin, Korath, Iconians, Thalan and Yor can't use any of their mining and production assist modules.
That's in addition to the modules that the AI can't use, period (i.e., Terror Stars, slow enemies, sensors).
However, I very much doubt, that this will be a problem in GalCiv 3.
I'd Like to see more specialized Star-bases like ones that you build near a system and it takes the collective production of all the inhabited planets in the system into the star-base and you can choose to make it a Shipyard which can build special kinds of ships.
I'd love a kinda Border star-base that protects your borders from enemy ships, having ships that are docked with it that automatically move to counter enemy vessels or drone weapons/fighters.
I love this idea!
I was playing of the campaigns I think I was the Krynn unless I can't play as Krynn on the campaigns this was one of the ones that u didn't get precursor ships. I could only get one colony; because the map was so small. I kept losing the game; until, a friend of mine explained u win by researching 3 starbase techs. This worked. I think the dread lords attack was not 119 but 174 this time around. Using gun with very little defense compared to the attack. They kept losing; until he finally told me to invade. I then beat the dread lords.
This confuses me, do u mean by a hundred modules on one srarbase. Do u mean 100 modules on all the starbases, or is this a designation for something else. If this is can u clarify.
I do agree that we need an Ai that can keep up with the player on starbase building.
Well if I hadn't messes this idea up already, I lik3 the starbase system. But if u can make this better; then I agree,
If I'm understanding him correctly, in the game files all the modules are assigned a number. #1-7 might be the mining upgrades, #8-16 the influence modules for those bases, #17-28 the trade modules, etc. (numbers made up for convenience, which ones correspond to which modules is pretty irrelevant for this example). Then when you added a module to a starbase, the code would change a 0 (base does not have module #17) to a 1 (base does have module #17). Then when the turn processed, the code would reference the entry for module #17 and do that action when doing the starbase's part of that turn.
The point is, the were 95 listed modules in DA. TA added a bunch more, pushing the number of possible modules way over 100 - but the AI wasn't programmed to even look at modules numbered that high. The game execution code did, so the modules worked for the players, but as far as the AI was concerned those modules simply didn't exist so the AI-controlled civilizations never used those modules.
Or something like that. I admit I never tried to get into the programming aspect of the game so I could be way off.
You play as the Terrans in the DL and TotA campaign, and the Drengin in the DA campaign.
You keep changing your argument. First it was three attack and defense modules. Then an attack value of 18, which requires much more modules. Now you say three starbase techs (probably the whole Starbase Fortification line) and an attack value of 174, which is impossible for starbases. You can only get an attack value of 65 in each category. If you are playing the Korx, you can get up to 95 in Beam weapons, but that's it.
I'm not a programmer, just a guy who knows how to edit XML files, but from what I understand, the game doesn't use numbers for the modules, but their InternalName, to know if they are available to use, already used, or if they even exist.
The numbering was done by me in order to give a human point of reference. It wouldn't have helped to understand the problem, if I said, that the AI can't use any module beyond Expert Refinery, because Expert Refinery isn't a fixed point. You could move it anywhere else in the file, and suddenly another module is the last one the AI can use.
That's pretty much it. Except that DA had 90 modules. The first five new modules in TotA are for the Terror Star, which the AI can't use period.
I just don't know whether this module limitation is a problem in the AI code or somewhere else, or even whether this is intentional or a bug.
That's not really viable in the type of games i play.
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="58" id="3412300"] You play as the Terrans in the DL and TotA campaign, and the Drengin in the DA campaign.
I think it was the Da then and I was the Drengin. Because the Yor was there.Quoting michaelwhittaker, reply 54I kept losing the game; until, a friend of mine explained u win by researching 3 starbase techs. This worked. I think the attack was not 118 but 174 this time around.
I meant 174 was the attack value of the Dread lords. They were throwing 119 at me until I built a starbase. I didn't build a starbase until I had the Techs though. 174 was the Dread lords. The starbase had an attack value of +18 on all 3 weapons though. I played this a while ago, so this is not as clear as yesturday though. I'm sorry if my writing is not the most clear though. This doesn't change the fact that this worked. It was just awhile ago. The Dread lords were using guns with very little armor I think. I try not to make writing. I think the issue is I don't write much. I should get better as I go. The whole issue to this point was I said that the Ai rarely uses hulls bigger than medium hulls, and u said I was wrong. I'm not the only one who beat the Dread lords using Drengin on the campaign. This was 2011.
I do appreciate the fact that u keep bringing up my writing mistakes; hopefully, this will help me to fix my mistakes. Thank u.
Michael, it's not really that bad, it's just that this forum uses a painfully teeny default font (at least it looks that way to me) and there isn't much line spacing.
So to be intelligible pretty much everyone has to break their text up with paragraphs. :/
How about we just simplify everything down to 1 constructor?
1. Build constructor, send to location.
2. Choose type of starbase.
3. From there, buy needed upgrade modules. No more constructors after. Construction time takes place by being added to queue of a planet assigned by the user.
1 starbase needs 1 constructor. Modules are then upgraded by cash afterwards and maybe production from a nearby planet.
I'm going to quote my own post instead of retyping it.
There's no reason to penalize players who were good at constructor spam because other players either weren't good at it or found it boring. Alternate construction methods like this might be good as an option, but removing the instant construction option would be a severe nerf.
I agree with willy. This fits my play style better. In a pinch I would rather build a whole bunch of constructors. My play style usually leaves me in debt unless I am the Yor. If I can run off a whole bunch of contructors in a turn after the colony rush. Usually after the colony rush my starbases become almost fully upgraded. If constructors r to slow U can research better engines or minIterization to make them faster. I dont like how u can put only one module on a ship. I want to be able to put multiple modules on a ship. I do agree that your starbases need to defend themselves. I get tired of having only 3 kinds of starbases. I would like to see economic starbases give economic bonuses over the planets in range. I would like tl see more creative starbases.
It's not "penalizing" players to change how something works in a new game. It's normal.
It's also entirely normal to change something that a lot of players find mind numbingly boring.
I think I would like to see a couple of new functions with starbases. Like an Ore Refinery module for starbases in far away uninhabited systems, which takes the output of a nearby mined asteroid field (thus minimsing the amount lost in transport) and turns it into a rush-buy commodity. This in turn reduces the cost of buying out production or doing upgrades to just the labour cost, whatever that might be, until the commodity runs out.
Exactly this. There's no point in building a constructor, then building more and more just for 1 starbase. It's micro that adds little to the game, especially on larger map sizes.
Freighters spawn a mini-freighter when they set up a trade route, starbases could similarly set up a supply freighter which ferries supplies (production) from a designated planet. This would default to the closest planet which isn't over-committed to providing building supplies.
This would make setting up remote starbases a teeny bit more problematic, as the longer the supply line is the more chances that a supply freighter will be raided by enemies (just like trade freighters). But if you want to do an upgrade you can just select it on the starbase, or let the auto-builder do it for you.
Losing a supply freighter would temporarily halt the current upgrade and reduce the starbase's repair rate, until the new supply freighter reaches the point where the previous one was attacked.
We like Starbases. We don't like constructor spam, however.
... so there is a god after all ......
I shall burn double-incense for you all if you succeed in crushing constructor fleets
It doesn't make them problematic, it makes them nonfunctional. How fast would this model allow someone to build a fully functional starbase (10+ modules or the equivalent if GC3 doesn't use modules). What timeframe are you looking at? 5 weeks to full production? 10? 20? Range-dependent?
Glad to hear that. Although, the AI will probably be even gladder, depending on how you change the starbase upgrade system.
Well, I don't want to see starbases tied to a single planet for supply either.
By setting up "trade" runs between any planet and your starbase, you have something that can be scaled as the player desires (send 10-20 supply-runs to the same starbase from multiple planets). Those supply-run vessels can also be interdicted / destroyed. And since you set it up once for the life of the starbase, it removes a lot of the micro.
By having the ultimate size of the starbase be defined by the size (or # of modules) on the initial constructor ship, we get to have tiny starbases in early game, and really massive ones in late game.
With starbases having "slots" (just like planets have surface slots for improvements), you can mix/match the focus of the starbase. (For game-balance, you may still need to restrict some modules to only being mountable on military / economic / influence / mining bases.)
If you're having construction slots on the starbase, why not allow hybrid designs? The biggest type of base might have enough space to get all the military functions as well as some of the trade boost modules and self-defense weapon modules. Or an economic/influence hybrid?
Star bases should be used to do anything useful like increase the range of ships, provide combat support and generally make them a tactical option rather then something the series should be obsessed about.
Lower the focus of star bases, please don't eliminate them completely please.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
