Project origins
There was some discussion on the Steam forums as to how to get an update to GalCiv 2 out there.
Draginol popped in and suggested that an update incorporating the expertise of the fanbase would be the best way forward. A bugfixing update would soon be on the way.
I sent a message to the other tech tree modders, and luckily secured the assistance of Gaunathor, and later MabusAltarn, as well as some dedicated members of the community who posted some valuable feedback. They have been instrumental to the success of the community update, and I'm glad to have played a small part along the way.
Progress report
The community update has been released as part of a rollout of Stardock products on GOG.com and is also available as an opt-in beta on Steam!
Downloads and links
Issues which can't be fixed with XML manipulation.
The file archive folder, hosted by MabusAltarn.
The list of bugs which can't be fixed with XML manipulation.
The spreadsheet of data changes, hosted by MabusAltarn.
Initial discussion on Steam forums
Credits for community member and Stardock staff involvement
Gaunathor - Tech tree changes, descriptions and standardisation. AI value adjustment. Planetary improvement changes and fixes. Keeper of the change logs, spreadsheet and file archive.
MarvinKosh - Typo and description changes (English.str, Techtree.xml). Additional spreadsheet analysis.
DARCA1213 - Tech descriptions.
MabusAltarn - UI changes, tech tree changes, AI value adjustment, keeper of the file archive, spreadsheet and change logs.
Maiden666 - Suggestions for improvement (technology victory bonuses).
OShee - tech descriptions.
SiliasOfBorg - tech descriptions.
Frogboy - executable code changes.
I cannot agree with that assesment. If you hate your government hard enough, then it shouldn't matter how diplomatic an invader is, if they offer you a better life, in exchange for you fighting for them. Still, at least my question got finally answered. So thanks for that.
Okay. However, I just realised that there is one issue with this approach: races not mentioned in the RaceConfig.xml won't get the penalty. For example, the Jagged Knife and all the other Minor Races will be unaffected. I'm not sure how big of a problem this is (those races usually don't last that long in my games), but I thought it worth mentioning.
Also, I really think we should take another look at the starbase modules. They are quite imbalanced in several areas.Defense ModulesI understand that my design to fix the overall weakness of the starbase defenses made them way too powerful. It makes perfect sense to me that that design was scrapped and something else was tried. I did the same in Autumn Twilight 2.0, after all. However, the current design is not an improvement, in my opinion.Not only did the max attack and defense values get reduced compared to the vanilla game (CU attack 56, defense 21 vs. Vanilla attack 65, defense 51 (or 63, if the bonuses from Battle Stations Mark II-IV had worked)), but the amount of techs required to unlock even basic defenses got massively increased. For example, in the vanilla game you only needed to research 5 techs to unlock the basic modules. In the CU, you need to research 46 techs to get to the same level. Granted, the attack rating got raised to 8. However, I don't think that makes up for the huge amount of time and money you need to invest in order to unlock those modules.This gets even worse with the next tier of modules, which requires a whopping total of 82 techs to unlock. While those modules are stronger compared to the vanilla ones (attack value 12 and defense value 16 vs. vanilla attack value 10 and defense value 10), they are also the final ones (not counting Battle Stations Mark II-IV). In the vanilla game, you could still unlock several more modules. Especially to further raise the defense rating.All in all, you're better off using fleets to protect your starbases. While that was also true in the vanilla game, the defense modules were more than capable of keeping your starbases alive in the early game (all the way to some point in the mid-game).Attack/Defense-Assist ModulesThe cost of these modules seems quite low compared to the benefit they provide. Especially the Thalan-specific ones seem extremely cheap (300BC for +16 to the beam, MD, and missile rating of all ships in the area? Sign me up!). Also, in the vanilla game, the defense-assist modules only provided a max defense-boost of +3 to all three categories, while in the CU it's +16. This makes the tactic of using fleets containing only tiny ships with one weapon/defense module even better.CultureThe Interstellar Embassy module currently provides a bonus of 60%. That's almost as high as the combined bonus of all 5 diplomacy-based culture-modules (62%). It also gives all the races who don't have access to Advanced/Extreme Diplomacy (primarily the Drengin, Korath, and Yor) an advantage, compared to the vanilla game. Changing that value to 22% would make more sense.The new values for the Krynn-specific modules seem a bit high. Especially considering that their design seem to suggest that the main-source of influence for the Krynn is supposed to be their planets (all of the Krynn improvements provide an influence-bonus). I would suggest to change the modules back to their original values.Production-Assist ModulesFactory-users: vanilla 24%, CU 21%Drengin/Korath: vanilla 23% (actual value 19%)*, CU 18%Iconians: vanilla 20% (potential value 24%)**, CU 15%Thalan: vanilla 21% (actual value 17%)*, CU 25%Yor: vanilla 19% (potential value 23%)**, CU 25%Those values seem a bit off. Especially the Drengin/Korath and Iconians (quite weak), and the Thalan and Yor (quite powerful).*While the Drengin/Korath and Thalan had access to the Smart Drones module in the vanilla game, they couldn't actually use it, because they lacked the module requirement.**The Iconians and Yor were the only two races in the vanilla game without acces to Smart Drones (and the Tech Capital). This might have been an oversight by Stardock.Mining ModulesFactory-users: vanilla 34%, CU 25%Drengin/Korath: vanilla 27%, CU 15%Iconians: vanilla 25%, CU 16%Korx: vanilla 44%, CU 35%Thalan: vanilla 30%, CU 35%Yor: vanilla 25%, CU 15%Do I even need to say what's wrong here?
That's a valid point. IW is solely based on the defenders morale = which reflect the peoples regard for their own government in terms of exploitation (tax rate) or social projects (morale improvement). At 100% approval IW nets 0-0 defectans.
MinorRaces are specified in RaceConfig.xml as well, so they can be included.
It could even be a different value to find a better balancing. Although we buffed some of the racial stats of MinorRaces I still find them quite weak. All of them get a bonus to the economics-ability which actually should raise the funds which could potentially fed to spies by some margin. The question is if we want them to have more spies or less.
On one hand they commonly have an overflow of unused funds, and in my games I usually drain them of these funds every 8 weeks. They could use that for spies instead. However, the way how AI uses spies is idiotic - they simply keep them in their reserve initially in order to nullify potential future attackers - which may not happen since MinorRaces usually don't have a lot precious techs to offer or are of any danger anyway.
Only later when one faction arises as a leader (= strengths of graphs in stats) AIs are willing to drop spies on enemy planets stiffling a potential winner. However, at that time most Minors will be gone taking all their spies to the grave with them. Thus, it would perhaps be a good idea to even increase the espionage-penalty for them so they would have more money - which they could use to delay a war from an aggressive extorter.
As for the Jagged Knife, or any other event that spawns another MinorRace somewhere - I find it even beneficial if they get spies more swiftly because all other factions most likely do have a headstart of several years.
The problem is that the AI is not going to use fleets to protect its starbases, so a player doing so has a tremendous advantage. I feel that tactically a player has this advantage anyway, there's so many things you can do like circling harmful AI fleets, or picking at resource bases, but that is not something that can be fixed by xml-changes.
IMO SB should be tough to fight against bcause this is going to make it harder for the player. However, if we do it via the defense-way then you/the AI can build invincible SBs which will soak in all weapons-fire, destroy enemy fleet, repair back swiftly, gain add HP by levelling up and become gradually more and more invincible. This is a huge problem because I've observed several testgames were a suicidal AI did throw large parts of their armies against such a base in a senseless fight and drained itself from MMR. Because of this strong SBs can onlybe achieved by increasing its attack - but reducing its attack likewise. If you simulate a fixed amount of ships going either against a ATT+100 DEF+0 SB or a ATT+50 DEF+50 base you'll see that, in many cases, the offensive-designed base will always loose hitpoints and its only a matter of time until its destroyed while the pretected one survives infinitely against weaker attackers. That means that IF an AI invests a number of MP to fight against a base it will get rewarded at some point and the fight ends. But if they only throw a tiny amount of ships both designs will still survive.
The current distribution of SB modules in the techtree is somewhat balanced to tie into the status of weapon/defense-research - because SB strength needs to be balanced against that (actually, also against Minitaurization and ESPECIALLY Logistics because these 2 stats also significantly increase fleetstrength...). Granted, its unintuitive & boring, and I actually did like the vanilla random chaotic placement a bit better. There's also the problem that some AI never research defenses on their own (in a game w/o techtrade) (or, at least, not until being finished with weapons), so the vanilla approach was a tad better at that as well. (you see there's a definite logic in it to keep certain things chaotic if you have 4 different AIP that do things differently as well....)
I agree. In one way Evil got nerfed by this. On the other hand the assist-modules are more or less a player-only feature - the AI don't really utilize MSBs. Sometimes they drop a MSB here and there, but most hold no modules at all. Reducing the number of potential modules, but increasing their strength could solve that.
That's almost as high as the combined bonus of all 5 diplomacy-based culture-modules (62%). It also gives all the races who don't have access to Advanced/Extreme Diplomacy (primarily the Drengin, Korath, and Yor) an advantage, compared to the vanilla game. Changing that value to 22% would make more sense.The new values for the Krynn-specific modules seem a bit high. Especially considering that their design seem to suggest that the main-source of influence for the Krynn is supposed to be their planets (all of the Krynn improvements provide an influence-bonus). I would suggest to change the modules back to their original values.
I've got the impression that the diplo-tree holds these modules only as a side function, and I like it that even diplomatically crippled factions can build a semi-strong Influencer-base. Fact is that the races you mentioned basically have very little chance to flip planets via bases, but the AI will still erect these bases wasting constructors + paying maint for virtually no purpose.
However, the AI uses 2 different sets of behaviour - one is placing IB in foreign systems near planets, or, if own planets are threatened by foreign influence there. So at least, with a single strong module the last option may be effective to keep own planets from revolting. We could perhaps split that module into 2 or 3, and attribute to techs which all races do get. [Xeno Ethics or Government...]
Generally I think that esp. the modules steming from the influence-branch are borderline OP. Once you muster the production it's so easy to flip complete systems with a single base. Not that the AI would use this tactic much...
Drengin/Korath: vanilla 27%, CU 15%
Iconians: vanilla 25%, CU 16%
Korx: vanilla 44%, CU 35%
Thalan: vanilla 30%, CU 35%
Yor: vanilla 25%, CU 15%
Do I even need to say what's wrong here?
I've stressed this problem before but request denied. It's even worse because in vanilla factions that had unique modules could use the generic modules as well. I considered that actually a feature and not a bug, because many of these races (Yor/Thalan) are severely restricted in the techtree and therefore this a potential compensation.
The highest TA MV game played by Gaz was strictly based about getting resource-mines up to 60% (he used Thalan-tree), if you find a map with a lot of military, economic & morale-resources these will directly translate into score. It would just be fair if that option is retained in the game. Furthermore, I think that esp. resources are there to have a huge impact on the strength of civ on a galactic scale, 15%-16% are rather lackluster considering that the game truncates so many numbers.
I guess I wasn't clear enough, but I meant the Minor Races that aren't included in the RaceConfig.xml.
Well, if they weren't weak, they wouldn't be Minor Races.
Anyhow, their current stats already seem quite powerful, but also a bit generic. Plus, I don't think making Minor Races more powerful is the right way. Instead of trying to make it harder for the player to simply roll over them, why not make the player not want to kill the Minors in the first place? Currently, the player has a choice of either keeping the Minors around as a self-repleneshing bank-account, or take their high-PQ planet. Why not add a third option? Like unique techs you can only get from the Minors? Sure, it would take more time and effort to implement, but it would be more unique than yet another stat-boost.
That may not necessarily the case. I'm using the vanilla values for ATT and (what I think are) the intended values for DEF in Autumn Twilight. So far, the AI has always managed to destroy my starbases. It may take a while (especially if the starbase has been upgraded to the max), but it will happen eventually. In other words, it's a balancing act between just enough defense to force the aggressor to adapt, and too much defense.
Except, I don't think the current values are properly balanced. Especially the Tier 2 defense modules. Any race with an equivalent level of tech will have no trouble overcoming a DEF of 21.
True. It took me a while to realize this.
Well, the AI may not utilize MSBs as well as the player, but it can use them surprisingly well sometimes. I had several games in Autumn Twilight where the AI used MSBs to bolster the strength of the fleets in orbit of its planets. Whether that was an intentional move by the AI, or just good luck while placing the starbases, I don't know. However, the result caused me quite a lot of trouble. I couldn't take on the orbital defenders directly, because they were simply too strong. I would have lost all of my fleets, if I tried that. However, destroying the MSB would have also cost me a lot of ships.
So far, I haven't seen anything like this in the CU. Primarily, because the AI usually doesn't have the necessary modules. Mabus has set the Starbase Militarization techs up in such a way to reduce the chances of the AI to research them.
In Autumn Twilight, I re-implemented the modules Diplomatic Outpost (no tech requirement) and Foreign Relations Center (requires Universal Translator), which got removed by the CU.
I'm not sure, if I understand you. Do you mean that your request back then got denied, or that my request to take another look at the mining modules is denied?
There's an icon for these tactics? Where is it supposed to show up???
[Pardon me. I am interested in the particulars, but I'll read up on that last 12 pages of this discussion when I have a few fewer Margaritas in me.]
Btw, I bought GCIII on the cheap (Steam sale) because the base game *should* run on Vista with DirectX 11. It downloads, installs, and tries to build, but goes out to Steam (WHY!?!) and never comes back. So I guess I'm stuck with GCII for a while. Good thing it's such a great game. Ghad, I hate Steam. Least intuitive piece of goushi it's ever been my misfortune to use. Isn't there a GC event where the sodding programmers can get hung up by their balls?
Sorry for late reply, I don't have much time on my hands currently...
Then I see no problem here. Would also like to suggest to increase MinorRaces' Esp penalty to -50% if that's fine with you [or noone else objects...]
I like this alot. In fact I have this integrated in one mod as well. There are a numerous ways to do this:
- Integrate a couple of unique techs into the MinorRace_Techtree.xml perhaps in such a way that they aren't researched right away, some early, some midgame, some later on etc pp ofc in various strength then. All Minors would have the same tree, still.
- Make individual trees for all Minors with unique new techs. Wouldn't be that much of a bother because it would just require to copypaste the old code & integrate some new techs. That would make diversity greater if one plays with not all Minors but just a few, and especially if each Minor brings a different "theme" to the table, anbd if that could be used by some factions to overcome weaknesses or other intended handicaps.
- Integrate "Key techs" into the Stockraces's techtrees. These keytechs cannot be researched on their own but would have to come from a Minorrace, and once acquired, they unlock a previous unaccessable part of the own techtree. The advantage of this approach is it shifts the major part of doing the researchwork back to the stockrace.
One can do so many great things with the GC2 techtree-system but my main problem as being a not-native english speaker is writing descriptions & tooltips, infos etc..:/
I observed this behaviour in vanilla. All my experience playing warfighting games basically stems completely from the vanilla version. Nevertheless, I don't say you're wrong and if you want to div einto this go ahead. I'm sorry but I simply can't muster anymore time and before I voice an opinion on a subject I would firstly have to educate myself about that field. And since I've also not been part of the SB rebalancing part there's not much more fo rme to say except what I can remember from a couple of games, plus some of the mathematical logic behind some game mechanics...
The reason for this is mostly because now module strength is tight linearily to weapon/def-researcj progression but that is only one field which enhances fleet strength. Miniaturization and ESPECIALLY Logistics do also play a major role to that. IMO throwing some modules into these regions would be in order as well, and/or getting back to the more chaotic distribution of modules in the techtree - because this greatly enhances the unpredictability = replayability.
Another reason why fleets later ingame simply have no probs shooting down SBs is that weapon research results in un upgrade obsoleting previous weaker design while SB mods just are added, ie. you keep the older weak ones and even have to build them firstly before applying the stronger ones. This is actually something that boggles my mind it's really unlogical, sort of suggesting LaserGun4 needs to be stuck on LaserGun3 and that on LaserGun2 etc pp. In reality you would just use the latest design and outfit the whole base with it. At least some of the requirements should be blanked out.
I'd also like to suggest creating an independant set of defence for resource-bases only - they're more precious and the AI usually have a headstart on them.
Yeah, that was done to promote that the AI researches real weapons only - which is definitely making the game more harder for the player. However, it's also less divers... I suggested to at least have the first tech be set to weapons otherwise all AIs will build completely void MSBs. Not that these pose any threat. If you ask me, setting the back to their true would be ok. You'll have some AI researching them, some researching weapons, and you may trust on techtrade that things could be spread arounbd all AIs after some time.
Or we rip a few of these mods out of their branch and place them into weapons/defence/hulls etc so that, no matter what the specific researchpattern of any given AIP is, they may get some of these mods at all time.
I like that. Thumbs up!
I'm sorry if I was vague - the former. The mining-mods are currently seriously in jeopardy IMO. I never understood why they got changed anyway - an advantage to all is a disadvantage to none. And while it is true that a player can be more flexible in tactics to get his hands on these resources, I think the AI also has some significant advantages esp. on larger maps in his knowledge of all positions. On harder difficulty levels it's downright impossible to erect & keep bases, so resources only add to the strength of the AI.
Furthermore, I think that the function of resources is also to generate a random, local field of potential strength, with the intention to decrease stalemates, increase replayability and esp. on smaller maps change the scope of a game completely if you/the start out with a resource near the homesystem. That should be something worth and not just a minor increase esp. considering how many numbers in game get truncated.
You see it in the techtree (only TA) or at the invasion-technique selection screen which pops up directly after a transport arrives at an enemy planet or you go to GalCiv2Ultimate\Gfx\TacticImages
No, it doesn't. There have been several posts of people trying to run the game on Vista during the Early Access phase, but without success. As far as I remember at least.
Fine by me. As I've mentioned before, I'm already using a -50% penalty for all races in Autumn Twilight. So far I haven't had any issues with that.
I like those two the most, though the first one might be the best option. The Minor Races not included in the RaceConfig.xml get assigned the MinorRace_TechTree.xml when they spawn, but start out with any techs the players has unlocked. At least as far as I can tell. I'm also not sure whether that only includes the techs the player has researched, or also the ones he gained via trading/stealing. In other words, adding a bunch of individualized tech trees for the Minors could cause some issues, unless we keep the MinorRace_TechTree.xml specifically for the Spawn-only Minors.
Still, I'm not entirely sure whether we should do any of those changes. This update is supposed to fix bugs and balance issues of the CU. Not add completely new content. Maybe we should keep them for a sub-mod of the CU?
I also have big problems with that. However, in my case it's not due to my status as non-native speaker, but because I'm terrible at putting my thoughts into words.
That's perfectly reasonable. I wasn't around either when Mabus began rebalancing the SBs again after I've left the project, so I don't know the thought-processes behind those changes. Still, I have some ideas about how I could fix the issues I have with the current implementation, without deviating too much from the CU design (even though I would prefer to simply re-add the Starbase Fortifications techs).
The main problem with this is the AI's module-limitation. It can only use the first 100 modules in the StarbaseModules.xml. The CU is already at 98 modules total. There are some that the AI never uses (like Terror Stars, for example), so I could re-arrange the file and put those modules at the bottom. That would free up 11 slots. However, some of those slots are already required for other areas (like the Culture modules).
Agreed.
Currently, there are only two modules per tech: one for attack-assist and one for defense-assist. If we want to spread them over other techs, we'll have to break up the individual modules first. However, that'll increase the module-count again. I have an idea about how to handle that, but it would mean culling some modules.
Okay. I thought that might have been the case, but wanted to be sure.
Agreed. I actually thought at the time that my design of the mining modules was okay. Maybe a bit weaker compared to the vanilla game, but at least all races got a roughly equal share. Certainly not something that would require a total overhaul, but that's what happened. Oh well, I'll post my list of proposed changes for this and the other modules once I get around to it. I should have it by the weekend at the latest, if my depression isn't getting worse again.
By the way, do you perhaps have a copy of Stefan's Ultimate Weapon FX mod for TotA? I've been searching the net for a copy, but not even the Wayback Machine has one. I really should have grabed it when I-Mod Productions was still around.
Icons for Invasion Tactics: Ah yes. Now I see them. All tactics have icons (except Intimidation which isn't working yet).
Instead of trying to make it harder for the player to simply roll over them, why not make the player not want to kill the Minors in the first place?
Good goal. I like to keep them around because they are stable trading partners.
In the game I just played, Yor built 2 (three?) interlocking MSBs in his dense inner star cluster. They were maxed out with modules, but he just didn't research enough MSB techs to make much of a difference. He put all his research into Doom Ray (an awesome tech in 2.20)
Re: the above discussion, IMO the SB defense values are too low, especially in the tier 2 and 3 techs.
The core problem is that the AIPs will suicide against a strong SB while the wily player stands by and watches. The CU approach is to make the SBs weak enough that the AIP will eventually succeed. (A questionable solution, IMO.) But it can't work anyway. Unless the SB is killed in one or two weeks, all I have to do is keep slipping in repair kits. Weak SBs only doom those SBs that are so remote that they can't receive fleet support.
Maiden666 made two suggestions that I really like: 1) Scatter small SB modules though the Hulls, Miniaturization, and Logistics branches. Nothing major, maybe +1 or +2 all defense or weapon, or some non-military effect. 2) Make some modules that are unique to certain types of SBs. For instance, a Military Resource is much more important than a remote Influence SB. And Econ SBs in general should be vulnerable to military action. [Drat: Just saw the 100 module def limit. Never mind.]
when they spawn, but start out with any techs the players has unlocked. At least as far as I can tell. I'm also not sure whether that only includes the techs the player has researched, or also the ones he gained via trading/stealing.
Everything, begged, borrowed, or stolen. I just forced a Jagged Edge event. They picked up all techs that I had, even some from extinct races, plus all weapons techs that others had. Not Trade Goods, though. They have the techs, but not the goods. (I never play the Jagged Knife any more, anyway.)
BTW, I used to see new races spring up in mid and late games. In 2.20, I have never seen that happen. Has something changed?
Most of what you've suggested make good sense. I too would like to see a list of proposed changes so I can vote for it. Thanks for the effort you've put into this!
Dennis
The only issue is that the techs are not showing the new tactics as something they unlock.
AFAICT, that is the case with all Invasion Tactics.
I did get Intimidation to work. Three problems in the entry: 1) Display Name has a period in it, 2) 'propaganda' is misspelled, 3) there is a space in the Tech Reqmt.
I've sort of been working already under the assumption that this to be a sub-mod because you've already sent in the files to SD long time ago. But if this is supposed to mean that you are re-sending it (which would be a good thing because we already fixed some slight bugs ) then I agree, let's first stick to focus on bugs and balance-issues. However, the file-structure I keep is prepared to be placed in the mods-dir and unsuitable to be a patch. So if you've got nothing against it I'll hand that filekeeperwork back to you and once we're done with the patch, take that result and work that to a mod which we then can further be creative with.
Is this okay with you?
Don't worry. Just take your time, I can't take more than 1 hour/day for the net anyway, but we're in no hurry.
Maybe DMF could help with this, according to his MV profile he's from the States. DMF what do you say? Gaunathor is strong on GC2 lore, and I could help with quantum mechanics + cosmology
I do think that 11 slots will be enough for, at least, a smaller approach to some of the ideas raised.
BTW what are these modules? There are 5 TerrorStars, and perhaps Sensors are unused (?) what are the other?
We could as well just delete one or two of these techs and identify the mods simply with other techs. We'd need to blank out the requirements tag however for this to work, which is something that we could do generally anyway. It may clutter the screen for the player in later stages of the game by some margin (although that is already the case in vanilla with MSBs...) but it would generally make SBs stronger (or: faster in acquiring strength) and give us more flexibility on our work.
I'm sorry no. Back then I've been playing MV almost exclusively, so the high-res was all I could partly intermingle without being flagged ^^
Thanks, it's good to have a third opinion when there are really not many people left on these forums.
Well, at least you'll have to invest constructors to repair them, which costs you roundabout 120-170MP + 100 credits. And you need to be in time, ie. on faraway resource-crystals it may not work. It's better than if your bases would soak in all enemy firepower into their shields and survive unscratched. And if you keep a base which is under continuous fire manually alive then it will gain hitpoints over time (+ the enemy will get better weapons also) and at some point the SB repair kit won't suffice anymore. The boost from 20 HP to 50 HP really made this tactic more attractive. Is that too much in your eyes? One of the reason I considered that this mod required a buff is the fact that the AI has it on its list on a high priority - ie. if a base just lacks a single HP it will be applied if a constructor hits uring this turn - even if the base would automatically repair back then as well. The player would never use it in this situation. Maybe we could get rid of the 100bcs but decrease its healing effect a tad?
Good info. I'm not surprised Trade Goods behave differently.
I don't think we possibly could change anything about events since it's hardcoded. Maybe it was just luck - how many games approximately are you taking to base this on? And is the setup similar?
The Jagged Knife works differently than the other spawned Minor Races. It starts out with the currently researched techs of all the races it took planets from when it spawned. The normal Minor Races, however, only get the currently researched techs of the player when they spawn.
Also, Minor Races cannot build Trade Goods or Galactic Achievements. That's the case for all Minor Races, regardless of type. Even the Dread Lords.
Absolutely. I already opperated under that assumption anyway.
If he's willing, sure.
We'll see. I first need to check how many slots are needed for the other areas (Culture, Mining, and Production). It's possible that I may be able to raise the number of available slots even further.
TerroStars is a definite. I've tested that one thoroughly enough to be certain of it. Sensors are used so rarely (saw the AI add one once, maybe twice, since I've started playing) that they might might as well be unused. The other two I'm pretty certain about are SlowEnemies and RepairAssist. I haven't seen the AI add them to its MSBs in any of my tests or my regular games. I'm still not sure whether the AI uses RepairSB, but I need the module where it is in order to prevent a bug. (Having a module, which is a requirement for other modules, at the top of the file, breaks that requirement. For example, if Battle Stations is at the top of the file, then you can add all modules requiring Battle Stations to your SBs, without having to add Battle Stations first.)
I'd rather do this without removing (or adding) techs, but I'll keep this in mind as an option, should it proof necessary.
Well, it was too much to hope for anyway.
I've changed the weapon effects (both VFX and SFX) in Autumn Twilight to the ones Stefan made for Stardock. They are vastly superior to the originals, so I found it weird that SD included the files, but only used some of them. However, I'm having trouble setting up the values for the animations (especially for the mass drivers), because I lack the tools, the know-how, and the talent to do this right. I thought that the mod could help me getting the right values (plus clue me in as to what VFX was supposed to be used by what weapon, because not all of them are obvious), but that's apparently impossible nowadays.
Definitely. In the CU, SBs have a base HP of 50. One Repair Kit will bring an almost destroyed SB to full strength. In the vanilla game, you needed two Repair Kits for that, and each one cost you 200BC (in the CU it's only 100BC per module).
Alright, it took a bit longer than I expected, but here is the test-version of the update and the new changelog.I've added all of the discussed changes, and some others for which I'd like to hear your opinion.New WeaponIt always bugged me that Beam Weapon Theory never did anything in TotA, with the exception of serving as a speed-bump on the way to real beam weapons. The same is also true in the CU. In DL and DA, on the other hand, BWT unlocked the Particle Beam II. So I've decided to re-introduce that weapon as Maser II.InvasionsI've changed the values of Shock Troops to the ones from Mini-Soldiers, because that's what it basically is (just with a different name, description, and icon).Mechanized Warriors and Terror Drones also saw some changes. Mechanized Warriors is now a more expensive, but less destructive, version of Mass Drivers, while Terror Drones is the Yor replacement for Core Detonation (slightly more expensive and damaging to the infrastructure, but doesn't hurt the planet). The values could probably still use some adjustments.RacesI've applied the -50% Espionage penalty to all races (except for the DL and Pirates), instead of only the Minors. As I've mentioned before, I'm using that value in Autumn Twilight and it works fine so far. Using that value in the CU too shouldn't cause any problems, considering that money is less of an issue there.I've also removed the Espionage bonus from the Drath, and reduced the Espionage bonus of the Krynn to 25%. While it makes sense that the Drath have an Espionage bonus, it doesn't really flow well with the AIs inability to properly use the system. The original bonus of the Krynn would have lead them having a value of 0 for Espionage. With everyone else being at -50%, that would mean that the Krynn could spend twice as much money to train spies as everybody else. A bit too strong, in my opinion.StarbasesWell, the overhaul of the defense modules didn't went as I had hoped. My original idea was to move the modules unlocked by the weapons and defense techs up a bit, so they get unlocked sooner, and then add a couple more further down the tree. However, the result would have made the Thalan starbases too strong. Spreading the modules across the tech tree, my other idea, would have done the same. I toyed with the idea of removing Battle Stations from the Thalan tech tree, so that they couldn't use the generic modules. However, I quickly discarded it, because it could cause some confusion: "I've unlocked these module, but I can't use them even after researching the whole tech tree. This got to be a bug!"In the end, I went with the same approach I used in Autumn Twilight: I've re-implemented the Starbase Fortification techs and their modules, and moved the Battle Stations module to Military Starbase Construction. Excluding Battle Stations, the total number of generic defense modules are now 18 (3 for each category). The max values are 65 ATT and 63 DEF.The Thalan now have two defense modules, whose values are slightly less than half of the generic max values (31 ATT and 30 DEF). However, they are also quite expensive (500bc each). The generic modules, on the other hand, are free, with the exception of Battle Stations.The military-assist modules got the same treatment. The Starbase Militarization techs and modules are now almost identical to the pre-CU versions. Only some values are different. Not exactly how I envisioned it, but I don't know else I could handle this. Changing the Thalan starbase design is out of the question.Interstellar Embassy got replaced with the modules Diplomatic Outpost and Foreign Relations Center. Their combined value is 22% culture. However, should it be necessary, I can add Interstellar Embassy (and maybe one more module) back in. There are currently two slots left.The overhaul of the production-assist and mining modules made the tech Basic Space Construction no longer necessary. All races now have access to Starbase Factory, Smart Drones, Mining Barracks, and Mining Center. The total bonuses in each category is now at the same level as in the vanilla game (or at the level it should have been, if there weren't some issues with Smart Drones).TechtreeI've changed the DisplayName of the techs Shock Troops and Space Marines back to Ultimate Shock Troops and Stellar Marines, and changed the InternalName instead. Yes, it requires more effort to make sure that everything is still working, but I find it less off-putting than a sudden name-change.
Thanks for the update it'll take some time to go through it all, but I shall mention several things already:
- Yor desc Terror Drones :"enemys" --> enemies
- Yor can only increase EconStarbases to 9% planetary support, they cannot install their own modules because that requires module FactoryAssistant which is brought by tech XenoIndustrialTheory - which they lack. Changing the requirement of MfgVortex to "FactoryAssistantOne" will do the trick. The same problem occurs in Drengin-, Korath-, Iconian- & Thalan modules.
- For some reason TraditionalWarfare doesn't show up and I'm unable to figure out where the problem lies. Perhaps it's not possible to use this in the same way like in DL. I've tried leaving the entry blank but no success. If you can't solve this we need to change that back to PI again.
- I don't like that SB def is now equal to SB att - it would be nice to nerf defence by 30% and instead increase attack by the same margin.
- I find the Influence mods rebalance to be a hard nerf for Yor, their output got nerfed by 60% and the constructor requirement got doubled.
- I'd like to propose some cosmetic techtree changes in order to do away with techs which only show dots [...] instead of the bonuses they bring. This is oftentimes achieved by opening the group. Here's an example from my own mod - as you can see everything is visible w/o having to right-click anywhere:
Proposed groups could be: Trade, SB Fortification, SB Militarization, Miniaturization & Sensors
With some it may work to not completely show every tech individually but just form two groups out of one (see my Sensors/Scanner as an example)
- Can we delete at least the cost from the SB repair kit? Since SB HP went up I feel we either make this stronger in healing or otherwise attractive.
All in all, I like the changes. But I need to spend more time playing around with it.
edit:
the racial defense & weapons point distribution is not in line withe rest of the design. The way it is generally made was to ask for increasingly more points if you wanted to increase a bonus. Defense & weapons are, however, just flatly increasing.
That's the singular possessive, not the plural. However, I could be wrong and it actually needs an apostrophe (i.e. enemy's). Though I thought that's only necessary for contractions (e.g. "it is" -> "it's")
That's what happens when you don't properly test your changes. I used the wrong InternalName by accident.
Another case of "I just assumed it'd work, so I didn't test it". Yeah, I can't get it to show up either. So back to PI it is.
I don't want to increase the ATT beyond the vanilla max. It makes the SB a bit too strong, in my opinion. Especially the Thalan ones, if they manage to get access to the generic modules. Reducing the DEF by 30% seems a bit much. I could reduce it to practical vanilla max DEF of 51, though (and the Thalan module back to the vanilla value of 24).
Well, it's the same bonus they had in the vanilla game, but requiring one less module to get it. However, as I said before, I could re-activate the Interstellar Embassy. Maybe with a 20% bonus. That would mean a total of 42%. It's almost 100% more than what the Yor had in the vanilla game, but still less than what the races with access to Expert Diplomacy had.
Sure. Seems reasonable enough.
The base SB HP in the CU is 50. That's only 8 HP more than in the vanilla game. The Repair Kit currently heals the vanilla amount of 20 HP. That's 40% HP regained per module (not counting any racial bonuses). I find that pretty strong actually. Though certainly less strong than the 100% HP regain the module previously had. The cost seems to act like a balancing factor/opportunity cost to me. Do you want to repair the SB or add some other potentially useful module instead? However, if you think that the module is too weak with the cost, then I could remove it. I'm just afraid that this could make the module too strong in the process (i.e. turn it into a no-brainer).
Okay, I made the following changes:
-Weapons Master: Cost from 20 to 25
-Defense Gifted: Cost from 20 to 25, Master: Cost from 30 to 40
I've uploaded a new version with all the fixes and changes.
Being no expert on grammar I'd choose the one with apostrophe^^
No worrys, we'll test thoroughly so nothing slips through the net^^
yeah it's strange I did assume if it worked inb DL it should do so in TA naturally as well...
I don't really understand this - if you add some strength to something but take likewise some strength from somewhere else away then the result should equal out in the end. My main intent to propse these changes is to counter the potential abuse of invincible starbases that soak in all enemy weaponsfire. You can only achieve this via defense & hitpoints - both ratings are currently increased compared to vanilla. I've seen this crippling danger in vanilla so now, it should even occur more.
Fine with me.
We've different opinions here - I sort of found that module weak already in vanilla, and since SB HP got boosted it became relatively even weaker. For example, in later stages of a game a SB may start out with 80-100 HP from the getgo, and if that is badly damaged and you wanna repair it back it may take 4-5 constructors to do it - but if it's just an Econ SB holding freighter-support or industry support you may as well just rebuild the base from scratch. So I never really used it instead relying on the hope of the base repairing itself back to health.
Sounds good
I'll be testing the new upload
In "UPIssues.xml" WarfareTax01 & WarFareTax02 don't work. The money-penalty is shown correctly in the economical overview but the amount isn't subtracted at all. The info given in the UP overview is also wrong, being a % but it's a flat money penalty instead. I've no clue if this is somehow related but if it's not then deleting the 2 entries would be the best.
in RaceConfig.xml:
<Description>The Korath were part of the Drengin Empire but their determination to exterminate all non-Drengin life, rather than enslaving them, plunged the Drengin Empire into civil war. The Korath severed its ties and is no longer held back by their cousins.</Description>
The last sentence reads awkward. Because in the first sentence "The Korath" is used in a plural way, while assuming a singular a sentence later.. (?)
I'd formulate it like this:
<Description>The Korath were part of the Drengin Empire but their determination to exterminate all non-Drengin life, rather than enslaving it, plunged the Drengin Empire into a civil war. The Korath severed their ties and are no longer held back by their cousins.</Description>
the RaceConfig.xml contains a typo:
<Description>Up until recently, the Scottlingas worshiped the stars as the spirits of their dead ancestors. Finding out that the stars were, in fact, big balls of gas did little to change the local theology, but they took to space exploration zealously.</Description>
--> worshipped
I had a look through the dictionary, and it's apparently written "enemy's" after all. So, fixed.
Fixed. Though I'm almost tempted to change the description back to its original state.
Fixed.
I just ran a test, and I can confirm this. Which is odd, because I was absolutely certain that those two proposals work.
Earlier this year, I had a game were I was suddenly losing a lot of money from one turn to the next, after a little exchange of war declarations (a combination of stupidly honouring an alliance, and the Altarians' SA). The regular increase in expenses wasn't high enough to make up for that sudden drop in income (from about +150bc to about -350bc). I also didn't lose any trade routes are other sources of income, so that wasn't it either. The only reason for it could have been the war tax, which was at 100bc per war (the highest in Autumn Twilight currently). After taking a closer look at all the expenses, the war tax definitely was the reason. So it did work at that point.
In other words, I have no idea what's going on here. The game didn't change since then, so why would those proposals suddenly stop working? It makes no sense!
Fine with me, I never saw anything wrong with the original desc anyway. Most of them were shorter
I've no clue what's going on here but if there's the chance that this UP vote can be made working that would be good. Did you try to re-test it in AT as well?
Do you know from which file the game takes the text for the description fpr the UP tab (where you can see all the currently active UP solutions?) I can't find that anywere - but there may be a slight error at large here.
My last guess would be that perhaps the solution doesn't work on all entries, or only with certain numbers....
Something went wrong on the icons "AdvFarm.png" & "Engine Turbo Design Center_64.png" - both have their blend removed. It seems like someone tried to make them a bit darker but afterwards only saved the files with single transparency....
I suggest to go back to the pre-CU ones, or, if you want to have those a bit darkened I can do that easily without touching the blending effect.
There's also a new but unused icon "Bank.PNG" in the folder, which is of higher resolution than the one currently used for Banks, but the new one does also miss the blending....
There are also a number of original Twilight-icons (+querry) unused - instead, some of the older icons from DL are refered to. The ones from Twilight are double the size and more beautiful. Perhaps we could interchange them.
Unused ones are:
CoreTap.png
DiploBrainTrust.png
MantleExcavation.png
PainCoordGrid.png
TempleOfNav.png
I did. It doesn't work there either.
They're in the English.str under UPLaws. However, those are just text-entries. Changing them wouldn't have any effect on how the proposals work mechanically, because that is hardcoded.
That's odd. The CU didn't change those files, and I don't see why anyone from Stardock would do that. The icons also don't look any darker to me. Though, to be fair, I'm a total layman as far as image-editing is concerned.
Err, I don't have that file in any of the GalCiv 2 directories.
Possibly. However, which improvements should get the make-over?
The TempleOfNav.png was used by the Advanced Navigation Center, which I'm somewhat tempted to add back in (along with the Fusion and Quantum Power Plants). Sure, there is still the issue with 1pps getting perma-destroyed, but I think we can keep that risk at a minimum.
There are also some variable entries present (eg. %lu) and the one concerning this law had a false attachment to it (%%) but fixing that didn't do anything to make it working. It was a small hope though.
Anyway, I'd suggest to change the text for this entry to:
"[Description3] A universal Warfare Tax will be charged to all races engaging in conflict. This tax will be %lu bc/week paid by the attacker and will go to humanitarian aid."
So that it will be displayed correctly if a future fix brings it to work. The tax is brought upon the attacker exclusively BTW, if you just defend yourself you're not charged. Sad that it doesn't work since UP votes seem to be generally in favour of good/neutral races, which acts as a small compensation for less attractive colonization events...
A few other entries are also wrong/inaccurate:
[Description4] Sector owners with star systems belonging to other races will receive a %lu bc weekly bonus for each system present in their territory. This will be paid by the civilization in charge of the intrusive colony."
[Description26] A united celebration will be held, spreading the joys of peace to all races! Approval on all planets will be increased by %lu%%.
BTW there seem to be alot of aditional descriptions for UP votes which are currently not in use. The thought of bringing them into the game is intriguing, but I have no clue if that might work. It may've been that they've been deliberately cancelled out because of bugs etc.
Yeah forget it. I just made a clean install of 2.20 and none of the files are there anymore. Apparently a .bat from a mod did introduce them somehow. I've actually tried to keep that install completely free of any mods and have those located to a secondairy installation. I shouldn't run these programs -.-
I like this very much. We could label these improvements indestructible which will counter the bug. Or we just live with it, thing is it's not severe anyway - if say FactionX can't build a PowerPlant on PlanetX then they willm use this tile for something else, a factory/lab/etc - it's not that the potential is completely wasted.
That's a tough question because I'm actually used to many of the old gfx files.
I think DiploBrainTrust.png looks like a congress house etc and could possibly replace the GalacticShowcase or GalacticBazaar.
What I don't like currently is that some lines are highres, then interjected by a lowres gfx, only to be finished by a highres. That's, if you know about it, becomes kinds irritating ingame. Especially because it's in the generic branches with spamable buildings - the lab & factory line.
I'd use the DarkEnergyLab for the ResearchAcademy - IRRC that was its outlay for one time. The DEL could then be using the PainCoordGrid or any of the other.
Or we use the InterstellarRefinery.png for it which looks also very lab-like. The PainCoord looks sort of kinda bizaar but in the case of DEL it would be used only for a single time for a single race when labs or refinery are on any planet on multiple races.
Considering ManufacturingCenter I'd use the MantleExcavation for it - this png actually has some resemblance with its predecessor (1 tower up high - got expanded to 4 tower, both are dark/blackish in color). That would also free the current icon to be used for QuantumPowerPlant if you want to reintroduce this.
CoreTap.png - IDK. Because you can clearly see the hole + digging going on its application is quite narrowed. But the icon looks actually to good (unique) to be simply discarded.
I also don't like that the Altarians 2 temples look completely similar. This creates nightmares when manually designing planets w/o relying on the auto-upgrade feature. Perhaps I can come up with a slightly boosted verison, it's looking so thin anyway...
Well, except the one with the 'Space Monster Theme Park" none of the other entries seem to work. And that even didn't work fully - planetary economy got doubled indeed but never have there been any monsters on the loose. (or maybe I just got incredibly unlucky)
Sad, some of the entries are actually quite good ideas like evil-tax, or protecting-minors.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
