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.
Agree about a behavior, but we need Brad for that. otherwise the default first priority of ai is stargazer.
The problem is simply mostly vivid when starbases are involved. If someone can muster already enough strong fleets to defeat the AI lossless (or with minimal loss) then his suicide is not really much of a problem because the total loss of his ships/fleets is something that is inevitably going to happen anyway - if you just take advantage of your space superiority and invade his planets and beforeahead, clear the way out. But that - to have a strong mobile military - takes a great deal of effort.
In stark contrast getting a single starbase high up very early isn't much of a problem. And once wars are declared the AI has starbases as #1 priority targets.
Frogboy could do it, a time ago he's been here to get AIP7 into colonizing outside their ZOC. We still have a list of uncorrected bugs and issues we couldn't solve, many would make the game better, and I guess, some of these items could be dealt with quickly.
***
BTW Minor issue:
<Weapon Name="KineticStream1">
<Weapon Name="KineticStream2">
<Weapon Name="KineticStream3">
--> <FlavorText0>Westinghouse "Long Lance" laser cannon. Mark V.</FlavorText0>
maybe copied from Laser V?
The 3 "Xeno Farm Construction" techs could perhaps be grouped together? (Except Korath/Drengin)
BTW what does <Type> in GCTypes.xml precisely do?
There are only six unique groups of models for missile weapons. Possibly only five, because I haven't tested the s0_photonTorpedo group. It could be that it doesn't even work, or, if it does, that it looks exactly like the s0_photonTorp group. Even if it is unique and works, it wouldn't be enough to give all ten types of missile weapons a distinctive look.
That's already on my list of things to do. I'm about to go through all techs to make them Custom Race-friendly. As far as possible, at least.
I could use the s0_massdriverX group of model for all of the Railguns, instead of just the Mass Drivers. However, I'm not quite sure what the problem is. The first two Railguns are Miniballs, while the next three are Mass Drivers. I.e., a new type of Railgun. It's basically the same as with Chaff and ECM. The only difference is that the weapon modules use the same DisplayName for both. Well, that and that the techs are all grouped together.
I really have trouble understanding this point. The Arceans are only saving 1000rp. Not the "thousand after thousand" you claim. They also still have six Beam weapon tiers. Just like everyone else. So I really don't get where you got the idea from that I removed one.
Just to reiterate, it's currently:
Tier 1: Lasers or Kinetic Streams
Tier 2: Plasma Weapons or Particle Beams
Tier 3: Phasors or Ion Beams
Tier 4: Disruptors
Tier 5: Subspace Blasters
Tier 6: Doom Ray
Anyhow, the current implementation stems from the fact that the vanilla one was self-contradictory. The Arcean details for Particle Beams I made two statements. First, that the Arceans have difficulty researching PB. That one was true. For the Arceans, Particle Beams I had three times the regular cost. The second one was, that, after having unlocked PB, the Arceans can move quickly to more advanced weapons. However, they still needed to research Particle Beams II and III at the regular cost. How is that "quickly"? It's the same speed as for everyone else. Except, the other races had a headstart, because they didn't have a more difficult time with Particle Beams I. That really made no sense.
So, to put some sense into it, I decided to remove Particle Beams II and III from the Arcean tree. The cost for Particle Beams I is the same as Particle Beams I and II combined (1500rp vs. 500rp + 1000rp). Which means that they have only one tech less to research, as far as the rp are concerned. I really don't think that's OP. Especially if you consider how much rp the Yor are saving with their shortened Phasors tier, or how much cheaper Ion Beams are compared to Phasors.
Well, it's the same as in the vanilla game. I could change those requirements, but I'm not going to remove all of them. That wouldn't make any sense to me. It'd be like wanting to plug in your 7.1 surround system, when the house doesn't even have any electricity yet. You simply need certain basic necessities in place first, before you can go for more advanced stuff. Also, I have seen AIP 7 and 8 research defense techs before. It's rare, but it does happen.
The reason for that is the range-adjustment based on map size. I always hated that, because it made no sense. The main reason for me to play on bigger maps is to feel the vastness of space. You can't go everywhere at the start, which means a longer exploration-phase and a bigger sense of wonder as to what is out there. Yet the range-adjustment removes that. WHY!? It's so stupid!
Anyhow, I'll probably add the Range-bonuses back to the techs, and take another look at the modules. Maybe change their base size back to 2 and change the size modifier for all of them to 10%. That would remove the necessity for different designs. I sadly can't increase the size any further or it'll break some of the stock designs. In fact, I first need to check that the 10% isn't going to do that.
The point is: "Hey guys, I made some adjustments to the AI values of the farms and morale improvements, because the AI was building way too many of them. Usually in a sub-optimal fashion, which often resulted in a worse economy. It's still a work in progress, and I could really use some feedback, because there is only so much testing I can do myself." Was that more clear?
Anyhow, the Yor are still building Stalks. They are treating them like morale improvement, which means that the Yor'll automatically build a lot of Stalks. Even on low AI values. The previous value of 50 was just excessive. All it resulted in was a ton of planets without any Collectives, because the Yor were too busy building Stalks, the Maintenance Grid, and other things. Now there is only a lot of planets like that. I'm sure I can improve this further. The other issue is that Iconia is often way below the population maximum. Sometimes it doesn't even have 10b people. The reason for this is that all the other planets have a much higher morale bonus. Often, newly colonised planets also have a problem of critically low approval ratings. The only way to solve this I can think of is to reduce the morale bonus of the Stalks, but we already went through that discussion earlier this year.
As for the other races, it's not as bad as it first appeared. I simply didn't have enough test results. They are still building morale improvements. Fewer than before, and in a more sensible manner (for the most part). However, it could still be better. AIP 8, with the exception of the Thalan, is still doing pretty bad though. I knew that would happen. AIP 8 has always been the worst in this area.Farms are still a mixed bag. The AI builds still builds them, but far, far fewer than before. In some case, this is actually good. Like the Iconians, which now build Merchant Emporiums much more often. In other case, not so much. Like the Torians, who simply can't get full use out of their SA. They either run into their pop-cap far too often, or don't have enough morale improvements to get Breeder running in the first place. Another issue is that the AI is building way too many Food Distribution Centers. Especially on food tiles, or on planets where a farm would have better results in general.
Okay.
As far as I know, the DL can't defend themselves against spies. They do have access to the Counter Espionage Center, but I've never seen them build it. That might be due to the AI they use. I don't think that they train spies. The game simply give the DL money each turn. It's unlikely that that would count towards the espionage spending. The tax income is also not enough to train spys in any reasonable amount of time. Still, I could run some test to see how the DL behave. It's been a while since I did that.
The non-factory users would build the Dread Factory. I've seen them do it with the Industrial Sector and other factories. Especially the Iconians and Thalan. So that's not an issue. It just results in mixed planets. Which would be sub-optimal.
The bigger problem is having all races benefit from the techs, without one race becoming too powerful in the process. I know I've said that the idea is to give the DL powerful techs for everyone to steal, but just consider this for a moment. Among the techs I wanted to give the DL is the Interstellar Refinery and the Molecular Fabricator. Those techs come from the Precursor, after all, so of course the DL would have access to them. However, in order to prevent the DL from losing them whenever the Iconians are in the game, we would need to make unique versions of the techs. Which would mean, that the Iconians could have two Refineries and Fabricators on their planets. Or the Thalan and Yor could get the ability to build them themselves. Could you imagine the results?
Sounds good. However, I'm a little confused. Based on what you said earlier about this topic, I thought you wanted us to only focus on the strengths of the races. No reduction to the penalties, and no bonuses to abilities the race didn't originally have.
I wish we could do that. Sadly, it's not possible without the source code.
There are a lot of instances like this in the GC2Types.xml. I've wanted to fix this for a long time, but always found it too minor an issue. I'll put it on the list of things to look into.
I actually like the look of it. Having them grouped, while all the techs around them are un-grouped, would make them stand out too much, in my opinion.
I've been wondering that myself, but could never figure it out.
That's not what I'm asking for...
The Theory-weapon belongs to Tier1 which has its own set.
Tier2 (Harpoon) has its own set.
Tier 3+4 use the same set but that's ok because it's essentially the same weapon just Photon Torp carries a varrying yield.
Anti-Matter Torp has its own set.
Which leaves the remaining set for Quantum, Positronic & Nightmare.
Instead of expanding the Anti-Matter set right into Quantum Torp just use a single modle for all quantum-weapons, then the next model for the positronic wepaon, and the final for Nightmare.
and from where can a player derive that information from? Nothing in the details, desc or in the shipbuilder suggests that information...
The shipbuilder puts all these into line by having the same name: Railgun I-V. So they're the same weapon just made more efficient.
The information on the technologies only hint that they've invented a new type of slug (=bullet) not a new form of gun. Tech "Mass Drivers" state that "we have continued to refine our Railgun technology".
Mass Driver II even states falsely "our mark II" refering to the weapon itself but the tech actually offers the Mark IV.
Be so kind and forget for the moment all the insider info you've collected while going through the game files and just try to read the tips & watch the designforms like a new player would and I'm sure you'll understand that there's some cause for confusion in the way the current outlay is. The term "Miniballs" only occurs in model-names, internal names of weapons & technologies - but nowhere ingame. Why should a player have to have knowledge about modding in order for the progression to become reasonable?
AIP7 & AIP8 research defenses when they're done with the single-weapons branch they've picked. At the same time they'll also consider going for technological victory. At that stages of the game fleet-strength has already risen to high numbers MSBs won't last long anyway and even if they would, a bonus of +3 to defense is almost irrelevant when a single ship has +100 to +500 attack.
I can't follow your logic, and it doesn't help that you're using a real-life example which is only distorting the true nature of the problem, and that has basically no similarity to what is going on in the game at all. You're somehow suggesting that the older modules are used to power up the newer modules?? Having an additional module requiring also energy should actually make matters worse, not better (in terms of electricity, but I don't think that energy is a real problem from an ingame point of view, there are so many instances on energy - FusionReactors etc - that state energy in the future is plenty...)
If you have a military base, and you want to install a new gun there - do you think that the engineers plug the gun right over or on top of the old gun? But then the old gun wouldn't be functional anymore, and in GC2 the old modules still keep working. So what must be happening is that the new modules just a find a new place to be attached to - and that is also visible ingame by the fact that starbases grow in size when you attach new modules.
The current outlay is even worse because it suggests that you're plugging the gun over existing defensive modules. I've no idea how an Armor Plating can be used to make a MD weapon functional?
So it neither makes sense nor does it help AIP8+7...
And for the end-gameplay it can be a PITA to erect new bases, esp. mining ones, when you've got to invest a thousand MP to finally be able to come to the strong modules. Until that did happens most bases will long be shot down in the intermediate. Apart from the fact that noone would still keep on installing outdated modules if better ones are available, but even if there were some obscure reasons to must have all of them at large - you wouldn't begin with the weak ones...
This is one of the reason why I've thrown all range-mods overboard in my mod. Also because the AI can send Constructors to resources, and Freighters to other worlds without having to make them internally known (ie. he's cheating).
But I'm not suggesting this now here for integration because, on the other extreme [Immense-All-Rare Map] may cause problems with the AI being unable to reach far-away stuff - which is ok for a mod esp. when my design intents to have the game more territorial, but for the official version every possible game setting should work fairly for the AI. Even if it means that range is practically irrelevant.
I just ran a test and placed 10 spies on a DL world for 3 years and neither did they steal any techs nor did the DL delete any agents. Stealing was enabled and my won techtree was not researched. Maybe stealing is disabled with the DLs? There's still a slight possibility that stealing will work via invasion...
That was just a crude rule-of-thumb intended to prevent an outlay like in 2.20 where some of the racial stats looks like a Ceasars Salad. Just look at the old Arceans you know what I mean. Making an exception here or there won't deter from the broader picture. I think the espionage-bonus to the Drath are thematically fitting since they're shapeshifters, and once War Profiteering kicks in the Drath are perhaps even the best race to deal with the negative implications espionage has for other races - I usually see them having plenty of surplus money. Plus, they had a strong espionage bonus in DL. However, I just realize that they already partly mitigate their popgrowth penalty from the Populists-bonus - we would nullify that now... Don't know if that should be done. Maybe give them another traderoute instead, so they end up with at least -1ß popgrowth?
ok thanks for clarifying that up for me
I've long thought about if I should even respond to that considering the negative sarcastic undertone of the first sentences, but you've got so many things wrong in the following paragraphs for the better good of the game I'll overlook it for now: But don't expect that I (or someone else) is able to read your mind, just state your intentions simple and clear. Which you, BTW, did NOT do, at all... and I BTW did merely ask you a question and if that's not possible to do without being countered by a sarcastic sneer I think you should take a second and just think about what an internet forum is all about, or how we are going to work mutually on the CU...???
Yor are NOT treating Stalks as morale improvements (the only exception to this are bonus-tiles, but that is actually a good thing in the broader picture...) - because if they were, they wouldn't build more than 3 on their planets (I've seen 4 but only in very isolated incidents). And in conjunction with the MaintGrid they would only build 2 of them - since the AI is limited to 3 moral improvements per planet. But that is not the case - so many planets have 3 Stalks + the MaintGrid.
They are treated as farms - and the reason why they can muster more than the generic approach is that they've got the Basic Stalks right away and it's only offering 1 food. That is, they'll need 3 until hitting the 11b target limit which then triggers the AI routine to not place any further farms on planets. Ultimately, such a planet will have a taget pop of 17b people - which is absolutely fine and in line with their HW and in lack of spamable banks their only chance to increase their economy.
The HW morale dilemma stems from the core design of their Stalks - it's impossible to solve by just fiddling around the numbers. The thing you tried to do in the past - getting the moral bonuses down to vanilla - will only make the overall Yor game weaker - you trade a -20 to -40 moral-bonus on all Initial Colonies (and that may be 100s of worlds) for an increase of 2-3b people on a single planet. The real solution is to give them a planetary-morale SuperProject in their starting techs and hope they place it on Iconia.
BTW I disagree on your initial stance that the AIs are building "too many farms" and that this would result in a sub-optimal economy. It's completely unrealistic to assume that the AI would do anything "optimal" - and even more irreal to believe that you can fix that by adjusting a single value. If you want the AI to do an optimal design you'll have to specify different sets of values in accordance with the target PQ of each planet. How are you going to do this? And maybe also specify for us what you actual mean by "optimal" in precise terms/numbers, because only then can we look out for these patterns in testgames....
If newly colonized planets start at a bad morale it only means that they've build 3 Adv. Stalks (or other morale improvements for that matter) already at many other worlds --> good. Reducing the Stalks bonus will only result in the AI having an overall worse economy, and although the moral-discrepancy from one planet-to-planet won't be that grave, the AI will have to raise taxes more stiff in order to compensate the lack of funds (or reduce his production sliders). Both a worse scenario. BTW the ultimate morale discrepancy in the generic tree is 25% more worse - 3*VRC = 120% morale. Or even the Torian ones with +150%. Stalks only generate +90% if we count equally 3 improvements.
Well you just reduced the AI from the Torian morale impr from 50 to 30 and now complain that they're not having enough moral improvements to get their SA running... it boggles my mind unable to see that you yourself artifically created that problem and even report it... The Torian morale impr are the strongest ingame, they HAVE TO HAVE an super high AI value because that is only making their game stronger - even more so when they're Breeder... And since they're limited to 3 per planet I don't see the dangers of the AI going overboard with them (it can't...) unlike facs/labs which are spamable to the extreme.
A Breeder will always run into a popcap - even a Breeder-player will do so if you don't quickbuy farms. But I don't think that there's a problem here at all - just start any testplay and observe how the Torian pop curve shoots through the roof when everyone elses pop stays considerably low. Breeder is the single most strong SA for any AI. And they have their Harvestor as starting impr which should help, and the way it is designed still permits them to queue them additional farms. Breeder is about getting new worlds quickly to self-sufficiency, not spawning endless pop or having it still kicking in on well beyond 10b pop planets...
The Food Distr Center is fine as it is. It's not possible to change it without breaking any other mechnics into which it is currently involved. The AI doesn't recognize foodbonus-bonuses as such and aren't considering it a farm at all! So any placement on a food-bonustile is coincidental, and the only thing that can be said is that the AI had no intention whatsoever to actually use a farm here - otherwise he wouldn't have used the Food Distr in the first place. And that is exactly why the Food Distr can be used by the AI to make the CivCap food from 16 --> 20. And if it's placed early on a colony, it goes from 8-->10, thus, still retaining the AIs ability to enqueue farms. Or, the other way round, if they just place a single +3mt food to arrive at target pop 11, the Food Distr is the AIs only last hope to further increase its pop to, at least, moderate levels.
Quick reply as I've got to run right now.
'New' weapon animations: I love the new Doom Ray. I didn't note other new effects, which means that I at the very least didn't find them objectionable.
Several improvements got additional bonuses assigned to them in the CU. I'm wondering whether we can remove any of them. Specifically: the econ-bonus of the Festival of Capitalism the planetary defense-bonus of the Omega Defense System the econ-bonus of the Restaurant of Eternity the influence-bonus of the Temples of Alignment the Pop-Growth-bonus of the Hall of Empathy the PQ-bonus of the Orbital Terraformer
Several improvements got additional bonuses assigned to them in the CU. I'm wondering whether we can remove any of them. Specifically:
A few maybe, but aren't the bonuses of e.g. ODS and OT the raison d'être of the improvement.
Quoting DMF, reply 1868 Please explain what you mean by "far too exploitative". The meaning is lost on me. What I meant is that Evil races are too eager to exploit natural resources, other races, or even their own people. It really doesn't matter to them whether they cause the extinction of lifeforms or the destruction of an entire ecosystem, as long as their race as a whole benefits the most.
Quoting DMF, reply 1868
Please explain what you mean by "far too exploitative". The meaning is lost on me.
What I meant is that Evil races are too eager to exploit natural resources, other races, or even their own people. It really doesn't matter to them whether they cause the extinction of lifeforms or the destruction of an entire ecosystem, as long as their race as a whole benefits the most.
That's a rationalization. Show me where it is modeled in game. AFAICT the evil races 'exploit' their environment exactly as all the other races do (with the sole possible exception of events).
Your post wasn't clear as to what exactly you were asking for.
The name of the techs changed from Railguns to Mass Drivers. That alone should give a first clue to people that something is different.
A new type of bullet usually also means adjustments to the barrel. Though in this case it might just be the motor, considering that the rate of fire got increased substantionally. Who knows? In any case, it's a more advanced form of Railgun. Advanced enough to give it a new name.
How is that false? It refers to the type of weapon (second generation Mass Driver type Railgun), not the name.
I got the term from playing DL, not modding. The CU changed the details of Railguns and Enhanced Railguns for some reason, so Miniballs no longer occurs ingame. However, I still stand by what I said. There's enough information ingame to make it clear that regular Railguns and Mass Drivers are different.
Why are you assuming that other players don't find it reasonable, or that they are actually bothered by the different models? So far, you're the only one I ever heard complaining about it.
I meant before they reach that point. Otherwise, why should I even bring it up?
You said that you find the module requirements unlogical/unrealistic, while to me they are logical/realistic. Whether the example I used is based on real-life or the game doesn't really matter. It's only there to illustrate where I'm coming from, which I spelled out in the very next sentence. I don't know how clearer I can make this.
No! I don't understand how you even got to that conclusion.
I said "like" not "as". AIP 7 requires only a low AI value before it starts building lots of morale improvements. Farms, on the other hand, require a much higher one. The Yor-version of AIP 7 is different in that it requires a low AI value for farms, before building lots of them. Just like with morale improvements. Considering that I wrote that under the topic of AI value adjustments, I thought it'd be clear enough. Apparently not.
I wasn't complaining about it. Just stating how some of my experiences with the new values were, so I could find out whether others see the same behaviour or not.
What!? I wasn't being sarcastic. It's very difficult for me to determine whether something is sarcasm, irony, or an honest statement. Especially in written form. So I always make sure that it is obvious that I'm trying to be sarcastic or ironic. Usually via emoticons. If what I wrote came across as sarcastic, then that wasn't my intention.
As I've said several times before, I have trouble putting my thoughts into words. This results in me taking about four to six hours to write these posts. Sometimes even more. Most of that stems from the constant re-writes in an attempt to be as clear as possible. However, that doesn't seem to be good enough. As is evident in the constant arguments between the two of us. They even happen when I make my statements as simple as I can. I'm at a total loss as to what else to do. Investing more time is simply not possible.
Okay, if all you want to do is to lay the blame on me as to why the discussion isn't working out, then I'm done here!
This has been my third attempt, and it's been just as frustrating as the last two. If you want to know why, then go through the previous arguments and figure it out yourself. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining it. I'll say this though: proving me wrong is not an issue. I'm okay with that. Twisting my arguments into something I never said nor implied, and then arguing against that is an issue.
I'm going to finish up what I'm working on, and then upload it along with a list of remaining things to do and an updated zip-file for Stardock. After that, it's up to you.
The Eyes of the Universe got a slight reduction to its Sensor bonus (6 to 5), but has its AbilityFactor back in exchange (+20%).
Which accomplishes exactly what?
I'd still go for Eyes regardless of how cheap/effective sensor-modules are simply because an increase to base-sensors also applies to starbases and esp. planets. With the current outlet if you just have 10 starbases you'll need to invest 40 constructors and 4000 bcs bucks to get them to sensor-cap, I think you're much better off just placing a maxed out sensorboat on top and/or building Eyes + a tiny sensorboat.
Good idea!
Maybe reduce the base sensor-bonus to Eyes to very little or nil, but instead increase its magnification-strength to ~50%.
Hard to judge the effect without knowing how the AIPs see the world. Here's a question I would like answered once and for all: Are the AIs subject to sensor range restrictions for ship to ship detection? Granted, once they see a fixed object they know it's there, but they also seem to pick up ships at considerable (unearthly?) range.
I guess I'll have to play the latest to evaluate what you've done.
Anyone changing the AI personalities from vanilla?
Where to obtain Cari's Guide?
+20 basic speed bonus is too much for anyone. Well, maybe the Dread Lords...
In the games I've played with 2.20 - all Immense - given favorable conditions the AI Terran is a RUSH MONSTER, doing things I never thought possible. It's not just speed, there's something else going on that I haven't ID'd. Maybe his Creativity went crazy?
Creativity is pretty powerful if you can get over 25%. I always buy it. Yet I've always thought that the niggling 5% from the vanilla Innovation Complex not worth the tile it's built on. But 25% (2.20) seems too much so I look forward to changes
Also, why not add 10% to the Omega Research Lab? 5% to Neutral Learning Center?
Likewise, a small War Profiteering bonus would add flavor when attached to an Evil tech or Improvement. (Those don't come until late so should not change the overall balance.)
The pre-spent customisation points... I'm wondering whether we should put some of the Thalan points into Diplomacy instead.
What's wrong with a race that no one can get on with? I say buy Sensors and Research.
Re: Maiden's comments on SBs. We have different opinions on the survivability of SBs, as I have mentioned before. Just have to play the new stuff and see, I guess...
On to the next page of comments...
Apart from the fact that noone would still keep on installing outdated modules if better ones are available, but even if there were some obscure reasons to must have all of them at large - you wouldn't begin with the weak ones...
Wait, didn't you just warn about reverting to real-world logic? This is a model. Forcing a new build to start with older, weaker modules models a state of partial completion. Huge modules don't get installed in a week. The effect is to make advanced modules considerably more expensive than stated, and take considerably longer to install. As an SB enthusiast I don't much like it, but it is not irrational.
BTW I disagree on your initial stance that the AIs are building "too many farms" and that this would result in a sub-optimal economy.
Me too. I don't see that in 2.20 anywhere near what we saw in 2.04. Rather, I'd estimate that the tendency is to build too few.
Okay, quit the quibbling. There's stuff to do.
Okay, why can't I install the new version?
As per the ReadME with the mod, I created a Mods folder in GC2.20\Twilight. The program doesn't see it. Instead, it shows me the contents of GC2.20\Mods.
So I move the mod to GC2.20\Mods. It still doesn't see it. I change a couple things in the mods that it does see (e.g. Autumn Twilight). It doesn't see those changes.
Deleted PREFS.INI. All my prefs went away, but there is no change in the listed mods.
What the hell is going on?
(BTW, do I need to delete all the RACECONFIG xmls?)
Okay, I got it installed, but IMO the thing is still broken.
I changed the name of the Autumn Twilight folder in GC2.20\Mods. It's likely that AT was the last mod I actually used. Restart. Suddenly the game is showing me GC2.20\Twilight\Mods\Default. GC2.20\Twilight\Mods\ doesn't even exist! So I made one, unzipped the CU mod into a Default folder, and now it loads the mod.
Made another mod directory in GC2.20\Twilight\Mods\. It doesn't see it. Where is all this stuff stored? It's obvious that it's not reading the file tree to determine this stuff, so what is going on???
DEBUG.ERR shows nothing relevant unless you make unavailable a file for the mod that it is using. Then it complains that it can't find it.
Okay, found a workable solution. Edit PREFS.INI directly to specify a mods folder.
This isn't a complete solution because the game engine still doesn't see the available mods folders for its list, even the folder that is currently selected. Further, in many cases it displays ModDescription.xml only for the currently selected mod. That file for the supposedly available mods is just ignored.
This may be an issue with Twilight and not with DL or DA. I started DL, looked at the four available mods. The descriptions seemed to display okay. Closed it. Opened TA and it displayed the descriptions from DL!
Any chance these are being saved in a registry entry?
I've played about 2 games thus far of the recent patch. Here are some of my thoughts:The tech tree feels like it takes longer to research and that some buildings take longer to build. This is in contrast to v2-20. Not sure if this was the intended goal so I'm just mentioning it.A lot of the tech tree, at least for the Terrans whom I've been playing as, looks a lot like the TA v2.04 tech tree.I was surprised to find that the starbase module "starbase fortification" was no longer unlocked by "space weapons". I found it moved to the starbase techs, and the rest of the "starbase fortification" modules were no where to be found. No starbase modules were unlocked by researching larger hull sizes.After playing v2-20 for a bit, I find it annoying that the first starbase mining module was +4% instead of +5%. Still, I found that with all modules installed, the total bonuses reached higher than it did in v2-20 (they reached +34% as Terrans). Higher total bonuses are A-OK in my books.I kinda find it annoying that starbase factory modules drop in value from 5% to 4% to even 3% as you add them. I would like it if they were all 5% or something. I don't like diminishing returns.A suggestion that I thought up long ago (before v2-04), is that maybe mining and factory modules should get their own spot on the tech tree. Instead of tying them to factory techs, you could advance them independently. Mind you, I thought of this back when industrial sectors had a build cost of 400 and had a massive jump in maintenance costs when compared to the previous version.
Yes, the tech tree has reverted to much closer to 2.04 and lost some features that I liked, such as requiring Logistics to advance in the Hulls tree. But I'll reserve judgement until I've played a couple of games.
The Starbase Fortification changes are subsequent to a long series of discussions on SB defenses. There are loud voices that want to avoid "invincible starbases". IMO if you've put in the research and production to make your SBs competitive with enemy fleets, and the AI hasn't, then the term "invincible" is pure spin. Nevertheless, the current changes purport to be an improvement over the weak SBs in 2.20. We shall see.
Here is my last update. The new mod-version, the changelog, and the version for Stardock.
I've updated the campaigns and scenarios to work with the new tech trees. The campaigns can also be properly played and tested now. The DL and DA campaigns were previously still in a sub-folder, which made them unavailable. All of the campaigns were also missing the map-files, which caused the game to crash everytime you tried to play one. That's fixed now. I've also removed all of the conversation-files, because they don't work from the Mods-folder.
There are still several instances of human/Human that need to be looked at. Primarily the description of the Terran homeworld in the FlavorText.xml, a couple techs in the TechTree.xml, and the Campaigns. All of the necessary conversation-files for the Campaigns can be found in the Stardock-version of the update.
I've changed the race-specific techs to be as Custom-Race-friendly as I could. However, there were some issues that prevented me from doing it completely. For example, the tags don't work for the DisplayName and Description, only the Details. So we still have Way of the Drath, Law of the Krynn, and the like, to ruin the immersion. Another issue were techs that talked about two different races, like Xeno Mysticism and Biosphere Modulator. I didn't know how to deal with that. Same with techs that used the plural form of the race name (i.e. Altarians, Iconians, Torians, etc.). Simply adding an "s" at the end of the tag wouldn't work, because not all races have a plural from ending with an "s" (like the Korath and Yor, for instance). Adding "race", "civilization", or "people" might work, but it would get repetitive quite quickly. Especially, if the techs uses those terms a lot already. Anyhow, I leave it up to you how to handle that.
Once you're done with the update, send a PM to Yarlen from SD support, along with links to the files. He'll handle the rest. In case the update from January hasn't been released by that point (likely, considering how much time has passed since then), you'll need to combine the new changelog with the old one. Here's a link to it. It's probably prudent to make a shortened version of the changelog that just details the hightlights, too. That would make it easier to tell at a glance what the update is all about.
Well, that's it from me. Goodbye.
Many changes in FlavorText.XML so far.
Done with ENGLISH.STR now. Mostly clean, but there are some real clangers that never got caught. And whoever wrote it had no concept of the agreement of plural and singular.
Is this statement true in some games?
[AllianceVictory] Form alliances with all the major races you're not currently at war with to win through alliance victory.
In TA at least, you can't win an Alliance victory while at war.
About half way through GC2_Conversations now. Overall pretty good. Most of the capitalizations of 'Human*" were appropriate. One thing that bothers me is the word "Earther". Earth need not be the Human homeworld.
Anyone coordinating the changes?
Gaunathor I only was answering a question about research I only respect you if I was the second I want to apologise I never meant anything by quoting you.
So far the latest update works fine. No major problems.There doesn't appear to be any bonuses for the orbital terraformer now. I don't need it to be planet quality bonus, but I would like it to have something beyond magically terraforming all tiles. The bonus could be a morale or population growth bonus. It is not very useful once there are no more tiles to terraform, so its kinda wastes a tile unless it gives a bonus of some kind.I don't like the fact that there are 3 modules for sensor range of starbases. One should be enough. I think if there is any more, then it takes too much work to upgrade them. Especially if you opt to build that project that greatly improves the sensor range of all ships. Then they are not very useful.I do like that the range techs now give bonuses to range once again. It makes those techs valuable in times when I can't afford to upgrade my ships.
By the way, I'm not sure what happened with Gaunathor. I wasn't paying much attention, so it seemed like he rage quit rather suddenly. I hope he is doing well and feeling better. If there anything that I do to help welcome him back, I'll be happy to try.
It magnifies all base-sensory range. For example with an ability_factor of 50%, a base +2 sensorrange will be 3.
The AIs know all fixed objects on the map right upon galaxy creation, incl. planets, suns, resources etc. This means that they can immediately send a constructor to any resource within their reach, and a Freighter to any world within reach, without having to make these destinations "known" internally.
Colonizing planets is differently, the AI is coded to make the habitable planet known by whatever ship encounters the object within its sensor-range.
All other items on the map - namely ships - have to be made known to the AI also, but only for a single time. Once known, they always can tell where the object is, even if it is far distant from their sensor-range.
In other words, sensoring for the AI works differently and isn't so important for the AI than it is for the human player. The rating still helps the AI retreating more early for example if you're chasing Troop Transports with a new ship - but after you've shot down the first your ship will be known and "the surprise factor" will be gone.
I simply took up his initial real-life analogy (which stated that the older modules are the electricity required to run the newer mods...) to show how flawed that "logic" truely is...
My demands to do away with the requirements do stem solely from an ingame perspective - and I've actually stressed these points before getting countered by real-life logic.
- If you trade for a tech that holds a module you will always be able to put that module to good use. Currently the requirements may block you from doing that - and that actually has been a topic of frustration in vanilla.
- Lategame, when ships are roaming around sporting several hundred of attack - you'll still have to premount thousand of production to have a base defended by your best modules. But the AI doesn't store 10 constructors and then goes on to erect a base - they will built it in an unprotected status, then install functional modules (mining, planetary support) and then defenses - starting with the lowest protection. This process takes too much time and is responsible for the fact that you can simply shoot down any AI base lategame without any issues.
--> The practical implication would be that you - or the AI - would see improved methods to guard freshly erected starbases - so the real question is if you think that's a good thing or not. If there's too many - or too strong - lategame starbases in your game or not?
Any module - and even the whole starbase itself - gets errected instantaneous ingame. There is no time delay whatsoever.
https://forums.galciv2.com/118797
This would open lots of new possibilities. We can only specify around 100 modules because of the artificial limitation on the number of modules that the AI can use. Currently around ~~50% of these are used for factory-enhancing or mining-mods. Becuause different techtree use different manufacturing technologies each of those unique technologies has to have its own unique starbase-modules. If we entangle this association it would be possible to reduce the total number of these mods to 20 or so.
You just make 10 economy starbase-enhancing modules and attribute them own techs, the same for mining modules. Then you integrate these techs into each correspondending techtree - which gives the liberty to add individual flavour in details or descriptions. Just the module-name & description would stay the same. You also could choose to not give all techs to all factions thereby specifying different strengths in these regions.
That statement could be falsely interpretated I guess.
What other homeworld could we possibly have?
Giving the Terraformer a planetary PQ bonus like ie. Weather Control or Gaia thingy that expands the tiles on that planet it's built upon by +2 +3?
Another problem is that the neutral-civs do also build it although they get his function for free when picking their ethical alignment.
The current situation is this:
Starbase base sensors: 3
Bonuses from techs: +1
From buildings: +1 Eyes
= 5 + 1.5 (magnification through Eyes) = 7.
Starbase sensor modules aren't magnified by Eyes so installing the modules subsequently leads to this progression:
+11
+14
+15 (capped)
If you only want to install a single module and be done with it it'll require a bonus of +8 to sensors to be capped.
I find that a bit powerful, and another thing to think about is that the AI uses these mods very seldomly. So in case of getting him into a state of alert when hostile ships near his starbases maybe the base sensor-ability of the starbase could be changed to 4.
Progression would then be:
4 + 1 + 1 = 6*1.5 = 9.
From this point on we could either make a single SB mod sporting +6s increase or maybe a bit lower +5 or +4. Keep in mind that there's still the option to pick +2 sensors via distribution points or +1 from technologists party and these option should stay attractive.
They do? I'm not seeing it. Maybe a square or two, but barely noticeable. Not entirely sure that I disagree with the current implementation, though.
Immense; Suicidal; Slow tech; Drengin vs. Korx and Alt AIPs; 8 minors.
Weirdness:
[Moved to the bottom of the thread for easier access.]
Well, mine. But that's not undesirable, is it?
The alternative of "instant powerbase" seems hardly preferable.
In at least one of your 'specials', you set Saturn as the Human homeworld in order to get the Ring bonus.
10% range from techs equates to 2 of these little squares (if you play with Grid enabled). The correct ingame term would be "parsec" while the big 15*15 squares are "sectors" . So these bonuses don't do that much but their advantage is to be auto-applied without any extra cost.
which AIs exactly?
I agree. I also find that the sensor-branch shouldn't be located that far behind in the tree - IMO it should be immediately accessable because good vision and the ability to build more survey-ships may arise quite soon for a player. I also think that Stellar Cartography should be part of the sensor-branch perhaps as starting tech or early offshot.
Furthermore, all these techs should be made untradeable AND/OR the sensor-modules need a rework. Fact is that all AIs are ignoreing these techs for very long so all GA like: Eyes, NanoRecorders and GuideBook are there for the player to build.
In the case of NanoRecorders: Unfair - why should a player have 10% research bonus?
GuideBook: Has a huge potential for abuse. The last sensor-module costs 30 production but is very small - only 3 space on a tiny hull. If you trade that technology to all AIs they may start attaching this module (which serves them very little use) to their ships thereby dramatically increasing its buildcosts == reducing their potential MMR == increasing overall fleet maintenance while not having additional firepower. And the player is basically the only one to be able to circumvent that reducing the cost of all sensors to 0 by building the GalBook.
Eyes: in my opinion this improvement should be balanced by having its maintenance increased by a fair amount.
it's exactly there... Gaunathor thought it a good idea that only the "speed-related races" do have access to it - namely Terrans & Arceans.
All other races do have different moral approaches which - all except Torian & perhaps Yor - are far inferior to the XenoEntertainment-line. Which offers +30% morale from techs, a +40% morale spamable improvement, +27% morale from TGs and +1 speed. It's one of the most prolific branches ingame...
That's true but the problem is that you can name any world as your HW or even go ahead and rename existing planets and it's impossible for us to inject code into the game that will dynamically alter these texts. Anyway, what would you propose as solution?
See above. Korx, Altarian, all the minors.
Eyes, sensors
Some good thoughts. I have no idea why NanoRecs is in the branch. GGB should be later than Sens II. Only a devious mind would conceive of using a Sensor trade offensively. It would take some arguing before I would agree to make the branch untradeable, though.
Grav Acc, Morale
So GA isn't in the tech trees of the three players? Fooey. Wait, Thalan isn't a "speed-related race"?
Morale bonuses seem okay so far, but I have three yellow crystals so maybe I'm not seeing the base effects. My opponents are sustaining 79% tax rates, so must be okay.
I really have doubts about reactivating the 300% Food tiles. One Altarian planet has one Adv. Farm and a pop cap of 32B. He's never going to be able to sustain that pop.
Earthers, mammals, monkeys
Earther is okay for flavor but is not custom-race neutral. I don't have a good alternative.
OTOH, "mammals" is especially egregious. 'Mammal' is a category of earth vertebrate taxonomy. One highly doubts that an alien -- especially a hostile alien -- would care to learn that, much less to know it well enough to use as an epithet. Even more so "monkey". Still, while it makes little sense, the flavor is good, so I left them unchanged.
This would open lots of new possibilities. We can only specify around 100 modules because of the artificial limitation on the number of modules that the AI can use. Currently around ~~50% of these are used for factory-enhancing or mining-mods. Becuause different techtree use different manufacturing technologies each of those unique technologies has to have its own unique starbase-modules. If we entangle this association it would be possible to reduce the total number of these mods to 20 or so.You just make 10 economy starbase-enhancing modules and attribute them own techs, the same for mining modules. Then you integrate these techs into each correspondending techtree - which gives the liberty to add individual flavour in details or descriptions. Just the module-name & description would stay the same. You also could choose to not give all techs to all factions thereby specifying different strengths in these regions.
Giving the Terraformer a planetary PQ bonus like ie. Weather Control or Gaia thingy that expands the tiles on that planet it's built upon by +2 +3?Another problem is that the neutral-civs do also build it although they get his function for free when picking their ethical alignment.
The current situation is this:Starbase base sensors: 3Bonuses from techs: +1From buildings: +1 Eyes= 5 + 1.5 (magnification through Eyes) = 7.Starbase sensor modules aren't magnified by Eyes so installing the modules subsequently leads to this progression:+11+14+15 (capped)If you only want to install a single module and be done with it it'll require a bonus of +8 to sensors to be capped.I find that a bit powerful, and another thing to think about is that the AI uses these mods very seldomly. So in case of getting him into a state of alert when hostile ships near his starbases maybe the base sensor-ability of the starbase could be changed to 4.Progression would then be:4 + 1 + 1 = 6*1.5 = 9.From this point on we could either make a single SB mod sporting +6s increase or maybe a bit lower +5 or +4. Keep in mind that there's still the option to pick +2 sensors via distribution points or +1 from technologists party and these option should stay attractive.
I don't like the fact that some races don't get enough wonders that it be more averaged out anyways.
Been that route. It kinda works, but they get blown up too easily in combat. In fleet they float right to the top (poof!) unless you load them up with HPs, which makes them too expensive. That's why I go for Eyes and add Sensors to ships if/when I have room. Will sometimes use SB modules.
Can't tell too much (and haven't even researched Eyes) in this game because everyone got Hypersensors in 2228. IMO. though, Ship Sensors are a little too big.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
