[quote who="DerekPaxton" reply="39" id="3799247"] We are updating the Opt-in today to fix the issue where you are unable to load old saves. Note: this will break saves from yesterday (from the prior option update) [/quote] Well of course it would break prior saves since I had a sweet random setup and was on a roll for a change. :(
I forgot to mention that I was also seeing a weird effect on a regular basis in 1.8 from the get-go where stacking ships into a fleet via movement caused the stack to be shifted between hexes. Basically it would be sitting almost into an adjacent hex, but you still controlled the fleet by clicking on the mostly empty hex. No change after updating video drivers. --David
Not sure if I have the hotfix or not, but assuming the beta opt-in should bring it down I was freezing before and after. No mods. I'm about to uninstall and move on to something else. --David
It seems kind of odd that I don't bother researching the Translator and I can still elect myself as head of the UP and then host the UP HQ. I believe there's an option to turn off the UP, but the general idea and formation of the UP is all kind of bogus from what I can tell. Even if I wasn't in control of the UP, when did I decide to become part of it and/or allow them to tax/control me. If I'm in control of the UP, I want an option to propose NOTHING and perhaps ev
[quote who="Ryat" reply="4" id="3491363"] That is why the projects are so nice. You can just leave everything as is without having to build anything and when upgrades come, its immediately put on the back end of the list. [/quote] I'm kind of torn since if the planet isn't building I want everything going to a shipyard. But having to mess with the se
If I move the "slider" to the far right I don't have to queue anything. Looked like all/much of the effort was then directed to the planet's assigned shipyard. Do you have the planet assigned to support a shipyard? Even one really far away? This may not actually "idle" the planet, but I don't have to deal with building something I don't want. Of course, auto-upgrades won't get built without sliding back to local production. --David</
GalCiv3 Forums
I've seen the survey ship plot from inside its range area to outside its range every game so far (even without the wormhole). However, I believe I've only seen it occur when I manually turned on the Survey mode--I usually have auto-survey off and only turn it on to see where the next one is so I can manually plot to pass through some unexplored areas or star systems along the way. --David
From my original thoughts... I'd still like to see a planet retain some kind of ship building capability, even if very limited in some way. It could even be as simple as placing "allowed" ships to be built in the planet's build queue just like the stardock. This would help defend a planet as well as avoid the stardock's lack of defense. When I first started play testing I built a stardock at each planet. Eh. The last couple of games I've only bui
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="44" id="3485714"] Starbases shouldn't move starports do. [/quote] Because...? That is somewhat backwards from reality where some types of military bases are constructed and then perhaps abandoned or moved closer to the front lines or more important areas while ship building yards or shipping ports are static (and juicy targets.) --David
I noticed debug.err mentioning uploading a report to Steam. I "guess" that's OK although I prefer to know if my machine is communicating out. In any event, does this mean I don't have to upload crash reports? I did on this last one, but if I see the game reported the crash than I'd rather not spend time duplicating it. --David
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="28" id="3485157"] I anticipate as we start to play larger games, that the mobility of the starport will become more appreciated as i can build a central starport for my empire. Or slowly move a starport into enemy territory as my forward base. It provides a rather interesting "king" type chess piece. [/quote] A forward base or centralized stardock makes sense, but my assumption was that the farther it was from the support planet(s) the le
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="19" id="3484843"] The stardock moves because of how it was built. It was constructed from the planet and built to move away from the planet and hence it can move in general from original design. While starbases are constructed in space directly without the need nor designed to move in the first place. You can place better functionality on the base without designing it to be mobile. [/quote] I figured it was put in orbit in pieces, kind of like
[quote who="perigrine23" reply="6" id="3484482"] From what devs have said. the new combat will have additional attributes like range, rate of fire, and defense piercing. Let's not try to fix anything until we see what combat will look like. [/quote] Those sound like nice additions, but the alpha's are for feedback. Its easier to make adjustments/changes earlier in the development path and comments cost them nothing other than time to scan through the messages.&n
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="5" id="3484466"] As far solution to the problem what is the problem with rock paper scissors that everyone is talking about. [/quote] Not really a problem per se, just extending the universe of possible decisions and interactions. Humans seem to like three's for some reason as that tends to be what many people can keep their attention on and monitor simultaneously. Adding a fourth "thing" to track and work with makes
[quote who="thetechangel" reply="17" id="3484684"] [I do hope they migrate the 'anchor' -> 'unanchor' -> 'move' -> 'reanchor' functionality to the 'general' starbase class - it adds a tactical wrinkle that should/could be interesting] [/quote] That would be nice...even if there's a penalty of some sort in lost modules for moving the star base. However, I believe their thinking is the starbase is much more mas
[quote who="joeball123" reply="15" id="3484724"] Quoting dmjung, reply 12Fleet-wide stealth would presumably require a fleet type module. If a particular ship in the fleet has stealth and hasn't been detected yet, then it wouldn't appear in the list of ships in the fleet. That could make for some interesting surprises and traps I would very much rather that 'fleet-wide stealth' meant that all the ships in your fleet were designed as stealth ships rather than there be
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="lee66" reply="7" id="3484264"] Meh, the game is so very alpha that all these events feel like placeholders. [/quote] A lot (most) of them do, but the free ship thing changing the game also happened in GC2 way too much IMO. --David
For you guys that missed out on Imastar. I suspect Imastar2 is available. :) --David
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="3" id="3484229"] Right now there are not very many anomalies in the game and so we have a lot of derelict ships showing up. I wouldn't mind seeing this event costing the player some coins to do repairs to the ship, full repair (-$$$) / Cheap (-$) / Salave (+$$). The full repair gives you a better ship like lost defender while the cheap repaired ship would be malfunctioning lost defender or something. [/quote] That would make more sense.</p
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="2" id="3484226"] You might hold the record of most post created in a week. [/quote] Is there a prize? :)
I swear the game (and GC2) is monitoring my overall ship strength relative to the other positions and when the game decides I'm too "weak", my survey ship just "happens" to find a ship or I colonize a world that can give me one depending on my choices or some other "random" event produces a ship. Finding a derelict starship that could actually be used should probably only occur in movies. Could the finding of ships be made an option so I can turn it off?
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="3" id="3483048"] Adding just another weapon doesn't change things. [/quote] It adds another variable and possible solution to the problem. The chances you've researched an appropriate weapon/defense mix become less. To accomplish the same thing, reducing certainty, adding another weapon/defense to the mix was one idea. Rescaling the effectiveness/cost of the existing three types between games would be another method--w
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="1" id="3484158"] This problem has happened from the very beginning of Alpha 1. I hope the Devs have a handle on the problem. [/quote] Good, then I wasn't going crazy. :)
[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="11" id="3483562"] I didn't even go into possible problems you can run into if you make a fleet of ships with and without stealth. Or the possibilities and problems of having multiple fleets of multiple owners on the same tile at the same time. [/quote] All something that they'd have to think through after deciding what it should do. Fleet-wide stealth would presumably require a fleet type module. If a particular ship in the fl
I have two 30" 2560x1600 and a 3rd 27" that runs 1920x1200 which I'll eventually hook up, but I'm too lazy to clear an area for it or mount the arm right now. I believe multi-monitors are not uncommon among power users/gamers. At a minimum you can run a movie on one and your game on the other for when one gets boring. :) --David
