[quote who="Spaceturtle120" reply="103" id="3306531"]Does the issue with AI picking path of the assassin every time still exist? Can we get the latest test version uploaded?[/quote] It should be fixed. Read the whole thread.
[quote who="Kongdej" reply="69" id="3305627"]There is a big difference in 4 players playing boardgames, and the AI trying to make a fun game. I think the AI should mix up, usually if possible try and ally up to weaken the top power. But sometimes instead try to absorb the lowest player, if the AI uses the same strategy each time, its inevitably is going to be flawed.[/quote] Perhaps the AI should decide what is to its advantage, which weak players to absorb and which to ally with
[quote who="Nibelung44" reply="63" id="3305576"]I'm not too sure Drusus. I often play boardgames and usually I do that. If I'm the strongest, I go against the second (the strongest behind me). If I'm not, I try to kill and absorb the weakest, to be stronger.[/quote] What you are saying works if the only victory condition is military conquest, but if you want to go for a Spell of Making or a Master Quest, you'll want to ally with the strongest player to make sure you
[quote who="sjaminei" reply="56" id="3305448"]Still annoying that they insta declare on the second you are below them in power, makes diplomacy completely redundant, and exploration a bad idea since you want to be left alone as long as possible in the start.[/quote] Indeed. This has to be addressed. AI needs to be less aggressive towards smaller nations and the power rating influence on relations has to be lower. Diplomacy in general really needs to be polished a lot.
The balance changes look really interesting, especially the pioneer cost. I have to ask as I haven't played 1.12 yet: is the AI still able to break NAPs and declare war if I'm paying tribute? Because if it is, it should be fixed.
I have to say I love the way ALT+TAB works in Fallen Enchantress.
[quote who="MarvinKosh" reply="30" id="3301570"]Here's a problem that is common to both GalCiv and Fallen Enchantress. When you build up a superior (or even just a sufficient) military force, the AI stops trying to kick your head in and leaves you alone.[/quote] It's a design choice explained here: https://www.galciv1.com/encyclopedia.asp?action
Awesome changelog. I really like how much attention the game is getting after release. It has really gotten a lot more polished since release.
[quote]+ Performance boost[/quote] My favorite part. Units seem to be looking better, and I play with outlines off. So it's a yay from me. EDIT: Units actually look much better for some reason... I love it.
[quote who="Fuzzy Logic" reply="26" id="3285350"]Here's mine - another Focus 1.6TDCi[/quote] Brilliant color. I really love this facelift version, especially for the bigger instrument cluster display.
A 4.3 V6 is something vulgar to have in the EU. Insurance, taxes and fuel prices stop average people from affording such exotic engines. The Chevrolet Volt is actually sold in the EU also. But hybrids aren't particularly popular here, people prefer diesels. Which is what I got on my 2007 1.6 TDCi Ford Focus mk. II (International version). I get around 47mpg normally, but on long journeys I can even get 58 or higher, if I'm patient. Here's a pic
[quote who="Crispin83" reply="12" id="3284097"]I don't mean to be rude, but whats your point? [/quote] My point is that 6 years after the initial release this game is still played, bought and much appreciated. I just finished a game today playing with the Terran Alliance. I just hope the Elemental series follows the same path.
Right now Galactic Civilizations II is selling better than Fallen Enchantress on Steam. Because it's 75% off of course, but just saying.
[quote who="Wizaerd" reply="59" id="3274351"]It would, because it would reallocate development effort, time, and resources from the SP to MP, all for a very small percentage of players. So yes, it would greatly inconvienence me.[/quote] I support this unpopular opinion. Brad has explained many times how much effort, ie time and money it takes to create a multiplayer component for a game, and then there's only very few people using it, and most of them only a couple of t
Brad, make a poll. See how many people would pay $5 for a map pack DLC and how many people would pay $5 for a content DLC. Seriously, releasing a map pack DLC is like opening a donations account. Perhaps some people would play the maps out of curiosity, but that's not why they would pay. While I'm generally against this DLC trend, releasing interesting content in them will justify their purchase. But I prefer the approach you took with GalCiv 2: lots of patches packed
Make a quests, items, monsters, and random events DLC and people will buy it. The map DLC will mostly be bought by a few people who want to support the game no matter what, because I don't think people actually play pre-made maps. I wouldn't pay $5 for something I never use. You can get full on games for $5 on a Steam sale so... it's not really gonna be successful. You shouldn't judge how interested people are in DLCs for FE just by the sales an uninteresting DLC (map pac
[quote who="harmonius_" reply="117" id="3267831"]Are performance improvements from hamster applied to 1.004 beta build?[/quote] Yes. Noticeable. 1.004 is also very stable for me, but so were Brad's personal builds.
[quote who="Chibiabos" reply="58" id="3264160"]Is there a way to have a dual Enchantress installation, so I could try your private build but still preserve the latest official release (1.00 at this point, hopefully 1.01 coming soon!)?[/quote] Keep both .exes and rename as needed. You can also copy your entire game folder and keep one .exe in the first one, and the other in the second one, but this is much more time and space-consuming.
I have no problems with stability on my Intel/Nvidia system. And both my CPU and video card are overclocked.
[quote who="Tsathoggua" reply="97" id="3263721"]Are you other guys using windows 7?[/quote] I am. There's a sticky thread about performance issues on Windows XP. Did you check it out?
Indeed with Update 3 I feel a boost in general smoothness, not necessarily in FPS, but overall there are not lags anymore and the whole experience is more fluid. I seem to be getting a minimum of 28 FPS now, which is good enough for me, but more importantly, FPS seems to be consistent, and I'm not experiencing any FPS drops so far. I'm actually glad to hear it's just a CPU optimization issue, since these are classic programming issues, and you guys (by
I seems to me that Brad, in his build, set the zoom level at which pedestrians appear to very high, even on things like Wild Horses, where they would appear all the time. This means that turning pedestrians off shouldn't affect performance, since they are only shown if you zoom in really really close. On the other hand, maybe the engine fetches the models, textures and animations for pedestrians, even if they are only shown up close, so it could still improve performance turning
Since I don't have my old beta saves anymore, I can't give you a useful answer, because I have nothing to compare these results to. But I started a new game and so far, in the early stages, FPS seems pretty stable with pedestrians enabled. I will report more as I play more, when I have the time. I get around 30-45 FPS on my 9600GT. Thank you Brad for tackling this issue! EDIT: Indeed the loading screens are bugged in this build. Only the background appears, no text, no
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="93" id="3261330"]I've already seen some improvement with his personal build.[/quote] What? How? Where? I want it! How do I get it? Do I have to go to his house?
[quote who="Tsathoggua" reply="91" id="3261288"]Did anyone encounter this in the beta? Or is this new since release? [/quote] I play the game since the first Beta 4 came out, like 6 weeks ago I think, and the problem was there. It probably hasn't been fixed already because not many people have the problem, and of those, few of us actually take it to the forums. I'm eagerly waiting Brad's solution :)