[quote who="RammaStardock" reply="1" id="3933762"] Hello! So from what I've been told, 90% of these are dev only, but the others include: Default DebugOnly VerboseDebug and Spam However, it was also noted to me that turning them higher than default can result in reduced performance. I hope this answers the question, if not let me know and Ill see what I can dig up [/quote] I misspoke. They are in "Prefs.
[quote who="RammaStardock" reply="6" id="3933766"] Following Up: So the short answer is that it is working as designed. Longer answer is that when you build an improvement to harvest a resource, it's actually replacing the improvement, that is to say that the resource def is in fact an improvement def, so when you destroy the harvesting improvement it in turn destroys the resource improvement. Now though it is working as designed, the communication on this coul
[quote who="RammaStardock" reply="2" id="3933770"] Following Up: This seems to be intended, the specifics on the why however are going to need a deeper dive into the past CL notes, which may take me some time to get through/to [/quote] OK, that answers my question. ty for the followup!
[quote who="Illauna" reply="3" id="3933726"] Do you have Steam Overlay turned off? The button uses steam overlay to show the workshop [/quote] It was dependent on "Steam Overlay" being enabled.
[quote who="Illauna" reply="8" id="3933727"] Make sure Steam Overlay is turned on. [/quote] Thank you for your quick response. I believe I finally discovered this myself a week ago and posted on another forum you moderate. FYI - I only followed up on Steam as a result of the lack of any response on this forum. Ultimately I solved the problem for myself by install GC3. (however, another member of the Steam community was able to independentl
[quote who="Jikkami-Terrybay" reply="2" id="3933683"] Are you me? I came to the forum to make the exact same thread asking the exact same question. I governor-ed two low-priority core worlds in the same turn, after having built orbital Monsatium and orbital Thulium extractors on each respectively. And yeah, it sucks to realise your adjacency bonuses AND mining yields are now hampered by a not-great, un-upgradable tile improvement. Also, I loaded back to a previous s
If that is the case, then there needs to be some kind of warning informing players that it will delete the underlying resource as well.
The situation is that I have a planet that was low priority to make into a Core world until I had ample leaders. In the meantime, I built the "Orbital Monsatium", thinking I could always remove it later after I converted to a Core world. But when I do, instead of just removing the improvement, the game completely removes the Monsatium too. :( :( Is this WAD? FYI - I need to remove the Orbital improvement because as a Core world, I can improv
Can someone affiliated with the devs verify that this -2 Research is intended? This looks odd as, to my knowledge, it is the only improvement with a negative adjacency bonus.
One thing that is very confusing and inconsistent within the web of XML files is how "Destroyer" is characterized. In the classic sense, the following would be typical of naval vessel sizes: Corvette which is a bit contrary to how they are listed, in implied size order at the bottom of ShipDesignPresetCategoryDefs.xml </p
Anybody know what the allowed string values for the following? ty DebugMessageLevelDefault=Default DebugMessageLevelAI=Default DebugMessageLevelInitialization=Default DebugMessageLevelGameStartup=Default DebugMessageLevelData=Default DebugMessageLevelEvents=Default DebugMessageLevelGameCleanup=Default DebugMessageLevelEndTurn=Default DebugMessageLevelMovement=Default DebugMessageLevelPathfinding=Default DebugMessageLeve
[quote who="RammaStardock" reply="1" id="3933514"] Hello, I appreciate the thought, currently the focus is on larger features and fixes, but I'd like to hear what you had envisioned [/quote] Faster animated movement, without teleporting to the target hex. I still want to see the path traversed.
Considering these were Battleship-level blueprints, "Frigate" does not look like it would be the correct ShipGroup. "Cutting Principle" is considered a Frigate. But associating that with the previous Battleship blueprints resulted in it becoming incorrectly nested under "Immovable Stream".
I have a "local mod", where I changed those values from "Frigate" to "Cruiser" and it did help with the Ship Designer where "Cutting Principle" now appears at the root and no longer nested under "Immovable Stream".
I think the following is using an incorrect ShipGroup, which appears to be linked to some of the previous issues I have reported, especially regarding "Cutting Principle". I believe the following ShipGroup attributes should be using Cruiser instead of Frigate . This may not be the only error, but I believe it is at least one of them. However, considering the "Large" hull ty
As I understand it, there are really only 2 animation speeds when it comes to ship movement. Default (which I find too slow....) Fast Move (which is effectively, teleport to target hex) It would be really nice if there was something in between these two.
GalCiv4 Forums
[quote who="zichella1" reply="23" id="3906723"] Quoting Publius of NV, reply 22 I only have the base game on Epic, not Supernova, but Epic shows I have 34/72 achievements. I have base game and super nova. Base game in Epic shows correctly. Super Nova in Epic shows 0.<br /
The following appears incorrect in the ThinkTankText.xml file: "Wants peace and balance in the galaxy.[BR][BR][HS=HS_Tourism]Tourism[/HS] increase based on the members' [HS=HS_Social]Social[/HS].[BR][HS=HS_ShipRange]Ship Range[/HS] increase based on the members' [HS=HS_Resolve]Resolve[/HS]." Ship Range needs to be changed to Ship Maintenance .
According to the XML files, this does not impact Ship Range.
The fact that you can only research a max of 1 tech per turn, no matter your research output, has been core to GC for as long as I remember. Not sure I agree with it, as it has strange implications at times. It does tend to normalize research as it prevents any one Civ from getting too far ahead. But it also sucks when you are playing the Civ that is the leading research producer. IMO, where it really slows research down is in the Ship / Ship Component techs. <em
This is a case where "Singularity Power Plants" would be more clear as "The Singularity Power Plant" and remove any ambiguity.
Another example of why the wording is so misleading / confusing.
Then there should be no reason for them to appear in both , per my posted example, as I did not change any option.
I did not mark any class as favorite. Therefore, should they all go to the same place?
I do not understand this either. Sometimes the game places my ship designs under "Combat Classes". Other times it places them under "Featured Classes". The following is an example of the game doing both.