Mark Short

After about 10 attempts finally got my own sector.... but nothing like I wanted for the rest of the Galaxy. I do not want a huge sector and the rest of the AI to be starved of expansion space. Desired: 8 Medium Sized sectors with approx 2 Civs / Sector. I was previously able to do this from the UI without having to go Mod an XML file. FYI - I changed the Galaxy settings to "Large" this time hoping it would give more space for more Medium sized sectors.... but n

*sigh* Rolled again. Sectors are now too **** big. I know there are at least 3,4,5,more other Civs in the following. Actually, I much preferred the base GalCiv 4 settings (before even SuperNova). You really had much more control on Galaxy map generation than either SuperNova or v2.7. In basic GalCiv 4, I could easily generate 8 sectors with 2 Civs per Sector. Try doing that now! <img src="https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/6/39

Instead, I believe the correct location is actually: xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation= "../Schema/DoctrineDefs.xsd"

The current configured location of the DoctrineDefs.xml schema is not being found and is incorrect relative to the DoctrineDefs.xml file:

Piercing Breeze is now showing up correctly in the build list. [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

Basically, what I want and was previously able to do was generate a map with a lot of small to mid-sized sectors. What you have now is a chaotic mess with many of the user map generation settings completely ignored. [e digicons]:maybe:[/e] [e digicons]:maybe:[/e] [e digicons]:maybe:[/e] How exactly can removing a player's control over the map generation parameters be perceived to be an "improvement" or a good thing?

This is what those same settings give me now. Are you kidding me???

Previously, I was able to almost guarantee I would be the sole inhabitant of my starting sector with the following settings. Now, it is no longer the case and it is next to impossible. :( :( I do not remember anybody complaining about the previous map generation settings.

To be clear, in the ShipClassDefs.xml file, the following changes are needed: <span style="color: #cccccc; --da

Gentlemen, Not only have I previously reported this issue, but now I have provided a fix. Please incorporate this fix to your ShipClassDefs.xml file as soon as possible. Thank you.

This is the same issue as reported regarding the NaniteCloudShip ship classes, except it is regarding the ShieldBubbleShip ship classes as follows: AltarianShieldBubbleShip TerranAllianceShieldBubbleShip_Name

You guys have the wrong data values for the following: AltarianRepairNaniteCloudShip TerranAllianceRepairNaniteCloudShip_Name TerranAllianceRepairNaniteCloudShip_Dec

v2.7 made no difference.

The screenshot is to show an example of the side-by-side comparison done and the type of changes made in the v2.7 update. Just the ones I have reported, which remain unaddressed include: Beam Wpns vs Particle Beams (also previously reported by others) Incomplete / inaccurate leader trait tooltips Issues with the Ship Design and Ship Availability Incorrect linked ship types in the Ship Designer Ships not becoming available to buil

I have a screenshot of this occuring. (had to snip from a video recording...) This is where it is drawing the over-sized tooltip rectangle and subsequently resizes to the appropriate tooltip size. It makes for a very ackward and distracting UI experience. <img src="https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/6/39

After doing a side-by-side compare of the latest v2.7 data files, I cannot see any fixes to the reported bugs in the XML data files. This makes me sad. :(

[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.