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.
[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.
Thank you Ramma. Most recent game, I have researched "Battleship Doctrine" tech, but none of the "Battleship" designs are available to build. [e digicons]:([/e] [e digicons]:([/e] [e digicons]:([/e] Really hope they get this fixed soon! <img src="https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/6/39/639228/fe804877-e12e-4430-8444-775ffff962a4.png
What is even more confusing is that the "Repair Nanite Cloud Ship" is not outfitted with the "Repair Nanite" component in the Ship Designer. [e digicons]:maybe:[/e] [e digicons]:maybe:[/e] [e digicons]:maybe:[/e] This one is a complete mystery to me.
I suggest making "Piercing Breeze" the root (as in GC3), and then moving "Repair Nanite Cloud Ship" as one of the nested variants.
I think the intent was that these other variations of the ship were to become available, depending on the players research. But have yet to see that happen either. So instead, stuck with the misnamed "Repair Nanite Cloud Ship" for most of the game.
Really find what was done to the Small Beam Wpn ship design annoying. You gave it this really long name of a component I have yet to see it ever use.
I do not believe steam validates files in the "My Games" directory. You could try renaming the "My Games\GalCiv4" directory to "My Games\GalCiv4_old" and restarting GalCiv4. I do not have that file at all in my installation or in "My Games\GalCiv4" directory. So I am wondering if it is a temp file incorrectly generated?
Should be 48th char on that line.
I would use notepad++ to spot that invalid character.
I would also expect to find "Cutting Principle M0" at the top level of the ship design heirarchy, like the other primary design types. As, the following....
