Zonk84

Zonk84

Joined Member # 2382093
17 Posts 54 Replies 347 Reputation

Thanks again, Zyxpsilon -- I figured it out. I basically just used the default mod folder (what screwed me up-- the TA install doesn't create a /mod/ folder in /Twilight/, rather -- it placed in my galciv2/ folder... so the missing piece of the puzzle was that I had mods in a TA inaccessible location). OK... now another question. When I used a custom map with the standard civs, the planet tiles changed each time I used it. When using mods in a custom map - the

9 Replies 8,887 Views

AHhh -- Thank you very much! Any chance you can link to one such mod? I tried searching through the library, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for... I'm really just looking for an example I can use. I assume I need to assign the mod in TA, and then map editor uses the TA settings, right?

9 Replies 8,887 Views

Never mind... That doesn't work either... I keep getting shuttled to a small planet, not the "Custom planet" I set up. I give up. I hate to be a PIA, but this is kind of ridiculous... Why can't the editor more elegantly handle custom races? Is this something that will be addressed in future releases?

9 Replies 8,887 Views

OK - It looks like I just assign 'standard' races but simply select my custom races during game setup... But now, a different problem.... I included the standard 3 starting ships... but ALL custom race ships end up next to me... mine + all other custom races. is there any way around this - or do I have to just start without any ships?

9 Replies 8,887 Views

I'm trying to create a simple map for sandbox play - I'm a compulsive CTRL-Ner - and just looking to set up a (gigantic) map including my custom races... I'm using the TA map editor to do it. However, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to include other custom races. The TA map editor only has one slot for "Custom Race". I figured if I set multiple systems to "Custom Race", I just end up getting one of the systems I set randomly, but they all end up assigned t

9 Replies 8,887 Views

I'd also check out http://www.fivethirtyeight.com. This guy's been doing polling and demographic analysis and tracking the campaign for months now. Very good stuff - if he'd be willing to share his data, I bet you couldn't do any better....

7 Replies 9,994 Views

[quote]Any chance the issues editor will be part of the final game, allowing the player to update the importance of issues or create new ones entirely so when one plays 'what if' scenarios, the issues could better reflect those of the scenario instead of the game constantly being about 2008?[/quote] Or better yet - how about the ability to import from polling firms? In fact, you'd think a SUSA, a Rassmussen, a Zogby would jump at the chance to partner. Zogby in particu

7 Replies 9,994 Views

Apparently, I'm not the only one that prefers to play on gigantic maps and enjoys epic length games... I'm not going to bother with posting the log because it's substantially similar to the logs already posted by others with the save game reload CTD (appears centered around ships/ship templates). Is there any sort of hotfix for this? I quit playing DA for a while -- and just started another game yesterday... now I remember why I shelved DA: It's impossible to finish

1 Replies 2,411 Views

Allow starbases to exist in a fleet -- or rather, allow fleets to be attached to starbases. I wholeheartedly agree that starbases need some major offensive and defensive upgrades... by mid-game, even a fully developed starbase stands NO CHANCE against a fleet. By the time the AI is building fully teched "Large" ships - forget it. Destroying a starbase should be a major undertaking. If I spend 39 cosntructors - it should take multiple fleets to destroy it, not a single attack

31 Replies 23,393 Views

Any hints on the HP addition to starbase factor? I.e., are we talking 10-20-etc -- or 100-200-300-etc? Personally, I'd be ecstatic with an option that simply adds 10 HPs per constructor (or even 5) --- but to an unlimited degree (or enormous degree). A starbase really needs a solid 6-700 HPs to survice any endgame attacks. I'd really like to also toss out the idea of allowing fleets to INCLUDE starbases with the idea that the fleet (obviously) cannot move, but rather acts a

150 Replies 104,717 Views

I don't know that this constitutes a bug, but if I could have one and just one change -- it would be to make the "guard" ship/fleet command actually do something besides 'Sentry+lose remaining movement'. I'm sure I'm not the only one that isn't playing on a dual core machine. The endgame drags excruciatingly - but I stick with it because I do love the game. However, the 'waking' of units set to 'Guard' has to be the most keyboard pounding, profanity inducing, mouse crushing issue I ha

0 Replies 1,650 Views

Also, I find it interesting that people support mutual destruction but that mutual survival never gets more attention. I could absolutely go for that -- in fact, it makes an awful lot of sense (both in earth-based naval battles and theoretical sci-fi battles... the whole "loser gets utterly wiped out" thing just doesn't happen that often). The problem would be implementation --- does it make battles 'tactical' rather than just watch and enjoy?

58 Replies 27,740 Views

I agree. Just having one mil resource while others have none can make you a winner, as your ships will attack and defend 39% beter FOR FREE. If GC would be a multiplayer game I'd be the first one to vote galactic resources out, because they unbalance the game so much. But it's a single-player game, so I can play how I want: restart, reload, cheat, or go down in flames. I never heard an AI complaining about that. BR, Iztok Absolutely... you

8 Replies 4,718 Views

I'VE BEEN WRACKING MY BRAINS OVER THIS FOR THE LAST THREE HOURS. Trying to figure out why both my attempts at playing Drengi and my custom race have resulted in me going bottom up in revenue for the first time. Stardock... that's not cool! Stop making me build so many boring tax planets. D: An easy way around this -- because I got annoyed with the 'extremes' too (easily indebted early, WAAAYY too rich late game... only the mid

19 Replies 12,055 Views

A large / huge ship with lots of weapons should be able to engage multiple targets per round. This 'feels' right and was introduced with the 1.6 combat system IIRC. I agree -- and I can't confirm this -- but the problem is that "attack multiple targets" seems to mean ANY 'multiple targets'. It doesn't make sense that a capital ship can engage (and late game -- engage generally means 'destroy') not only a squadron of small craft but ALSO another capita

58 Replies 27,740 Views

Bringing it back around to 'solving the issue' (and yes - I do think it's an issue that needs solving... it just doesn't 'feel right' that a HUGE or LARGE ship stands a much better chance of surviving and killing others when it's alone as opposed to being part of a large fleet).... I would propose 3 possible solutions: 1. nerf weapons... a LOT. I'm fine with the AI getting it's vast advantage on suicidal and whatnot, but I think weapons are just WAY too powerful all the way around in re

58 Replies 27,740 Views

I think 26 is the highest BASE planet possible (without customizing)... Anything you conquer above that I believe would be a factor of race PQ quality bonuses and possible colonization events (I've never been able to confirm this, but based on the bonuses I see attached to conquered planets -- it sure seeems like the AI gets the same "pick 1 of 3" choices).

4 Replies 3,860 Views

I still think one on fleet attacks may be advantageous in a number of common endgame situations, even if mutual destruction is possible . If I can send in a single overpowered attack ship and it takes out half or more of an enemy fleet that is a better return than what I will get sending in an entire fleet against another fleet...This is especially true on Suicidal where the AI can build better endgame ships than I can (due to difficulty bon

58 Replies 27,740 Views

I'll contribute my own little nuggets… I play obscene or suicidal, huge or gigantic maps (6-8 opponents -- all evil… I play as 'good'). I do customize my maps (custom home system with my cap planet a PQ 26, rest of system habitable with varying PQs… however -- I also play against only custom opponents -- so they get a just as good home system). I don't mess with Tech, Cultural, etc victories -- conquest only. I also set all planets, asteroids, and anomalies to abundant. Doubtless -- these

19 Replies 12,055 Views

I really do think that's the issue (multiple attacks or lack thereof)... I'm going amend my first statement to say "Logistics are pointless for LARGE or HUGE hulled ships" --- after some further experimenting, I found that survival rates for large or huge ships went up SUBSTANTIALLY when I left them out of fleets. I played 10 turn increments multiple times -- first "in fleet", then "without fleet" using the same ships. It wasn't even close... My losses via "in fleet" setups were ne

58 Replies 27,740 Views

We're pretty much even -- even with 5-6-7 PD systems installed, their clustering of blackhole eruptors is enough to fight to standoff.... If they attack first, I lose. If I attack first, I win. Both our weapons are so powerful that defenses have become pretty pointless -- 1 shot and out unless one gets an extraordinarily lucky (or unlucky) roll. Both ships essentially destroy each other -- but the attacker survives because someone must 'survive' in the system. I've noticed

58 Replies 27,740 Views

So I'm sending my big, beautiful, 57 logistics points, completely modern fleet to invade the evil Replicators... 2 Aurora class battlecruisers (HUGE), a couple Odyssey class battlecruisers (LARGE), 3 Promotheus class (MEDIUM), and a whole mess of x-302s (small). We're near the end-game, I've got all offensive and defensive techs researched - the Replicators are teched out in missile and missile defense techs... so I've got the advantage. Still -- I expect to lose a fair bit of my fl

58 Replies 27,740 Views

OK... I fixed the button text issue by redownloading and reinstalling the fonts... Other issue still remains.... gotta say, this is quite frustrating. I put DA on the shelf because the previous patch mucked up gigantic maps by keeping border sections hidden. Now - the new patch renders the game not just unplayable... but unable to try to play. This is not progress. Is there any location or way I can revert the original install beyond a system restor

3 Replies 3,257 Views

HELP! Apologies if this goes up twice, but the forum appears to be working for me about as well DA. I haven't played DA in some time - just updated all versions (of DL, DA, and also this "heightmaps" things...) I updated through CD Central -- couldn't even play. Game crashed every time I got past map size/anomaly selection. I had made some changes to the Anomalies.XML and customplanets.XML -- minor changes, nothing minor, no validity errors. Undid my chan

3 Replies 3,257 Views