Thanks, Fixed for 1.2 Patch.

Thank you, the Minimap fix is in for 1.2(Unreleased). I was able to reproduce the notification list flickering yesterday and I am hopeful to get a fix in for 1.2, no promises at this time though.

I noticed that. When I loaded up my save game, the Ioconians said that I should mind their borders. The Terrans called me and gave me 172 credits. Apology accepted

Hi all,

I have already posted these on the change tracking thread but didn't seem any activity there since 1.1 so here are some things I found, please verify if they are on list, are not relevant or need clarification:

• Luxury trade route does not seem to be applied anywhere after unlocking the ideology - worth checking each ideology point if they are working correctly like the "Culling Project" one - or updating the descriptions if these rewards have been removed during development (probably not the case in case of Luxury trade routes as it is the only benefit described for the ideology point). This is a large letdown for the user as ideology is hard to come by and each benefit is kinda unique which makes it that much strange if they are simply not applied
• UP resolution results are not marked as green nor written out in status window after vote (in a few instances the status line simply displayed that someone has left the UP or what a specific race voted instead of the result)
• Resolution votes is quite difficult to read in UP with a lot of races - no summary of result maybe pie chart and/or color coding would help
• When selecting an ideology preventing other civs to declare war on the player for X turns - it is not visible on the UP resolutions screen nor elsewhere so how does the player see the rule and how long it will continue to apply? By handling this as a resolution the player could track it though it would also be limited by UP rules so if a civ defied the UP it can still declare war on the player (not a bad thing but something to keep in mind)
• The Galactic Peace resolution ending and preventing wars between UP members only seems to be valid for major civs and does not seem to effect minor ones. As minor races are also members of the UP and can even vote on the resolution it would make sense that all resolutions effect them as well (I have a screen of this as well if needed)
• Thalan Hive building upgrade tech is not reflected when selecting the Hive building (adjacency bonus needs to increase). It does take affect on adjacent buildings visible when these are selected but the Hive building prescription and tool tip does not display it correctly only the default +1
• AI is still taunting the user because of shared border even though the Ideology perk is active that removes the penalty
• Planetary spending slider adjustment does not update the building times right away, only after the user has left the planet management screen and goes back to it
• If "approval" and "moral" are the same thing then use one or the other but remove the redundant one. There are a lot of attributes for the civ and things to learn regarding manufacturing, raw production and how growth rates apply so any redundant concept is too much

Hope the old thread will be reactivated - makes sense to track changes from one place

Let me know if any of the above need further clarification

Edited:

• Colony Capital does not show adjacency bonus (though it is applied) and the description is not updated (shows +1 but provides +2)

Lord_of_Void,

Thank you for the feedback, I passed it along to our lead designer.

They are not the same thing: Approval = Morale / Population (it says so if you mouse over Approval on the planet screen). Thus, Approval can be increased by increasing Morale or decreasing the Population on the planet (e.g. sending them to other colonies in a Transport ship). Morale can be increased by buildings such as the Entertainment Center or by building Morale modules on an economic starbase in range.

(Edit: fixed typo)

The interactions with other races are much better now

Fair enough but if Approval=Moral/Pop then isn't Moral an interim KPI which is not actually referenced anywhere but in the calculation? So what is the purpose of its existence?

Here is an example: A standard "Entertainment Center" provides: +x% Moral AND +3 Level to Approval as an adjacency bonus

What the above boils down though is that another similar building gets +3 Moral being next to it and the overall KPI: "Approval" will be calculated the same as before (The "Approval" adjacency bonus is not applied to the "Approval" but directly on "Moral" as they are interchangeable). This might be a confusion in the building bonus description which occurs if a report is using redundant measures. It would be understandable to designate the adjacency bonus as something that boosts Approval if there were several Approval boosting values not just Moral

A similar issue was debated regarding manufacturing where we now have a "Base Manufacturing" value, so analogue to this we could have Moral, Raw Moral and Base Moral.

Can someone tell me what the option "Collect Gameplay Data" exactly does (might be worth a tooltip)?

It seems to me I read about this in connection to the AI development a while ago - maybe this might be even better then save-games?

Sorry wrong thread - feel free to remove

I like the AI calling more but can we please set them up to either not gift specialisations, or only do so after you've researched one in the relevant category. Getting locked out by gifts is really annoying.

I'm still unable to update.  My Gal Civ III.exe says it's version 1.1.12.0

Stykman22,

You are on the correct version. 

Okee dokee 

I agree. I suggest that traded technologies in general (not just the gifted) don't lock down that specialisation.

For me the current implementation involves a lot of tedious micro management: open Diplomacy -> talking to AI -> noting that I can't trade with them -> close communication -> close Diplo screen (why does Escape not close it?) -> waiting a few more turns then open Diplomacy -> talking to AI -> looking at their technologies -> close communication -> close Diplo screen (why does Escape not close it?) -> open Technology screen -> browsing /using search function to find that particular technology -> closing Technology screen (why does Escape not close it?) -> open Diplomacy -> talking to AI -> trade the specialisations -> close communication -> close Diplo screen (why does Escape not close it?)

My suggestions:

• Traded technologies should not lock down specialisations
• Rename specialisation technology names so that you can more easily recognise the specialisation , e.g. Kinetic Weapons Improvement II: Manufacturing Costs
• Add visual Feedback on the Diplo screen (e.g. an icon next to the planet, or a circle at the base point), so that you can tell at a glance which race you can trade with (lack of this is currently holding me back playing with more races)
• Make Escape key close screens

I am not a native English speaker, but after briefly looking up moral vs morale the latter seems to be the correct word.

The source of confusion seems to be that when the game says "+3 Level to Approval" it means "+3 Morale" (likely a bug!). After adding all Morale modifiers the multipliers are applied. Then Approval = Morale / Population. At least, that's how I understand this system, which is intuitive to me.

The Starbases list has a cousin problem to the one in the Notifications list. It isn't a flickering thing, but the response to the filter choices is erratic.

Sometimes filtering for Shipyards works, sometimes it doesn't. The most common pattern I see is a good result on first use, followed by a stretch where I have to click Shipyards, click another filter, and then click Shipyards again. Occasionally after the problem has 'activated' it goes away for one or two 'instances' but it always seems to return.

And since folks are talking improvements here, I'd like to second

In addition to a bit more info in the UI, I'd also really appreciate some context menus in the management windows, e.g. right-click-->Make Obsolete in the Designer, and a general pass for 'sticky' settings in lists, e.g. the filters in the Starbases list and the turn-span on the Timeline tab. Some thoughtful context menu additions could go a long way towards lowering micro-management overhead for those of us who love the Ludicrously Large and Long games.

Is there a reason why "Share Exploration" treated can be selected from both side at the same time?

First I though it would double the run-time but it remains 50 Turns, still the AI considers it as an "expense" when requested although it does not seem to make any difference once the player offers it - it simply makes the trade more costly for the player when requested so only make sense to offer it.

Treaties effecting both parties need special attention on how they are described and the effect applied. It also makes me wonder what its worth actually is as if I offer it the AI is happy, and if I request it the AI wants something in return - still the result seems in both cases to be the same

I know what causes this bug, and I could fix it myself tomorrow. They implemented a new system called "BestDefense", which tells the default schematics to always put what it thinks is the best defense for the current makeup of the galaxy. Unfortunately, when they implemented this system, they changed all the blueprints in the game so that instead of evenly balancing the defenses and then focusing on one to reinforce, they all stack "BestDefense", and since that means the game is now relying on the AI's... "better judgment" to build every defense setup, means every single ship has only one kind of defense. In most cases, it happens to be Point Defense.

The obvious solution to this problem is to not force every defense to be only the "best defense", but tell the blueprints to have 1 of each type of defense, and then use BestDefense for the filler defenses.

Given bestdefence worked fine for a while i'd say it's more the code behind the scenes that's got jiggered. When they made the change initially it did mix types. Seemed to go on the basis of the best type of whichever defence value was smaller.

Wasn't it planned that the AI would adjust to the player's ship outfit choices? At least that was my impression in the pre-launch dev-streams.

I'm still getting the frozen game after hitting the Turn button... Sucks I haven't been able to complete any of my last 3 games on an excessive sized map due to this bug. I've already sent a link to my save game to Derek. Hoping this one can get crushed once and for all!

@RaumWaetcher: Again i saw that too pre-brekage with best defence. it seemed to factor in effects like what the opposition was fielding as weaponry.

I don't recall that being the case. As soon as I noticed the Best Defense thing in the code, that's when everything started screwing up. I could be wrong, however, as I've taken a break for some time.

Regardless, here's the work-around. This mod additionally improves a lot of the default blueprints, notably giving Freighters some actual Engines, as well as giving defenses to the default AI Defense ships, as well as giving every ship Interstellar Drives in their filler category.

Agreed; the trades are inverted from before, so that instead of asking for your tech for 75 credits, they want 75 credits for their tech. I find myself clicking "yes" to most of their offers now.

they might be ever-so-slightly too talkative now, however. I think at one point, the Drengin begged for credits literally every turn until I said no.

You're not wrong. I said pretty much exactly the same thing. Both of us have pretty intensively investigated and modded the file in question both before and after the change, while Karl never looked in it prior to the alteration (in fact, he was unaware of the existence of specific defense type enums) , so I'm fairly sure he's just recalling the blueprints when they specified individual defenses rather than any point where BestDefense was splitting them - after all, why would it? It's intended to use the highest defense type available.