No problem at all. V5.7.2 was very, very minor.

 

You mean weapon wise? If I may offer a piece of advice there's two things you can do to make scenario editing/correcting a lot easier.

1. Back-up your Twilight\Data\English folder.
2. Overwrite TechTree.XML and all the race techtrees with the CU versions
3. Copy the campaign scenario's into the \Community Update\Data\Scenarios folder
4. Start the scenario editor \Twilight\Tools
5. Load the first scenario in the editor
6. Fix the weapons.
7. Rinse repeat.
8. Copy scenario's back to their original location

I'm afraid the link doesn't work. Please send me your dropbox name and I'll share the file archive folder.

Let's keep our files in one place.

Hey Mabus,  I don't have dropbox.   I do have a perfectly functional FTP server,  if I remember to recycle it after I update the file list.   /facepalm

I also have no intention of trying to make my FTP server the "go-to" for files.  It was convenient and easy to toss the initial version up there. 

Anyway,  I recycled it and changed the port # - I was trying it from work and it seems a lot of places will block 6666 due to it being an IRC port.  Whups.

Try this:

ftp://guest:[email protected]:60063

Should work this time.

If I end up posting a lot of files I'll maybe.. possibly.. begrudgingly.. sign up for Yet Another Internet Thingie.  Question though:  does DropBox require/install an app on your computer or is the whole thing a web interface?

 Edit:  I noticed that my FTP server was throwing an error for some people.  After some googling it looks like my version of CerberusFTP has a bug,  so I turned off the setting that causes it and things look ok now.   It occurs to me that I am making a pretty strong argument for dropbox,  despite myself. 

You can access the web interface without needing the app, but if I'm being honest, having Dropbox integrated as a folder you can drag files to is very convenient.

This. Much easier than setting up and maintaining an FTP site.

I've added the Weapon Cycle to the File archive. I'll sync it with 5.7.2. 

Thanks Mabus!!  Much appreciated.  I've taken my FTP server down for now and will probably set up dropbox in the near future,  unless the first cut of the weapon cycle is perfect and we don't need to fix/tweak anything (ha!).

Will start running some test games to see how things feel.

I just bought Galactic Civilizations II: Ultimate because of the Community Update  

Welcome to the community, Azuran!

The Community Update is in great shape right now,  I'd recommend the latest version (5.7.2) without hesitation.

There is also a weapons tweak under development but it is still experimental.   You can find it in the file archive as "Weapon_Cycle.zip" -- it is packaged as a full mod and can be installed alongside the Community Update.

Either way,  make sure to grab the most recent executable.  When you fire up GC2 you should see version "2.042" at the bottom of the main menu.

Enjoy!

 

Holy carpal tunnel,  batman!  Fixing scenarios is going to drive me to drink! .. er.. ok.. drink more. 

I had no idea the scenario editor was so crude.

And all I'm trying to do is rectify the disappearance of Kanvium and Droid Sentries,  and the introduction of Adaptive Chaff.   Basically trying to ensure that any civ that started out with T4 defenses still has full T4 defenses,  and likewise for T3.

And I'm finding tons of little issues along the way -- Altarians with full tech that don't start with "A History of Benevolence",  for example.   I don't know if I should be trying to fix those or not.

So.. much.. clicking..  but it's going.  Mabus,  thanks very much for the scenario editing tips.   This is the last thing on my agenda for Weapons Cycle,  after that its all testing & tweaking.

Thanks, I am using the latest executable. I have questions. 

1. Entertainment buildings/planetary improvements say they increase happiness, but shouldn't they say instead that they increase Approval?

2.As a new player, I am confused of the difference between happiness and Approval, are they the same thing?

3. If Approval and happiness are the same thing, perhaps the word "happiness" should be changed to Approval in buildings/planetary improvements?


4. If using Logic Sequence HD mod, the only thing to not copyover from it is the raceconfig.xml correct?

1/2/3.   Morale/happiness are the same thing,  in that they have an effect on planetary Approval.   It isn't linear,  though.  +10 Morale/happiness will not necessarily give you +10 Approval on all worlds.   High pop planets are harder to impress.

4.  Not sure.  Maybe one of the more experienced modders can chime in on this one.

 

So, for review, if i want to give the weapon mod a try, i need to:

• Overwrite the .exe
• Install 5.7.2, as per normal mod installation procedure
• Unpack and overwrite the files in the weapon mod zip file

Correct? Or are the weapon tweaks already folded into 5.7.2?

@Mabus / Silas:

If we intend to have weapon tweaks (of whatever sort) in the final CU, i would like to propose that we label this as an official SVN 6.0.0 branch and keep development altogether. That way we are not overwriting files manually when testing changes. If weapon changes do not work out, we can always go back 5.7.2 as a clean slate. Non-weapon changes can be made to the 5.x branch (aka "trunk") and ported over to the 6.x branch. (Plus, you get to learn all about version control, which I'm sure will help you in your professional career ;-))

1.  Overwrite your .exe with the exe from the File Archive.   Your main screen should read version "2.042".

2.  Install Weapon_Cycle.zip from the File Archive.     It is CU 5.7.2 + Weapon Cycle 1.0 Alpha.

That's it.

I don't think there are any more changes intended to the CU mod aside from the Weapon Cycle addition,  and that's in the test/tweak phase,  so the remaining changes should be minimal.

Also,  Mabus already has the project under version control.   I expect if Weapon Cycle proves to be an improvement that it will be rolled into the CU proper and the Weapon Cycle "branch" will be discontinued.

That said,  there hasn't been nearly enough testing yet.   The numbers look good on paper,  but lots of stuff has looked good on paper before.      I finished updating the campaigns/scenarios this evening and should be able to do some proper testing over the next few days/week.   Any other testing/feedback would be fantastic too!

 

Okay, thanks. I'm eager to get into it, but i was waiting until the rest of the adjustments to starbases, defense, etc were in. I'll try it out this week hopefully. Many other more important things come first, of course.

Already did that . V5.7.2 - WC has it's own repository, etc.

 

Weapon Cycle V1.0.1 has been released.   It is based off CU 5.7.2.

The only differences between 1.0.1 and 1.0 Alpha are scenario and campaign fixes.   So if you aren't playing scenarios or the campaigns,  you don't need 1.0.1.

The file can be found in the file archive. 

And,  I'm going to have to agree,  DropBox is pretty slick and unobtrusive.

I saw a few pop-ups a while ago so I knew you'd gotten it to work. Glad to hear you're also enjoying it.

 

 

Hi, I already asked more or less the same question, you can find the answer a little up in this thread.

Early game test results (10 players, Large/Abundant map):

Boy,  is it nice to see AIP7 colonize outside its own borders.   Most of the spots I saw them grab should eventually work out for them (otherwise low-influence areas),  so I don't know exactly what changes Frogboy made but they seem to be working nicely.

50 turns in and there's nothing to comment on research-wise,  all the AI seem to be doing a bang-up job getting necessary early techs and building infrastructure nicely.

Now, focused on weaponry:

2 civs (Drath, Iconian) haven't made any weapon choices yet.

One civ (Torians) liked all three and made it up to the 2nd weapon (not tier) for both beams and drivers.  In a sign that the AI must at least look a little bit at cost effectiveness,  they were only building Driver ships.  Early fighter was 1/0/5 for 57 bc.   It will be interesting to see what the Torians do when/if they get to T2 weaponry.   And also if they're still using Tiny hulls. 

The Yor, Terran, and Krynn picked Drivers.  Yor fighters were 2/0/8 for 80 bc,  Terrans had no fighter designs yet (?!),  and  Krynn were making 2/0/8 fighters for 100bc (only had 2nd stage drivers).

The Drengin picked Missiles(Stinger I only).  Early fighter was 1/0/8 for 80 bc.

The Thalan and Korath picked beams.  Thalan fighters were 4/0/8 for 220 bc,  and the Korath had 2/0/8 for 130 bc.  However,  the Korath had just picked up Particle Beams I and could have been building 4/0/8 fighters for 120 bc!  I'll watch them to see when they actually start building kick-ass T2 beam designs.

Overall I'm pretty pleased and things look like they're working as designed.  It will be interesting to see how the Torians develop (if they switch from driver designs to beam designs in T2 I'll be very impressed).

More as I get the chance to play;  I'm trying an early rush as the driver-happy Arcaens,  probably against my Krynn neighbors,  who also have drivers and so aren't likely to suddenly leap ahead of me.  Unfortunately my other neighbors are the Korath.  Eep.

Early feedback:

I'm playing a large, full-house scenario on Crippling with fast tech speed (i normally play normal speed).

It's been mostly quiet so far, but i'm now at mid-game and wars are starting to break out. There seems to be a decent mix of weapon types being researched. I don't think the changes make a huge difference to type selection. It's more or less random I'm thinking. 

The overall feel of it is not much different. Probably because weapon progression is a slow process. I do note that the jumps up feel more worthwhile, regardless of weapon type. (I'm guessing the progression in firepower is more linear and less exponential than it was).

I'll post more when i get further into the game.

Verdict: rebalancing the weapons is a difficult thing to gauge outside of a simulator. It will likely take a lot of people a lot of time to get a feel for. But it feels fine as-is.

Up to turn 100 in my test game.

I've seen enough of the T1/T2 ship designs from the AI to conclude that,  at the least,  I didn't break anything in the low end.  The cost and space effectiveness is putting things about where I expected.

The AI seems to redesign its ships with nearly every new weapons tech.

T1 and T2 Heavy Fighter designs seem to be pretty standard.  I've seen the following AI designs:

T1 Driver:

* 2 techs: 2/0/8 for 100 bc

* 2 techs (Iconian): 2/0/8 for 80 bc

* 3 techs: 3/0/8 130 bc

T2 driver:

* 1 techs:  4/0/8 for 140 bc

* 3 techs: 6/0/8 for 190 bc

T3 driver:

* 3 techs:  6/0/8 for 150 bc

T1 beam:

* 3 techs: 4/0/8 for 220 bc

T2 beam:

* 1 tech: 4/0/8 for 120 bc

* 2 techs: 6/0/8 for 160 bc

* 3 techs: 8/0/8 for 200 bc

T1 missile:

* 1 tech:  1/0/8 for 80 bc

* 3 techs: 4/0/8 for 200 bc

T2 missile:

* 3 techs:  6/0/8 for 210 bc

 

From the wars that have broken out so far,  it looks like a bigger industrial base is still more telling than weapon choice,  as it should be.  But it's enough of a swing to give an interesting dynamic to the weapons.   For example,  I'm sweating bullets knowing that my Driver ships,  which though not terribly good were cheap enough to build by the bucketfull and surprise the Krynn,   are going to soon move into a distant third against the Drengin T3 missile boats,  which they should have shortly.   And I'm not getting T4 drivers anytime soon.  

I have a feeling that if the game does not explicitly tell new players about these weapon type relationships, they probably wouldn't ever notice. So it wouldn't factor into their decision making unless they had played through each of them in many different games to get a feel for how they play out.

So i think you're right. It makes a difference, but there are other factors that make a bigger difference.

True.  It's a double edged sword -- if the relationships are too obvious to new players,  they're probably broken.   But if they're tuned right you have to look for them.

As a mod,  we can get away with putting a warning in the mod description.   But if Stardock does as we hope and integrates the CU into the base game,  and the CU ends up including Weapons Cycle..  we'll have to do something a little more noticable.

What do you think about a blurb in the first weapon tech of each tier?

Drivers,  for example,  could have "Bullets in space!  Better than early beams and missiles." in the description that gets shown in the tech browser,  and further reinforced in the tech details where it is pointed out that,  although bulky and weak,  they are dirt cheap.

Laser would get "Zap stuff!  Powerful but expensive." in the T1 blurb,  again with more detail in the description.

Missiles would get something similar.  We could do the same for each tier and literally make it unmissable unless the player reads absolutely nothing.

Short 5-word mini-descriptions would be best. I don't generally read the "color commentary".

I really wish there was some way of expressing "size" on the tech description. I understand why it can't give a hard number. (That's really a complaint about the whole galciv2 ship design system, but i'll ignore that)

We also have to consider that T3 weapons are better than T1 weapons of any sort, so descriptions like "better than beams" is misleading in different contexts.

We could come up with standardized keywords in the short text. examples:

• "A slight improvement of [previous tech]"
• "A good upgrade to [previous tech]"
• "A revolutionary replacement for [previous tech]"

 We could also just add a totally arbitrary "rating" system in the descriptions: "Weapon Awesomeness: 8"