Again.

Yea; sorting! the diplo additions will not hurt either.

Also can we have an option globally to control planetary governors, not just local. That would save a lot of clicks.

By mini constructors I am thinking a minimal build to create the constructor.  It looks like this system should work well.  Actually I think the request constructor method isn't that bad...except it doesn't build a minimum constructor, but rather the default constructor that has extra range stuff, engines,  etc.  Another issue is knowing what can currently be built in a certain category...how many research modules are available, for example.

I am hoping that after calling for the constructors it wouldn't a problem to stick an alternate ship in the queue as needed.   That's an essential operation, imo.

Overall looks very good!

I got more info.  Ashes is hogging all the QA resources.  So 1.7 has been submitted to QA but it hasn't passed QA yet.

When he said mini he was talking only about screen size.

What I see here is you need more QA, I'm in Let me know where to sign up lol...

All that aside thanks for the update.

Okay, thanks.

How about the accompanying DLC, BTW?

v1.7  yea! 

According to the roadmap 1.7 will not have any DLC. 1.8 and 1.9 will.

• Version 1.7: Starbase micro update [Spring]
• Version 1.8: The BIG UI update [Spring 2016] | DLC 5: Legends
• Version 1.9: The mega mod update [Summer 2016] | DLC 6: The Workshop

Workshop!!!

Sorry.  Consider it a Pavlovian response.  One of many.

I think they are aiming for this week, but that will also depend on QA.

Has the way engines and sensors stack been changed in 1.7? So the crazy ranges are no longer possible. e.g. ships that can move 100 parsecs and kill off all the ai's in a turn? I haven't wanted to play again until that is changed.

Heh that's an interesting point, Longdead.  I wouldn't want the movement speed changed though, it seems to me that in a war the AI should be grouping up its ships sooner so that you have to take on entire fleets rather than just sniping all the one offs.  That seems like the glaring error to me - all these little ships with 7 move seeing all their friends getting mowed down and the AI just has them continuing on to their distant waypoint, not trying to group them up to mount a defense.

I realise that might add a bunch of time to turn waits but it seems like a price worth paying since if you find yourself completely overpowering an AI it's not super fun to just fly around cleaning up all the orange (coughfuckingkrynncough).

edit:  Actually come to think of it, I do like being able to haul ass to get where I am going, but having a battle eat up, say, 25% of your remaining moves wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as you could still initiate with 1 move left.  If I had 100 move and at 24 remaining, couldn't start the battle I'd flown all that way to fight, that wouldn't be fun.  And the point is that the battle itself, and its aftermath, would take up a chunk of that turn's time that would otherwise have been spent moving.

This is something that we are looking at. 

pshaw:  will the AI ever get to attack more than once per turn with a given fleet?

Stacking the way you are talking about is not a bug. The ONLY way to move 100 hexes is to have a HUGE ship, AND get the movement bonus perks via anomolies AND have 4 or 5 STELLAR FOLDERS in your ship. If you go through the trouble then its a feature and you should be able to move that far. The SAME perks can ALSO apply to the ai thus its not a bug. 

Sensor stacking has been in game since ALPHA and is also normal. What needs to be fixed is the incorrect scaling of life support as compared to the way stacking works with all other ship components. 

Play on Insane and there is NO way to get 'across' the galaxy in one turn ever. When anomolies first came out, i got the movement perk 4x in a row. I stacked 6 S.F on a Huge beam and I was able to move about 3/4 of the distance of an Insane map. Since that time the perk itself and the chance it occurs have both been adjusted down. 

Thanks, Paul. Glad to hear you guys are looking at it. If engine stacking/hull capacity % would function more or less how it did in GC2, maybe that's the way to go? I also agree about attacking using up some of the moves.

This doesn't make it a good idea.

Doesn't make it a bad idea, either.

I for one enjoy exploits that let me play on the harder difficulties!

The 1.7 opt-in is up now.  We'd love to hear your thoughts and impressions

https://forums.galciv3.com/476400/page/1/

Please, tell me, how I can turn it off?

I don't want automatic process, I hate when my queue is building how it will, I hate when my shipyards are building old constructors instead my newest ships that's I need, I hate when my constructors are flying through pirate bases or cosmic animals, and they - my constructors - was die, etcetera. 

I want manually manage my bases, how it was before.

Quoting SergSVow, reply 49

Please, tell me, how I can turn it off?

I don't want automatic process, I hate when my queue is building how it will, I hate when my shipyards are building old constructors instead my newest ships that's I need, I hate when my constructors are flying through pirate bases or cosmic animals, and they - my constructors - was die, etcetera. 

I want manually manage my bases, how it was before.

You can select which constructor the base requests...      Design a new constructor change the base request (though this would be best if it were a master  Starbase management tab that auto updated the queues)

Or you know if you want to just manage how it used to be... don't make a queue at the starbases...   problem solved.