Open Beta Patch v1.27a (18 june 2025)

[ramnblam]

ORIGINAL: Vic

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

Edit: So tell me if I'm getting this right, I should be able to block a road 100% and if I uncheck the pull points box, points that units and assets are required should be getting through right?

Because this is not happening at the moment. Or am I completely misunderstanding the system?

This should work with v104-beta5. I made a fix that could have caused this to not work the previous version.

As per Destragon's post, this function is still not working for me on a fresh beta 5 game.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

ORIGINAL: Vic

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

Edit: So tell me if I'm getting this right, I should be able to block a road 100% and if I uncheck the pull points box, points that units and assets are required should be getting through right?

Because this is not happening at the moment. Or am I completely misunderstanding the system?

This should work with v104-beta5. I made a fix that could have caused this to not work the previous version.

As per Destragon's post, this function is still not working for me on a fresh beta 5 game.

I also sent a savegame and bug report via another channel regarding same [1.04b5].

[Destragon]

Here's another weird interaction between pull points and branching penalty.
In this situation, there's a junction, but no logistics points actually travel south, because they all get pulled to the east. But even though no logistics head south, the branching count is increased by 1 anyway.

[demiare]

ORIGINAL: Vic
-Public Production Penalty % below 50% now gets a roll where the effect is upped to 50% penalty for an Asset if you roll 1d50 below or equal to the Production %, if you roll above 0% penalty is applied.

It's insanely huge buff to Production Penalty. Previously cost of having Mystic Temple cult was almost negligible as long as you take in mind that each building will be delayed by 1 turn.

Now with a previously trivial 1-9 Production Penalty could happily trigger -50% penalty for a Rail Station level IV in your capital, efficiently crippling your whole logistic system for a next turn. Get it for a two-three turns in a row if you're REALLY unlucky (and I'm having constantly repeating public product > crisis of egoism ages in my latest game) and it can cost you whole game in a tough starting situation.

Are this was intended to make those guys such monsters from your regime's viewpoint?

[GodwinW]

To be honest I do not get the reason either. It does seem very harsh.

[NoodlePickle]

Thanks for the updates and adjustments. This game is amazing!

[Pi2repsilon]

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

To be honest I do not get the reason either. It does seem very harsh.

IIRC it arose from the construction time issue of "that it takes a full extra turn to construct whenever public production penalty >0% is rather silly", and doing it this way ensures that when the penalty is less than 50% you have a scaling chance to just use the normal number of turns rather than one extra, which seems a decent solution to that problem.

Applying it to every asset's daily operations, on the other hand, seems nuts. A 50% penalty at random on critical infrastructure like logistics or power is a really, really bad idea.

So I assume it is just an unintended side effect of implementation and that when we raise this issue construction and daily operations will be treated differently. That's what we've got betas for - trying new things and spotting problems with them before official releases are made.

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: Pi2repsilon

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

To be honest I do not get the reason either. It does seem very harsh.

IIRC it arose from the construction time issue of "that it takes a full extra turn to construct whenever public production penalty >0% is rather silly", and doing it this way ensures that when the penalty is less than 50% you have a scaling chance to just use the normal number of turns rather than one extra, which seems a decent solution to that problem.

Applying it to every asset's daily operations, on the other hand, seems nuts. A 50% penalty at random on critical infrastructure like logistics or power is a really, really bad idea.

So I assume it is just an unintended side effect of implementation and that when we raise this issue construction and daily operations will be treated differently. That's what we've got betas for - trying new things and spotting problems with them before official releases are made.

Well nuts is a big word, but i agree. Limiting this to construction only for beta6.

[ramnblam]

ORIGINAL: Vic

ORIGINAL: Pi2repsilon

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

To be honest I do not get the reason either. It does seem very harsh.

IIRC it arose from the construction time issue of "that it takes a full extra turn to construct whenever public production penalty >0% is rather silly", and doing it this way ensures that when the penalty is less than 50% you have a scaling chance to just use the normal number of turns rather than one extra, which seems a decent solution to that problem.

Applying it to every asset's daily operations, on the other hand, seems nuts. A 50% penalty at random on critical infrastructure like logistics or power is a really, really bad idea.

So I assume it is just an unintended side effect of implementation and that when we raise this issue construction and daily operations will be treated differently. That's what we've got betas for - trying new things and spotting problems with them before official releases are made.

Well nuts is a big word, but i agree. Limiting this to construction only for beta6.

haha

[Vic]

Posted beta-6

Big extra added for Planet generation!

best wishes,
Vic

[lloydster4]

Vic, regarding the decreased cost of Rail along existing roads:

Does this decrease the IP cost, Metal cost, or both? I feel that metal costs shouldn't be affected.

[Destragon]

This is an amazing update. Those history options are pretty cool.

Here are the new options for anyone who's curious. You can apparently select multiples of these.


It looks like 100% block traffic signs still won't let pull points through. I assume this is still being worked on?

ORIGINAL: lloydster4
Does this decrease the IP cost, Metal cost, or both? I feel that metal costs shouldn't be affected.

It only affects the IP cost.

[jimwinsor]

A suggestion on the Alien Life History Class option: Currently it forces both plant and animal life to appear. This means if you pick a Seth planet and force life, 99% of the deserts will disappear and be replaced with grasslands and forests. Which essentially makes it no longer a desert planet. Meaning I might as well have chosen Medusa in the first place.

What would make this option a bit more interesting would be limit the option to animal life only. That way, you still would retain the essential look and feel of each planet's geographic classification.

[jimwinsor]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

A suggestion on the Alien Life History Class option: Currently it forces both plant and animal life to appear. This means if you pick a Seth planet and force life, 99% of the deserts will disappear and be replaced with grasslands and forests. Which essentially makes it no longer a desert planet. Meaning I might as well have chosen Medusa in the first place.

What would make this option a bit more interesting would be limit the option to animal life only. That way, you still would retain the essential look and feel of each planet's geographic classification.

Although I do admit this Cerberus planet looks interesting:

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

A suggestion on the Alien Life History Class option: Currently it forces both plant and animal life to appear. This means if you pick a Seth planet and force life, 99% of the deserts will disappear and be replaced with grasslands and forests. Which essentially makes it no longer a desert planet. Meaning I might as well have chosen Medusa in the first place.

What would make this option a bit more interesting would be limit the option to animal life only. That way, you still would retain the essential look and feel of each planet's geographic classification.

Give it some rerolls.. it can give different results than that.

[Smidlee]

Thank you for the Nemesis option. I don't want to take the lead so quickly.
Does the Nemesis get as head start in tech as well?

[GodwinW]

Those History options look very awesome! Eager to try them out when I finish this current game!

[eddieballgame]

Wow, just the 'History Class' addition has made this the best beta update so far.
The limiting of Majors, for example, will/should allow for larger planets to play faster per AI turns.
Thank you, Vic, for your dedication to your product (which is Game of the Year in my book).
Considering all the crap we all have been dealing with this year...your wonderful game has been a Godsend to me.

[Vhalor]

History Classes is indeed a nice addition. Anything to fine tune your planets is always welcomed.

[demiare]

Still I really want to see a "Major Regimes amount" slider. Option to have a single super-enemy is a nice, but IMHO 2-3 majors will be the best - you both will get a chance to find a weaker victim AND it could lead to serious border issues when you're treated from opposite sides.

Another suggestion - allow player to remove limitation on % of oceans on planet as a option. Yes, we still lack navy. But if you want to play icy tomb planet it doesn't matter at all.

But in short - History Classes ARE AWESOME! Finally I would be able to play on snowy planet with alien life, ^_^