akkamaddi wrote:

sven wrote:

akkamaddi wrote: "Unruly" races never become unhappy.

That... makes a weird sort of sense. They are happy they are setting fire to the streets.
Thanks.

More precisely, they're always 'unhappy', but retain some level of productivity and will not revolt if you keep their morale high enough- but if their morale drops, there's no lag time for them going from 'zero' to 'revolt', unlike normal species.

It seems that if an allied empire merges with yours, any civillian population transports in motion will remain as a "ghost" of the old empire. This is the second game where I have one (I think both Phidi, even) that just bounces between two systems.

Yeah, I noticed that and reported it previously, transports of allied empires I had annexed permanently going into strange systems (including a hyperspace anomaly).

I think it's because we don't seem to inherit the annexed empire's trade fleet.

Something funny happened in my latest playthrough.

Stardate 1326, the Gremak seriously miscalculate their chances: Stardate 1340, the Gremak realize their mistake:


The reason I'm putting this here is because of the first system they're offering as a peace token: Sabik, their homeworld. Now from a purely mechanical perspective, it does make sense that they would prefer to lose this world (12 pops on Sabik and 2 on Osada, Nagh not colonized) over another also close to the frontline, such as Okul (which was a system I wanted to grab from them, with its paradise world and its mineral rich ocean planet, 17 and 2 pops respectively). But still, it's their homeworld, I think it should be protected from being bargained away like this.

The other two worlds they offered were further away from the front line (I hadn't even explored them yet, as they were out of reach before the war) and resulted in the remaining Gremak empire being split in three separate parts.

So...

I invade the first (of many, mwa-ha-ha ) pirate bases, defeat their defenses, go to liberate the slaves and swell my empire, but of course first stop by the treasure vault, and...

See Sven and Arioch looking up at me with a very indignant "the infernos you doin' here?"



Edit: The base had Tacheed Tacheed slaves, but I've been using my mod for a while. This is the first time this has happened.

Update, on the second raider station I overtook, I captured and kept the asteroid base. I'm now renovating it. The Gremak thought they were ballin' until they saw my new crib. I even have a holonet room where visitors can play the new Stars in Shadow XXVII: We Finally Have Spies! (for a modest hourly fee). Now, I have to wear my hater-blockers to the Galactic Council because the posers drink nothing but Hateoraid.

"Pics or it didn't happen!"


Edit 2: It looks like once you get that tech, you can capture and keep the bases. I just got a second one.

gaerzi wrote:Yeah, I noticed that and reported it previously, transports of allied empires I had annexed permanently going into strange systems (including a hyperspace anomaly).
I think it's because we don't seem to inherit the annexed empire's trade fleet.

Is there a way to clean this up in the save game? The Phidi offered a merger when they were moving about a dozen pop units. The Terros and Yoral were not nearly as bad, but I have about a dozen of these crawling the map.

akkamaddi wrote:Edit 2: It looks like once you get that tech, you can capture and keep the bases. I just got a second one.

Yeah, I captured and refitted pirate bases in live too. Hopefully it's still possible with in_dev. It's always a fun trophy.

Returning a conquered planet produced the message "Error Report: This is a bug"
game_8486

gaerzi wrote:The reason I'm putting this here is because of the first system they're offering as a peace token: Sabik, their homeworld. Now from a purely mechanical perspective, it does make sense that they would prefer to lose this world (12 pops on Sabik and 2 on Osada, Nagh not colonized) over another also close to the frontline, such as Okul (which was a system I wanted to grab from them, with its paradise world and its mineral rich ocean planet, 17 and 2 pops respectively). But still, it's their homeworld, I think it should be protected from being bargained away like this.

Speaking of protecting systems from being offered, empires should probably not give away their last remaining system either.

Marauder raiders are referred to as battle mechs in battle assessments.

Machine altar scrap tooltip shows the tag instead of the icon.

A couple of typos I noticed while looking at lua files:

@SystemsPane.lua, line 559: should be "capacity" in "It also has the capcity to carry 1 unit of population."
RACES.lua, line 1494: should be "scavengers" in 'algorians', 'enfi', 'lummox', 'scanvagers', 'tarib',

If you rush-buy something, you cannot queue refits. It's disabled and you get an "available next turn" label. However, if you queue a refit, then rush-buy, no problem.

It should not be disabled when queuing.

Strange damage report on a pirate base:
I suppose the damaged bombers somehow corrupted the damaged interceptors?

Typoes report:

"vessles" instead of "vessels" in GUI/~GalaxyMap/@ShipCaptureReports.lua, line 509.
"plamsa" instead of "plasma" in Drawers/Ships/MonsterProtean/MonsterProtean.lua, line 17.



Shouldn't the test code in Galaxy\alliance.lua be disabled by an "if lua_load_complete and false"? While the tangle tests are disabled, the prints at the end aren't.


Drawers/GroundUnits/GroundUnits.lua has this code: Shouldn't the target_color be 'orange'?

gaerzi wrote: "vessles" instead of "vessels" in GUI/~GalaxyMap/@ShipCaptureReports.lua, line 509.
"plamsa" instead of "plasma" in Drawers/Ships/MonsterProtean/MonsterProtean.lua, line 17.

Will be fixed in the next patch. Ty.

gaerzi wrote:Shouldn't the test code in Galaxy\alliance.lua be disabled by an "if lua_load_complete and false"? While the tangle tests are disabled, the prints at the end aren't.

Yeah, the pattern "if lua_load_complete and X" is sufficient to stop test code from running when the program first boots up for players, regardless of whether X is true or false. I'll usually try to remember to set X to false when I'm done with a test set anyways, just so I don't trigger the code accidentally if I'm editing the file for some other reason while the game is running, but, I don't always remember to. (In short, yes, it should be false, but there are probably many other incompletely disabled pieces of test code scattered around the codebase, and while they might surprise modders, they shouldn't cause bugs for players.)

gaerzi wrote:Shouldn't the target_color be 'orange'?

Yup. The phidi tanks were using the wrong flavor of orange art. Thanks for catching this.

gaerzi wrote:Machine altar scrap tooltip shows the tag instead of the icon.

Should be fixed in the next patch.

gaerzi wrote:Marauder raiders are referred to as battle mechs in battle assessments.

This is a harder one to fix properly. The issue, more or less, is that the tool I'm using to draw the icons shown in the combat estimates only supports drawing single icons, but, of course, many different unit/population types may potentially be destroyed by ground combat. To solve the problem properly, I should really switch to a clustered icon drawing tool (which is a thing the game does have), and use that to form the suffix, rather than just kludging in a single static image. But... it's a minor, largely cosmetic issue, and making sure the clustered icons looked good and where positioned correctly would be a bit of a job to really get right.

An easier fix might be to calculate the icon for the most-killed unit in the combat estimates, and show that (instead of a static placeholder)... I'll add that to my TODO list.

gaerzi wrote:A couple of typos I noticed while looking at lua files:

Ty for reporting these.

gaerzi wrote:RACES.lua, line 1494: should be "scavengers" in 'algorians', 'enfi', 'lummox', 'scanvagers', 'tarib',

That one probably meant there was auto-generated text somewhere in the game referring to 'scavengerses', though I'm not sure where

gaerzi wrote:I suppose the damaged bombers somehow corrupted the damaged interceptors?

This looks like a fairly deep bug in the tactical combat data structures. If you see a negative fighter count appearing again, please upload the save, I'd like to take a closer look at it.