There are only six unique groups of models for missile weapons. Possibly only five, because I haven't tested the s0_photonTorpedo group. It could be that it doesn't even work, or, if it does, that it looks exactly like the s0_photonTorp group. Even if it is unique and works, it wouldn't be enough to give all ten types of missile weapons a distinctive look.
That's not what I'm asking for...
The Theory-weapon belongs to Tier1 which has its own set.
Tier2 (Harpoon) has its own set.
Tier 3+4 use the same set but that's ok because it's essentially the same weapon just Photon Torp carries a varrying yield.
Anti-Matter Torp has its own set.
Which leaves the remaining set for Quantum, Positronic & Nightmare.
Instead of expanding the Anti-Matter set right into Quantum Torp just use a single modle for all quantum-weapons, then the next model for the positronic wepaon, and the final for Nightmare.
I could use the s0_massdriverX group of model for all of the Railguns, instead of just the Mass Drivers. However, I'm not quite sure what the problem is. The first two Railguns are Miniballs, while the next three are Mass Drivers. I.e., a new type of Railgun.
and from where can a player derive that information from? Nothing in the details, desc or in the shipbuilder suggests that information...
The shipbuilder puts all these into line by having the same name: Railgun I-V. So they're the same weapon just made more efficient.
The information on the technologies only hint that they've invented a new type of slug (=bullet) not a new form of gun. Tech "Mass Drivers" state that "we have continued to refine our Railgun technology".
Mass Driver II even states falsely "our mark II" refering to the weapon itself but the tech actually offers the Mark IV.
Be so kind and forget for the moment all the insider info you've collected while going through the game files and just try to read the tips & watch the designforms like a new player would and I'm sure you'll understand that there's some cause for confusion in the way the current outlay is. The term "Miniballs" only occurs in model-names, internal names of weapons & technologies - but nowhere ingame. Why should a player have to have knowledge about modding in order for the progression to become reasonable?
Well, it's the same as in the vanilla game. I could change those requirements, but I'm not going to remove all of them. That wouldn't make any sense to me. It'd be like wanting to plug in your 7.1 surround system, when the house doesn't even have any electricity yet. You simply need certain basic necessities in place first, before you can go for more advanced stuff. Also, I have seen AIP 7 and 8 research defense techs before. It's rare, but it does happen.
AIP7 & AIP8 research defenses when they're done with the single-weapons branch they've picked. At the same time they'll also consider going for technological victory. At that stages of the game fleet-strength has already risen to high numbers MSBs won't last long anyway and even if they would, a bonus of +3 to defense is almost irrelevant when a single ship has +100 to +500 attack.
I can't follow your logic, and it doesn't help that you're using a real-life example which is only distorting the true nature of the problem, and that has basically no similarity to what is going on in the game at all. You're somehow suggesting that the older modules are used to power up the newer modules?? 
Having an additional module requiring also energy should actually make matters worse, not better (in terms of electricity, but I don't think that energy is a real problem from an ingame point of view, there are so many instances on energy - FusionReactors etc - that state energy in the future is plenty...)
If you have a military base, and you want to install a new gun there - do you think that the engineers plug the gun right over or on top of the old gun? But then the old gun wouldn't be functional anymore, and in GC2 the old modules still keep working. So what must be happening is that the new modules just a find a new place to be attached to - and that is also visible ingame by the fact that starbases grow in size when you attach new modules.
The current outlay is even worse because it suggests that you're plugging the gun over existing defensive modules. 
I've no idea how an Armor Plating can be used to make a MD weapon functional? 
So it neither makes sense nor does it help AIP8+7...
And for the end-gameplay it can be a PITA to erect new bases, esp. mining ones, when you've got to invest a thousand MP to finally be able to come to the strong modules. Until that did happens most bases will long be shot down in the intermediate. Apart from the fact that noone would still keep on installing outdated modules if better ones are available, but even if there were some obscure reasons to must have all of them at large - you wouldn't begin with the weak ones...
The reason for that is the range-adjustment based on map size. I always hated that, because it made no sense. The main reason for me to play on bigger maps is to feel the vastness of space. You can't go everywhere at the start, which means a longer exploration-phase and a bigger sense of wonder as to what is out there. Yet the range-adjustment removes that. WHY!? It's so stupid!
This is one of the reason why I've thrown all range-mods overboard in my mod. Also because the AI can send Constructors to resources, and Freighters to other worlds without having to make them internally known (ie. he's cheating).
But I'm not suggesting this now here for integration because, on the other extreme [Immense-All-Rare Map] may cause problems with the AI being unable to reach far-away stuff - which is ok for a mod esp. when my design intents to have the game more territorial, but for the official version every possible game setting should work fairly for the AI. Even if it means that range is practically irrelevant.
As far as I know, the DL can't defend themselves against spies. They do have access to the Counter Espionage Center, but I've never seen them build it. That might be due to the AI they use. I don't think that they train spies. The game simply give the DL money each turn. It's unlikely that that would count towards the espionage spending. The tax income is also not enough to train spys in any reasonable amount of time. Still, I could run some test to see how the DL behave. It's been a while since I did that.
The non-factory users would build the Dread Factory. I've seen them do it with the Industrial Sector and other factories. Especially the Iconians and Thalan. So that's not an issue. It just results in mixed planets. Which would be sub-optimal.
The bigger problem is having all races benefit from the techs, without one race becoming too powerful in the process. I know I've said that the idea is to give the DL powerful techs for everyone to steal, but just consider this for a moment. Among the techs I wanted to give the DL is the Interstellar Refinery and the Molecular Fabricator. Those techs come from the Precursor, after all, so of course the DL would have access to them. However, in order to prevent the DL from losing them whenever the Iconians are in the game, we would need to make unique versions of the techs. Which would mean, that the Iconians could have two Refineries and Fabricators on their planets. Or the Thalan and Yor could get the ability to build them themselves. Could you imagine the results?
I just ran a test and placed 10 spies on a DL world for 3 years and neither did they steal any techs nor did the DL delete any agents. Stealing was enabled and my won techtree was not researched. Maybe stealing is disabled with the DLs? There's still a slight possibility that stealing will work via invasion...
Sounds good. However, I'm a little confused. Based on what you said earlier about this topic, I thought you wanted us to only focus on the strengths of the races. No reduction to the penalties, and no bonuses to abilities the race didn't originally have.
That was just a crude rule-of-thumb intended to prevent an outlay like in 2.20 where some of the racial stats looks like a Ceasars Salad. Just look at the old Arceans you know what I mean. Making an exception here or there won't deter from the broader picture. I think the espionage-bonus to the Drath are thematically fitting since they're shapeshifters, and once War Profiteering kicks in the Drath are perhaps even the best race to deal with the negative implications espionage has for other races - I usually see them having plenty of surplus money. Plus, they had a strong espionage bonus in DL. However, I just realize that they already partly mitigate their popgrowth penalty from the Populists-bonus - we would nullify that now... Don't know if that should be done. Maybe give them another traderoute instead, so they end up with at least -1ß popgrowth?
I really have trouble understanding this point. The Arceans are only saving 1000rp. Not the "thousand after thousand" you claim. They also still have six Beam weapon tiers. Just like everyone else. So I really don't get where you got the idea from that I removed one.
Just to reiterate, it's currently:
Tier 1: Lasers or Kinetic Streams
Tier 2: Plasma Weapons or Particle Beams
Tier 3: Phasors or Ion Beams
Tier 4: Disruptors
Tier 5: Subspace Blasters
Tier 6: Doom Ray
Anyhow, the current implementation stems from the fact that the vanilla one was self-contradictory. The Arcean details for Particle Beams I made two statements. First, that the Arceans have difficulty researching PB. That one was true. For the Arceans, Particle Beams I had three times the regular cost. The second one was, that, after having unlocked PB, the Arceans can move quickly to more advanced weapons. However, they still needed to research Particle Beams II and III at the regular cost. How is that "quickly"? It's the same speed as for everyone else. Except, the other races had a headstart, because they didn't have a more difficult time with Particle Beams I. That really made no sense.
So, to put some sense into it, I decided to remove Particle Beams II and III from the Arcean tree. The cost for Particle Beams I is the same as Particle Beams I and II combined (1500rp vs. 500rp + 1000rp). Which means that they have only one tech less to research, as far as the rp are concerned. I really don't think that's OP. Especially if you consider how much rp the Yor are saving with their shortened Phasors tier, or how much cheaper Ion Beams are compared to Phasors.
ok thanks for clarifying that up for me 
The point is: "Hey guys, I made some adjustments to the AI values of the farms and morale improvements, because the AI was building way too many of them. Usually in a sub-optimal fashion, which often resulted in a worse economy. It's still a work in progress, and I could really use some feedback, because there is only so much testing I can do myself." Was that more clear?
Anyhow, the Yor are still building Stalks. They are treating them like morale improvement, which means that the Yor'll automatically build a lot of Stalks. Even on low AI values. The previous value of 50 was just excessive. All it resulted in was a ton of planets without any Collectives, because the Yor were too busy building Stalks, the Maintenance Grid, and other things. Now there is only a lot of planets like that. I'm sure I can improve this further. The other issue is that Iconia is often way below the population maximum. Sometimes it doesn't even have 10b people. The reason for this is that all the other planets have a much higher morale bonus. Often, newly colonised planets also have a problem of critically low approval ratings. The only way to solve this I can think of is to reduce the morale bonus of the Stalks, but we already went through that discussion earlier this year.
As for the other races, it's not as bad as it first appeared. I simply didn't have enough test results. They are still building morale improvements. Fewer than before, and in a more sensible manner (for the most part). However, it could still be better. AIP 8, with the exception of the Thalan, is still doing pretty bad though. I knew that would happen. AIP 8 has always been the worst in this area.Farms are still a mixed bag. The AI builds still builds them, but far, far fewer than before. In some case, this is actually good. Like the Iconians, which now build Merchant Emporiums much more often. In other case, not so much. Like the Torians, who simply can't get full use out of their SA. They either run into their pop-cap far too often, or don't have enough morale improvements to get Breeder running in the first place. Another issue is that the AI is building way too many Food Distribution Centers. Especially on food tiles, or on planets where a farm would have better results in general.
I've long thought about if I should even respond to that considering the negative sarcastic undertone of the first sentences, but you've got so many things wrong in the following paragraphs for the better good of the game I'll overlook it for now: But don't expect that I (or someone else) is able to read your mind, just state your intentions simple and clear. Which you, BTW, did NOT do, at all... and I BTW did merely ask you a question and if that's not possible to do without being countered by a sarcastic sneer I think you should take a second and just think about what an internet forum is all about, or how we are going to work mutually on the CU...???
Yor are NOT treating Stalks as morale improvements (the only exception to this are bonus-tiles, but that is actually a good thing in the broader picture...) - because if they were, they wouldn't build more than 3 on their planets (I've seen 4 but only in very isolated incidents). And in conjunction with the MaintGrid they would only build 2 of them - since the AI is limited to 3 moral improvements per planet. But that is not the case - so many planets have 3 Stalks + the MaintGrid.
They are treated as farms - and the reason why they can muster more than the generic approach is that they've got the Basic Stalks right away and it's only offering 1 food. That is, they'll need 3 until hitting the 11b target limit which then triggers the AI routine to not place any further farms on planets. Ultimately, such a planet will have a taget pop of 17b people - which is absolutely fine and in line with their HW and in lack of spamable banks their only chance to increase their economy.
The HW morale dilemma stems from the core design of their Stalks - it's impossible to solve by just fiddling around the numbers. The thing you tried to do in the past - getting the moral bonuses down to vanilla - will only make the overall Yor game weaker - you trade a -20 to -40 moral-bonus on all Initial Colonies (and that may be 100s of worlds) for an increase of 2-3b people on a single planet. 
The real solution is to give them a planetary-morale SuperProject in their starting techs and hope they place it on Iconia.
BTW I disagree on your initial stance that the AIs are building "too many farms" and that this would result in a sub-optimal economy. It's completely unrealistic to assume that the AI would do anything "optimal" - and even more irreal to believe that you can fix that by adjusting a single value. If you want the AI to do an optimal design you'll have to specify different sets of values in accordance with the target PQ of each planet. How are you going to do this? And maybe also specify for us what you actual mean by "optimal" in precise terms/numbers, because only then can we look out for these patterns in testgames....
If newly colonized planets start at a bad morale it only means that they've build 3 Adv. Stalks (or other morale improvements for that matter) already at many other worlds --> good. Reducing the Stalks bonus will only result in the AI having an overall worse economy, and although the moral-discrepancy from one planet-to-planet won't be that grave, the AI will have to raise taxes more stiff in order to compensate the lack of funds (or reduce his production sliders). Both a worse scenario. BTW the ultimate morale discrepancy in the generic tree is 25% more worse - 3*VRC = 120% morale. Or even the Torian ones with +150%. Stalks only generate +90% if we count equally 3 improvements.
As for the other races, it's not as bad as it first appeared. I simply didn't have enough test results. They are still building morale improvements. Fewer than before, and in a more sensible manner (for the most part). However, it could still be better. AIP 8, with the exception of the Thalan, is still doing pretty bad though. I knew that would happen. AIP 8 has always been the worst in this area.Farms are still a mixed bag. The AI builds still builds them, but far, far fewer than before. In some case, this is actually good. Like the Iconians, which now build Merchant Emporiums much more often. In other case, not so much. Like the Torians, who simply can't get full use out of their SA. They either run into their pop-cap far too often, or don't have enough morale improvements to get Breeder running in the first place. Another issue is that the AI is building way too many Food Distribution Centers. Especially on food tiles, or on planets where a farm would have better results in general.
Well you just reduced the AI from the Torian morale impr from 50 to 30 and now complain that they're not having enough moral improvements to get their SA running... 
it boggles my mind unable to see that you yourself artifically created that problem and even report it... The Torian morale impr are the strongest ingame, they HAVE TO HAVE an super high AI value because that is only making their game stronger - even more so when they're Breeder... And since they're limited to 3 per planet I don't see the dangers of the AI going overboard with them (it can't...) unlike facs/labs which are spamable to the extreme.
A Breeder will always run into a popcap - even a Breeder-player will do so if you don't quickbuy farms. But I don't think that there's a problem here at all - just start any testplay and observe how the Torian pop curve shoots through the roof when everyone elses pop stays considerably low. Breeder is the single most strong SA for any AI. And they have their Harvestor as starting impr which should help, and the way it is designed still permits them to queue them additional farms. Breeder is about getting new worlds quickly to self-sufficiency, not spawning endless pop or having it still kicking in on well beyond 10b pop planets...
The Food Distr Center is fine as it is. It's not possible to change it without breaking any other mechnics into which it is currently involved. The AI doesn't recognize foodbonus-bonuses as such and aren't considering it a farm at all! So any placement on a food-bonustile is coincidental, and the only thing that can be said is that the AI had no intention whatsoever to actually use a farm here - otherwise he wouldn't have used the Food Distr in the first place. And that is exactly why the Food Distr can be used by the AI to make the CivCap food from 16 --> 20. And if it's placed early on a colony, it goes from 8-->10, thus, still retaining the AIs ability to enqueue farms. Or, the other way round, if they just place a single +3mt food to arrive at target pop 11, the Food Distr is the AIs only last hope to further increase its pop to, at least, moderate levels.
