[quote]There is not that many variables involved here. It is not even bad AI programming, it is more of 'neglected AI programming'. They got caught up in the graphics too much.[/quote] I must apologize to Stardock for my rude comment, I mistakenly thought about the game MOO3 and several articles/interviews I read, (Hey I was tired when I wrote it), and then I continued to ramble on a bit too much. The AI in GC2 is quite good (give Stardock props), when they patch the last
[quote]Tiles can be spent on other things too. Influence, planetary defense, etc. However, since those 3 valuable resources are absolutely vital to your success in the game, there is no justification you can put forward (except for personal desire) for spending a precious tile on something so inefficient as mere planetary defense. It would be more efficient overall to simply do what everything else in GC2 encourages you to do: build an offensive military and use it to defend.[/quote]
Just some thoughts about various types of Ship Classes they could use: Class Gunboat: Smaller than a Patrol Craft, the Gunboat is a short-range interplanetary vessel used for policing actions in areas near the border and newly acquired territories. * Class Bonus: Weapons/Defense bonus when operating inside it's own spher
Wow... I'm probably the most wasteful player there is... not only do I tend not to pay attention to my production after the first few months, but I'm probably flushing BC down the galactic toilet faster than I can count. I even love building Industrial Sectors on newly acquired planets in the late game. Probably because I get lazy though, and unless I'm in a bind, I tend to just 'Let things run their own course'.
Exactly in what situations would the all-factories or all-labs strategy ever need to be used? I believe I have seen posts where they can be used to get very high scores (scoremongering scenarios, or perhaps zero year wins), such as converting to all factories and pumping out tons of units (or something like this), to achieve high military score and so forth. But as far as it being needed to beat the toughest difficutly level, Suicidal, it is not needed. Suicidal is easy enough
Not to go overboard for defenders... but another idea would be for a planetary improvement to boost planetary defense. Only 1 social improvement though, since most do not want to take up precious tiles on defensive improvements. The single improvement would start out rather weak, giving say, only 1 extra hitpoint per orbiting ship, 1 extra point of firepower and 1 extra point of defense, and a 5% boost to your invasion soldiering defenses. There would be a line of techs called planeta
Also.... In the game, ship hitpoints correspond directly to the 'overall health' of the unit. Ships that are in open space and that are damaged should have their weapons and defense lowered according to how damaged they are. If a ship is in planetary orbit, it's weapons and defense would not be lowered based on hitpoints. E.g. Battleship... HP 80/80 Attack 45/0/0 Defense 0/20/0 Battleship... HP 20/80 Attack 11/0/0
1. I believe, if the GC2 combat system stayed the same, that giving 'class modules' to ships would probably solve the whole problem. This way, not every ship in the fleet is an all-out attack vessel, and certain ships would have large bonus's for planetary defense, yet penalties if they launch an assault. 2. And, for ships in orbit, you can only put as many as your logistic's ability allow. And OCC would be applied once tech is discovered, not when OCC is built (terrific idea mentione
It's things like this that can easily be corrected to make the AI not so easy to defeat. Such as below, the Lentzlandians trading for things that they cannot even use. "Harold Gibons thought later on, after the trading conference, what the hell am I gonna use these damn IP's for!?? I want a refund!" <img src="http://www.download9k.com/All/AAR/Mar-15-2227LentzTrade.jpg" alt="Lentzlandians
The point I'm trying to get at, is that the most difficult difficulty level, Suicidal, is not even that hard in GC2... You don't even have to use anything special (all-factories or all-labs) to win. I'm doing an AAR that I will post soon to show this. Similar games (I will use civ3 again) it was close to impossible to win at the toughest difficulties, yet theorically possible. Something needs to be done to make the AI a bit more 'capable'. Of course, many of the ideas shown could probably be
If they had tech's that gave civ-wide planetary defense bonuses, those would be worth-while. For example, right now the 'defensive soldiering tech's' apply to soldiering on the offense also. If they had some additional tech's that offered 'additional hitpoints for orbiting ships' or 'additional offense/defense', these would be good for the AI to use. But since I have yet to date, actually have to fend off a planetary invasion, I am assuming the human player would have no need for thos
[quote]Human players simply seek the enemy's OCC and take that planet first, then take the rest of the enemy ships one at a time; the enemy can't build another OCC. The effect should have been linked to the tech itself, rather than the building.[/quote] Agreed, although aganist weak civ's it's almost annoying taking the OCC (by accident) and then having to deal with tons of weak little ships all over the place 1 at a time. The tech should give the ability that the OCC does, as you sai
[quote who="Iroc1983" reply="2" id="1995401"]If some empire sent me a message "We have begun" I would be so freaked I would just start a new game, LOL. [/quote] Especially since the empire consists of human sized insects.
Ok, I figured it out... for the full image to show.. edit your original post, hit the Insert/edit image button and place this piece of code in instead... this will show the full size image and not the thumb: http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4007/wehavebegunresearching1sl2.jpg It appears if imageshack only gives you the thumb option... you would need to delete the .th in the end of it to get
When I checked the image properties for the image that did not come up properly on that post... it showed this: https://forums.galciv2.com/%3Ca%20href=%22http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wehavebegunresearching1sl2.jpg" target="_blank"> The image that did come up correctly on the post below your original one showed
[quote]I play EU – perhaps the difficulty was tweaked for this version?[/quote] As far as I have heard, EU is the same as the individual games, just combined into one. Same as the whole ultimate bundle pack... of course, Sole Soul is the expert on all this type of stuff, his immense knowledge of EVERYTHING never ceases to amaze me. lol When I first started playing, with DL at least I found the move from Challenging to Tough the most Challenging (no pun intended), if I ca
Ok, a few things to improve 'epic playability' in the game then, compiled from posts so far: 1. AI needs to be is an actual opponent , not merely a designed obstacle. AI should actively see other players as opponents, and should actively pursue a victory condition that they see they can most likely achieve. 2. AI should not be push-overs in diplomacy . Make it much harder to manipulate and bribe AI's to do your every wish. Example: get rid of tr
[quote]What's your extreme environment planet ratio set to? I remember there being an issue with those two settings being tied to each other, but I don't remember if it got fixed.[/quote] That must be it then... I usually have it set to 'rare', just because I find it annoying. I went to 'rare' setting after I went to 'maso'... and just left it be ever since.
Sole Soul, just to ask out of my own curiosity... what is the highest difficulty you have beat? And also, I have tinkered with for hours and yet to discover your terror star trick to beam it around the galaxy at will!
You would almost have to make sure you go neutral... for the reduction in upgrade costs that it gives you (i think it is neutral), or perhaps one of the galactic improvements you can make by going neutral allows that (of course can't remember all this off the top of my head). Do you usually play a specific moral choice?
[quote]I think the real problem is once you're ahead, it gets EASIER and not HARDER to get even more ahead.[/quote] Whereas, e.g., civ3 implemented the 'corruption' idea to make larger civ's harder to handle and manage (although this was a highly contreversial topic, and it almost made people not want to expand or conquer to far out), Civ 4 did a much better job (i think, haven't played it in a while) but Galciv has no model to make HUGE civ's harder to manage. Thus, just as you said,
[quote]Lastly, there's GC2's basic economic structure: money wins. Money translates to social production, military production, and research equally. Money translates to econ starbases that boost all of those at reduced cost. So, assuming two players are fairly even in terms of how many tiles and planets they have, the one who's getting more money is better at everything than the opponent.[/quote] So playing Suicidal, this should put the human player at an enormous disadvantage (which
[quote]Why? I certainly don't.[/quote] Because you (and people in general) are smart enough to do it on their own. Companies generally don't dump that many resources or money into developing AI because they don't see a return from that investment. Generally they make AI in a way that appears to act in a 'real human fasion' but is actually do to the fact that the AI has to do certain things (to make sure it stays competitive with the much more intelligent player). [quote]What G
Now that you mentioned that, I should try playing on a similar basis... I did lose quite a bit of ships in my current game, and I am sometimes stunned at the number of losses in the end stats screen. (Espcially troops killed, when it is at like 100 billion or w/e, I almost feel guilty lol). Perhaps I should give that a try, to see 'how few ships I can lose' during a game! [e digicons]:P[/e] As well as 'how few troops I can lose'. I'm sure it matters and probably makes a huge diffe
GalCiv2 Forums