• Each computer player has its own AI code behind it. Not a script but literally its own C++ class.
• Each player has its own unique dialog tree. They say and act differently.
• Each player has different abilities similar to Civ IV industrious or organized.
• Each player has its own strategies, own military tactics.

I'm not sure how one could argue that Civ IV's players are more different from one another than GalCiv II's aliens.

As much as I like Civ IV and its AI, the victory conditions in it are not significantly different from the GalCiv AI.  It's not actively trying to get a cultural victory, for instance as far as I can tell. It can try to build the space ship but that's essentially another wonder.

In GalCiv, certain players will actively try for one type of victory path over another. The Drath will pay off races to try to keep everyone busy while it builds influence.  The Drengin go the straight line conquest.  The Altarians try to build alliances over time.

The original poster's argument is that GalCiv's AI isn't as distinct from differnet players than Civ IV's. I think that is factually incorrect.   I haven't talked that much to Soren on this but given that the SDK will be out soon, I suspect you'll find that the difference betwee players in Civ IV is largely variables.

For the record, I love Civ IV and think it has a very good AI.  I just don't think it's accurate (even in the remotest sense) to assert that the GalCiv AI players are particularly similar in how they actually play the game.   The fact they have their own dialog trees would count for something you'd think even if that part's cosmetic.

Kind of a direct response to CKayote and his comments on the Drath....

I would say its a testament to how differently the game can play out for different people, but the Drath are one of the races that typically manage to be hugely annoying to play against for me. If they are around in the late game, they will usually be the most dominant race aside from myself. On top of that, they will typically manage to have a handful of alliances so going to war against them usually means being on the wrong end of a tag team effort.

People tend to hold grudges, as a general observation, and in this game, people tend to have it in for the races that have managed to defeat them or give them an unaturally hard time.

I would have to venture a guess that people tend to have a real good hate on for the race whos play style tends to be best suited as a counter to their own play style.

END COMMUNICATION

Honestly, to the origional poster, how can you say Civ 4's AI is better then Gal Civ's? I used to play Civ 4 and you wouldnt belive how many times Gahndi declared war on me because I had no military and he saw I was a easy target? In Gal Civ if I started next to the Altarians you can be damn sure unless I was evil they wouldnt attack me because they are a good and kind civilization but if I was evil they would declar a holy war against me. I could feel safe next to the Altarians and not have a standing military yet. However if I start next to the Dregin I have to military up or else, as they WILL declare war if im a east target. How many 4x type games could you really say "I felt safe next to this certain civilization" because you knew they actualy had ethics? The AI in Civ 4 seemed to all run on the EXACT same damn dialogue and AI script making every civlization identical. I hated it and on the flip side is why I love Gal Civ the races do act accordingly and are vastly different.

You are a troll no doubt about it. Any one who has the intelligence to use proper grammar online should realize how different each race is and how much you can modify each race to be even more different. No one should be that stupid.

You do realize that you can change the starting bonus's to anything you want right? And those race specific bonus's are equaled out with less points to distribute. But if you do reset the point total it removes those 'big locked boni' and instead gives you the points.

Nonsense. The Drath get both the massive bonuses and 10 points to distribute.

Besides this ad hominum (against the person) attacks don't really help anyone or really add anything to a conversation.

I have nothing personal against the developers or anybody else for that matter. I don't understand where you find this 'hate speech'.

Each player has different abilities similar to Civ IV industrious or organized.

Really? Because as far as I can tell, all the Humans get is a+6 to logistics. Do they get other bonuses that are hidden? I would love to think they did even if I don't understand why you would hide it.

i see strategist's point but at the same time i'd have to disagree with him

yes fixed specializations, characteristics, and unique units are nice BUT when the civ 4 manual says the game will be the most customizable ever and i can't have an aggressive industrious german leader (lets call him adolf) then its not very customizable imho

however the two games have alot in common

alignment is similar to religions in civ 4
influence to culture
both have various types of government which can have impact on economy, production ect/

things that gc2 can use from civ 4 multiple leaders with fixed traits while allowing the user to make custom(izable) leaders for existing races (maybe even import jpegs for their portrait)

unique buildings/units not necessarily unique but with altered figures (and not naccessarily at the upper end of the tech tree) ie. drengians laser is one point smaller than the other races

Not only do the different AIs play differently but each individual AI will adapt and adjust its strategy if need be.

For example:

Under normal circumstances the Derngin are a military, evil race and attempt to win through military victories. Taking them out early is best because if you let them have time to gather steam they will and use it against you. However in my most recent game they were on the other side of a gigantic map so I was just watching them play thier game over there. They were however bordered by the Drath, the Altarians and one other good race whom I can't remember at the moment. The Drengin made the mistake of attacking the Drath and eventually had thier asses handed to them by the alliance of good races that the Drath had made (true to form of the Drath I might add). The Drengin, in the face of this problem managed to make peace with thier enemies and changed thier methods and goals.

Now I had espionage on high all of this time so I was looking at the Drengin worlds and... well everything else they had . Up to this point thier worlds were manfacturing heavy and pumping out military vessels. After taking thier beating do you know what they did? They traded for Xeno Ethics and SWITCHED ALIGNMENTS!!! They turned neutral and converted all of thier planets into influence centers. As it stands now they have the lowest miltary rating on the map and have over run all of thier former enemies with influence. They have swallowed the Drath, most of the Alterians and control nearly a third of the galaxy and are my formost competitors in MY hunt for an influence victory.

I find the races not only vary quite a bit but thier AIs to be quite adaptable.

Felk the Skeptical

Doesn't look like he's even played the game much. The only way to get 10 points to spend is if you reset the bonuses.

And what level have you been playing at? The Dregnin and Torian play styles look different to me. Of course at cakewalk none of them do much of anything.

As far as I can see, while the Civ AI is impressive, the different civs all use the same one. The only difference between the civs lies in the bonuses that they each recieve, which in turn influences how they play.

No. The civ leaders have very different personalities.

I don't know which version you are playing but in the latest beta they get 3 points to distribute. I very much doubt that they ever got 10 points..

I'm playing version 1.1 beta 4. They get 10 points to distribute in addition to the massive inherent ability bonuses.

I'm playing version 1.1 beta 4. They get 10 points to distribute in addition to the massive inherent ability bonuses

Sadly, while I disagree with each and every point he makes (civ4 being inferior), it's true. Click reset and the drath keep their bonuses and gain 10 points. However, this may be due to the point cheese, where reloading a race stacks the points up. This is beta 4 I'm talking about.

Strategist, maybe I missed it, but you haven't mentioned what difficulty you play at. This is important, as at lower levels the AI codes (plural there remember) have "fuzzy logic" which equates to an ActStupid script. At tough, they all act different. I have seen all types of victory from the AI. And the codes are VERY different (drath AI fights proxy wars, Altarians are backstabbing sods, Torians start good but make evil alignment choices etc)

No. The civ leaders have very different personalities.

So does galciv2. Personality be damned, these guys have personality AND their own unique codes. Shown me written proof the civ4 has completely unique AI's, and I'll accept their equality. There is proof here, Brad has actually shown some code in the journals, and anyone fool playing the game at a reasonable level can see the difference between the characters. Civ4 isn't as good in the AI department. Just stop trying to defend it, you're hopelessly wrong.

You also insulted the dev's. Don't pretend you didn't, you start to look like an idiot.

Developers, what the *BEEP* were you thinking when designing this? Not thinking much at all, I suspect.

The Yor's diplomacy weakness is hidden since extra bonuses don't stack with ordinary bonuses, they overwrite them So anyone could spend one point and erase the Yor's main weakness. It's hidden and unalterable, which is a good thing. It isn't secret, it actually says in the description "weak at diplomacy". Same way the iconians are good diplomats without bonuses. Just so you know, custom races are the best once you can use the ability points well, unless you need loyalty, in which case the Thalan's are second (very well balanced)

And, echoing the other posters, stop making words up. I checked the dictionary, google, and wikipedia to see if you were trying to make us look like fools. But no, all I got was Link
Congrats, you passed English, possibly by inventing your own version!

They are alreadt too similar and they "feel" the same when playing. I think there should be more "mind candy" to remind you WHO you are playing...such as more of your races' portrait showing up i various screens?

Bonus = in the ENglish dictionary

Boni = pretentious (and not in the dictionary)

I'm a hardcore Civ "fan", but in general my experience is that the GalCiv2 AIs are more distinct than those in Civ4.

I think that your level of experience with a game affects how you perceive the AI. If you have little or great experience, the AIs will seem to blend in to each other. There is a sweet spot in the middle somewhere where what the AI does dramatically affects the decisions you make as a player, and thus the hardcoded differences between them will become more apparent.

Another important factor is the "no tech trading" option in each game: if it's on, the AIs decisions with respect to tech wash away as they just trade everything around. Turn this off and you will certainly notice important differences between the AI personalities.

Overall I think the Civ4 AI handles the standard game (tech trading on) better with respect to personality, while the GalCiv2 AI comes into its own when the option is off. It's unfortunate that such an extensive part of GalCiv2, diplomacy, practically disappears when tech trading is off, though.

No, that was his SECOND POST. His first post was not trollish. Read my post before making an ill-informed comment, please.

Hello? Just because he is unable to use the edit button I should now differ between those two posts of him? Your right in that aspect, that I've shouldn't have written "in his first post", but I won't distinguish between them, given their closeness.

Actually, it is WELL documented that the AI can't tell if you are weak or not.

With weak I've meant here, having a lower military score and being weaker in real terms, as I was stil able to defeat those traitors. And sure, they will betray you (or perhaps they just betray me, dunno about that ) if they've gotten enough inducement to do so, ie. the combined pluses and negatives were way against me after my milscore went down the drain.

The Torians do build cultural starbases, but the reason the Torians are cultural superpowers is because of their pop growth bonus (confirmed by others) It is more accidental than anything else, I've never seen the Torians really push for that last 5-10% influence needed, either they get it easily via population or they don't.

I've to disagree. In one of my games the Torians built literaly dozens of influence starbases in addition to the three influence ressources they've controlled. Sure, they've got quite a big bonus because of their population grow (a bit overpowered imho) but it wouldn't have been enough, since I also had quite a big population, about equal to theirs iirc. Of course, it's hard to know if they've made this on purpose or not, since I've no deeper knowledge of the AI code, but to me it looked mighty on purpose.

Absurd fanboy logic. If something is fun and balanced in another game, why the heck not put it in another game? Let's have an example: I like the feature where you can ask "what will make this deal work" in diplomactic trades in other games. SO according to you, it's not a good thing to have in GC2? I am talking about little things and small features, I am not asking for MP or tactical combat here, just some AI personality, how the heck would that break GC2? How is wanting to improve the game whining? Please.

@#*ç use of english on my part. (I really hate all those different languages around the world. Can't we just decide on one for everyone so I would be able to speak in my mother tongue now? )

What I meant was something more like this: He made his post like this: This feature in Civ IV is great and they do it like this, now change the way you've implemented it in GalCiv2 to the same way! Even though it's imho better implemented in GalCiv2 now than it's in Civ IV. This I wanted to criticize. Also what I wanted to say is if you propose certain changes, take a look how it's used in the game you want to change, how this things were designed in this game and not just say: Hey, they've done it like this, make it the same. It was not as much meant for this threads, as for those others where the people want tactical combat and their only argument is that MOO also had it. Games can be different, with different priorities and different design decisions, none of them being better then the other in the absolute.

No way will the Altarians betray you if you keep up in relations, no way.

"In generall, they will betray you very fast, if you look like a weak target." EXACTLY. Thanks for helping me prove my point. The AIs all GENERALLY act the same. Thanks for agreeing with me finally.

Now what, will they betray you, or won't they? You should decide.