People shouldnt forget...

You have a good point, and I agree that each race should have it's own playstyle/strategy. I don't know which AI suggestions you're referring to (besides the tax rate one).

There's always room for improvement, and I believe the AIs can be improved beyond what they are now, while still haven't seperate playstyles. I don't personally believe an AI should limit itself by not raising its taxes when the situation warrants it though... I don't know how big of a problem this is, however, or how AI difficulty affects that issue -- which I believe it does/should.

From what I have seen, 90% of techs researched by every single alien race are weapons or defence techs.

The empires don't seem very "different" to me at all.

Should there not be an empire dedicated to social techs? Are they all war mongers? Not one of them wants an alliance victory, or a techno victory? (True they seem to try the culture victory route, Ill give credit when due)


I know the devs have good reason for this... right?

don't personally believe an AI should limit itself by not raising its taxes when the situation warrants it though... I don't know how big of a problem this is, however, or how AI difficulty affects that issue -- which I believe it does/should.

The problem is that, take an AI race which has the philosophy of loving it's citizens and charish them in any way, should it raise taxes then? This specific problem doesnt really happen, but just as example. This problem isnt here now. but It will be here if people keep on asking for AI upgrades which should let it play better instead of keeping it's playstyle

From what I have seen, 90% of techs researched by every single alien race are weapons or defence techs.

I think this is due to the overweighting the game puts on military strength and not enough on military potential. The AI tends to build ships at a pretty constant rate, which keeps it's research and social spending tied up. I always get threats/demands from "stronger" AIs and when the war comes, I can outbuild and outspend them so much that within 10 weeks my fleet is better than theirs is.

I think that's the AI that needs to be changed.

This has always bugged me with games like Civilization, Master of Orion and this game. For example, I will take Civilization 4 because its the one that came to mind immediatly. Towards the end of the game when you are marching towards a certain victory, like spaceship or something and the AI knows this and they will not be in reach they pretty much give up if relations are good. Its over, once I out produce them and can beat them its effectively over.

What should happen is all players should play to *win*. When I go for those last few parts I should see everyone gang the crap out of me and try to tear me to pieces. I dont care that our relations where good before then, or that they have been peaceful the whole game, or that their character is not "supposed" to attack me. This isnt a simulation in galactic affairs, Civilization isnt a Civilization simulation, and strategy games are not about simulating realistic predictable opponents. Its about winning a game with strategy and set rules, but still *winning*.

The most realistic sense that every race should take is that they do not want any other race to *win* because each ending is basically resulting in overwhelming dominance by the winning race. No race wants to lose what power they have to another. Even allies.

At least thats my opinion, though it doesnt jive with the diplomatic victory. But then again I think the diplomatic victory should be an alliance with every other civilization AND no wars active for anyone. Afterall heading the galaxy as the effective diplomatic leader would mean pacifying everyone, using diplomacy to put out brush fires between other civilizations.

Why should Drengin care if you research technological victory and turn into ball of energy? While you are floating around the endless cosmos they can colonize your planets

Seriously though Shadowstorm, the one thing I did not like in Civ series (played 1 -3 but not 4 yet) is that the AI treats you like a player. Meaning as soon as you outstrip them in power they ALL gang up on you. Does it make sense? When a faction you are very friendly with declares war on you to stop you from "winning"? Admittedly it adds to the challenge but straightjackets the game into a military conquest. Even if you are going for a tech victroy (spaceship for example) you have to have huge military to hold off all other civs.

Civ4 does not play this way. Sure, the AIs will gang up on you if you show weakness, but it is not the default end game. I would absolutely not want to play a game that worked that way either. Now if occassionally an AI that was getting beat decided to attack in their effort to win, that would be ok. But no mass attacks. Also, would the AIs do this to each other too if one of them was winning? Even if I stand a chance of holding everyone off, there is no AI written that does.

But this isnt a simulator. Whats the point if it all boils down to outclassing the economy of the enemies and racing towards your victory of choice. Especially in this game where you can get some pretty massive dimplomacy bonuses and generally keep war at bay.

You should have a sizeable defensive fleet if you are going for that kind of peaceful victory. Doesnt it make sense that the computer should play to win just like you? If I see the computer approaching some kind of victory Im going to do anything I can to step on his face. The computer should do the same.

Maybe not all out war, but there should be a negative penalty on relations if you are approaching a victory against them.

I agree it isn't a simulator, however I do think it would be more fun/challenging to play against the Torians, who intend to pursue a tech victory while maintaining just enough military to keep the Drengin, who intend to militarily crush the Altarians who want to culture whip the the Iconians, who want to bring everyone together under their own diplomatic rules.

Seems like it would be better than "everyone build a military and bash each other until someone wins."

The way it is now I don't even check the tech trading screen anymore, I know whats there... weapons and defences, which I don't need to trade for because I researched everything BUT that and now I can out produce, out culture, and/or out diplomacy all of the military mights however I choose. Not that they would trade those techs to me anyways, lol.

I dont mean that everyone should build huge crushing fleets, I mean when the player (or another race) is persuing a avenue of victory (like tech or culture or something like that), they should change their tactics to stop that player. When someone is out teching you and there is simply no way to catch them, the appropriate counter is not to try to race them in tech and lose. Its to shift your focus to military or culture and try to beat them that way.

The way it is now, the main strategy is tech trading and dimplomacy to keep the AI off your back and they happily watch you win as long as you feed them your scraps. I just think that an opponent should always be looking to win.

Perhaps the answer is, on higher difficulties, like how the AI evaluates player strategies to counter. When you trade techs to everyone and have no military, they show up and say "We know what you are doing, and we dont like it" .. blah blah, and you were warned and then they decide to attack you because you are weak and they might as well take you over than let you win.

I hate the idea of the AI changing gears to prevent you from winning. Sure, the AI should pursue victory, but not at the cost of immersion. The first goal of the AI should be to run teh empire they are in charge of as best they can, in a way that challenges the human player's goal to win and immerses them in the fun of the game world.

If the AI players in a game all went to war with me the turn the countdown to the Influence Victory started I would simply disable that kind of victory. Sure, the win is harder, and it's more like what a human player would do. But it's garbage from a story and reason point of view. It's not a simulation, sure, but it should be immersive.

All TBS games need to be immersive to stay fun. Nowadays I can't play Alpha Centauri a single turn after all the AIs decide to gang up on me since I hit #1 in the power charts. Sure, it makes the game more challenging, but at the cost of the immserive story. Same in Civ 2. That kind of gameplay sucks for single player.

This doesn't mean that it should be deemed "out of character" for a friendly AI to exploit a weak military, or take out a growing threat to their empire. Both of those could mean, "attack the front runner who will probably win if no action is taken." but they aren't attacking to stop you from winning, they are doing it to keep the game feeling real.

I think that most of you who complain about the AI are doing so mostly becouse you found holes, otherwize known as exploits, in the AI and find the game to ez becouse of it. If you like the idea of the AI playing as it's race, then play it at 'Inteligent' AND play you race IN CHARACTER. If you prefer the AI to go for the win, then play on highest difficulty, and do whatever it takes to win.

All of you who think the AI should be forced to play as it's race should, I see your point, but how many of you play YOUR race that way?

And for you who think the AI should play for the win, how many of you are playing agaist the other races, and not simply using the AI's weakspots for an ez game?

I get seriously tired of people bad mouthing the AI in a game when they are not willing to play the game 'in character' themselves

I was trying to invade an empire that day, had about 50 billion troops on the way, I cleverly bought peace with the race, and positioned everything to start the invasion. I passed the turn, and got a message from the AI. It was long, and explained why he can't do anything about it because his intelligence is too low. To sum it up, he said, "I just wanted you to know that I know what you're doing.". I lol'd. At this point I really admired the AI. Then I started invading. I took half their planets, passed the turn, and they surrendered to someone else. I was pissed. So I started thinking... I had that thing that makes aliens more likely to surrender to you. so.. I loaded to before the invasion, and started invading again. only in the end, I used all my techs to buy peace. The next turn they surrendered again... to me. I lost any respect I had for the AI at that point

Just a quick AI story :>

My take on the first few posts in this thread is that the various AI races have very little individuality due to unrestricted tech trading. When somebody researches a new tech, everybody in the galaxy has it within a month. They all develop the same tech lines at the same time, and they all develop (for instance) beam weapons because the first faction to develop weapons decided on that type.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing what happens once we can turn off tech trading in 1.1. I am hoping that the different races will develop unique technology profiles; go down different victory paths, develop different weapons/defenses, etc. With that option on, though, I expect to have to play at higher difficulty ratings so that they have enough cash to keep up with me...

I loaded to before the invasion, and started invading again. only in the end, I used all my techs to buy peace. The next turn they surrendered again... to me. I lost any respect I had for the AI at that point

Reloading to reroll a statistical chance and it going your way makes you lose respect for the AI? *and* you have the wonder that boosts that chance!?!?!?

Sorry Mortimon but that doesn't make much sense to me. That's just not a reflection on the AI at all. With a surrender function in, they're going to surrender when they feel like they are beaten... who they surrender to is really a random thing - it doesnt matter if you are the ones that have been beating on them.... that makes perfect sense to surrender to the aggressor. It also makes sense to surrender to a 3rd party just to spite you. If they always did the same thing then that *would* reflect on the ai.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing what happens once we can turn off tech trading in 1.1. I am hoping that the different races will develop unique technology profiles; go down different victory paths, develop different weapons/defenses, etc. With that option on, though, I expect to have to play at higher difficulty ratings so that they have enough cash to keep up with me...

I think the AI use of engines is going to be a really big deal..... a really big one and I can see it knocking a lot of us back down a level until we adjust! Also, did you read the reports Frogboy put up today? He was looking at the new AI version and how it handled techs, planetary development etc. Looks interesting.

I get seriously tired of people bad mouthing the AI in a game when they are not willing to play the game 'in character' themselves

I think you are way off base there bud. Almost any player worth his salt decides what kind of victory he wants before he starts the game, and in fact customises his race towards that end, and then goes about getting that type of victory.

The AI races are customized towards that end, some better in diplomacy, some better in war for example, but then they turn right around and play as if they were all Drengin warmongers with different faces.

Let me just give a concrete example here. As it stands currently its a very viable strategy to try for a cultural win with a weak military and weak economy, trading techs and pumping dimplomacy to keep everyone happy.

So you are in a game with many or all of the races superior to you in military. You have a large advantage in culture, and a good advantage in research. You are spamming bases and slowly taking over the galaxy in culture. My point is that the AI, for the most part, just sits back and watches you win. This is not because the AI is terrible, but because you know that if you give the AI techs or buy them off they will stay off your back.

For everyone that wants races to play as races would act in a personality empire way, wouldnt their primary concern at that point be that you are spreading your culture to the detriment of their empire? Would not the appropriate response be to take their superior fleet and start destroying culture bases? To try and get others against you as well?

I dont see how everyone can say that they decide the way they want to win, tailor their strategy and their race to that win type and then expect the AI to sit back and let you dominate their less than nominal set ups. The AI should be dynamic and try to counter your move. Even though the Torians might be better at one route, doesnt mean they have to keep with that losing strategy. If the AI is losing (by definition you are winning), it should position itself in a way to challenge you.

Heh, Spearthrower, you missed the point. I did nothing except make peace. Now that I think of it, I didn't use any techs. I just gave em peace, after ripping half their planets appart. Making "peace" was the only thing that made them surrender to me. That after the AI told me stuff like "Shaking your right hand while prepearing the knife with the other" before I asked them for peace.

The AI can and will surrender to you if they feel they have been defeated, whether you are at war or at peace with them. Because you have the special project that increases your probability of getting a surrender when they are "at peace" with you does not mean they will always surrender to you. I have had a similar situation. I made peace with Altarans after taking over some of their worlds early game. I had the project that increases their chance to surrender to me, but the silly do gooders surrendered to Drengin.

For tech victory: Why should the AI care if you turn into balls of energy and free up all your nice juicy planets?
For diplo victory: If you have a coalition of races, should they drop out of your alliance as you get closer to victory?
For economic victory: You already get that minus (--) for Alarming Influence. If you are paying off the AI already to keep it off your back why should they declare war on you if they are happy? If your military is substantially weaker, the Yor and the Drengin for example already have 3 minuses against you (one for militaristic, 2 for your military strength). This means you are paying him some serious technological and monetary tribute. Should everyone declare war on you to stop your victory counter?
For conquest victory: well of course they'll try to club you to death

Finally the AI is not trying to win per se. They are trying to survive and that is an achievement by itself. We as competitive humans playing games that need a sense of closure need to "win". Surviving can be a goal by itself.

To make it short, I agree the AI should make some attempt to counter your relentless march towards victory.

I also think that if they are all going to act like Drengin, they should all look like Drengin.

Wouldn't it be nice to have AI's try for different types of victory, rather than always going for the war techs?
Remember, you can have that, and still have the AI be more responsive t the players tactics.

Best of both worlds, see?

I have always been fascinated by the way that the AI in this and all games seems to give up when defeat appears to be inevidable.

Ever try to breathe new life into a beaten AI? Try giving them fleets and lots of money. It is a waste of time. They appear to be in deep depression and nothing will revive them.

Going back to AOE, the AI that had taken a beating would have lots of workers bumbling around that could have started rebuilding but they just act like they are in a daze. I am sure they are not designed that way but it seems to be common in all games

Seems easy enough to me why they'd care if you turn into a ball of light. If I remember correctly, it says that you're also gaining god-like power. I'm fairly certain I wouldn't want someone who wasn't me having that power.

I don't really agree that the sole purpose of a strategy game is to win. For me at least, it is to win with a certain personality in that game. In other words, for me there is a rpg element to the game. For me, without this rpg element, it would not matter whether a game was set in a galaxy like this one or in an unexplored world like the civ series. I like space strategy because it's strategy that permits a space "rpg" mind set.