Reply #26 April 23, 2006 4:44 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Good fights to defeat Evil. If a good AI thinks that there will be a better chance to defeat evil if it takes your worlds and resources, and it can do it easily (i.e. no military on your part) then it will do so. And military rating calculates based on number of attack and defense points, as well as total hit points (saw the formula earlier, can't find it now), which does heavily weight it towards number of ships early in the game. Also, as a good civ (which I assume you pick as your ethical alignment) it is your duty to protect your people by having at least a decent military, otherwise you get attacked. And this doesn't force you to be a war-mongerer. Fight them off, conquer them or get a favorable peace, station your ships around your worlds as defensive forces, then continue on your way. People will respect your new military, and you'll be fine. Or, build a military up beforehand, and if you really don't want to build a big one, stick as many ships as possible around a planet with a Spin Control Center, and that will boost your rating. And I don't know what issues your game has, but I have successfully bribed people to attack others on many, many occasions. Perhaps your diplomacy isn't high enough?

Reply #27 April 23, 2006 4:49 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Ok, I will set up a game with good only civilizations. I usually pick the neutral choice, but this time will choose only good. It it's as you say, there should be no wars at all. Is there a screen capture function in the game or do I have to download a tool?

I didn't say that. I said they shouldn't attack you for "no reason" in the beta. There probably will be wars, just very few. Play in windowed, prnt screen, and paste into paint or whichever program you use.

Make sure you capture the relations screen so we can see why they're attacking.

Reply #28 April 23, 2006 5:22 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I didn't want to travel up into areas in which the AI gets artificial bonuses either, but when you think about what the AI does best, micro-managing its finances and sees that little or no production and research points are wasted, it basically already gets what I would consider an economic bonus. If you want more of a challenge as I did, you simply have to go higher in difficulty with the way things are now. The AI is good, but no matter how much work is done on it, it simply won't beat a shrewd player on level ground.

Another thing I would suggest, if you are experiencing the same games basically every time (I basically had the same experience too since I play that way), CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY. Sure it works, but if you do the same thing every time, the AI will behave in a similar way. Yes the AI has trouble properly gaging military strength. Yes it never realizes that it's losing a war horribly just because its military ranking is still above your own and won't accept peace. Until these things are changed if ever, most AI's will attack you if you are building a strong infrastructure and currently have no real military to speak of. You can argue about the reasoning for this all you want: maybe they think you are easy prey, maybe they are worried you are too advanced and are going to take over the galaxy or earn a tech victory. Either way, having no military is like asking for any non-allied civs to find a reason to attack you, and most will.

I have absolutely no problem with a self-proclaimed good society attacking another. Good doesn't mean pacifist or culture strat only. Like the crusades, like the forging of the US from the native americans' land, people go to war and say it's because they are civilizing or even saving others from their own ignorance or eternal damnation. If you don't share their world view, they may think it's better to take you out of the picture to save the innocent wild life you are killing on your planets or your potential threat to the galaxy. If you are a good society also, other good civs are less likely to go to war with you out of the blue. It doesn't mean it won't happen if you keep no military and also don't try to make friends with them by giving them gifts, trading with them and such. Consider what would you do if you were sharing several systems next to a civ that is technologically advanced far beyond your peoples, but they didn't share their knowledge with you to benefit your people. You wouldn't think they cared about you would you? Your people might be suspicious that even though they seem to have similar values to your own, they may consider you insignificant and may just wipe you out or not act if you were in trouble. If you saw an opening, you might decide to try a pre-emptive strike if you thought they were planning something like that wouldn't you? If the AI were getting tech faster than you, and wouldn't make friends with you, wouldn't you militarize and attack as soon as you could if you thought you could bridge the gap that way? The AI isn't a sophisticated strategist, but I wouldn't say that it's decision to attack in this case is flawed.

As for paying off other civs to war... Generally to do so easily you have to have a diplomatic advantage. I don't know if they changed anything in this last beta, but I haven't been able to bribe anyone to do so while last game it hardly cost me 400 BC. Just remember though that it could be based on things other than if they are militarily superior. Are they at war with someone else? Are they already afraid of you because you are going around conquering 1/2 the galaxy and think you are just trying to weaken them? Do they like the people you asked them to go to war with? Are they currently trading with them so that it would damage their economy? Even if they are stronger than the target, are they still behind in military compared to the galaxy leaders? Maybe you can consider that they actually see through your plan to weaken them by paying them to fight a meaningless war. Sometimes they are just busy doing their own thing and sometimes that civ has been paying them tribue to stay at peace.

Try some things like actually keeping pace with everyone's military in the galaxy. Although it slows down your social and technological revolution, that's the point. Keep your empire balanced and the AI will grow with you much more as your peer. Try playing different roles like specialize in diplomacy and be the manipulator and have others fight your war by proxy. Try an early attack without having the ground of tech superiority. Play peace maker and try to unify the galaxy without a single civ being eliminated. Play in drastically different sized and types of galaxies and remember that you have more control over your gaming experience than anyone else.

Reply #29 April 23, 2006 6:12 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

BladeVenom:

Hasn't that changed with the latest beta patch? It's a common complaint, and the developers have said they are going to make it play more human i.e. sneak attacks. I haven't played very much with the latest patch, and I'm always the aggressor anyways.

The changelog says the AI is better at thwarting sneak attacks, not in carrying them out.

Reply #30 April 23, 2006 6:13 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Well said Metaphase. I agree whole heartedly.

-Wade

Reply #31 April 23, 2006 6:16 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

He does bring up a point. In my game playing the Terrans, I have the Altarians and Yor, the Insect guys, and the Drengin. And I thought I'd end up allying with the Altarians. But no their the most hostile of the bunch; We've been at war on and off for five years. ANd I'm allied with the Yor.

Reply #32 April 23, 2006 8:04 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

You're wrong. You HAVE to bump for it to show. Your fault, not forum. What difficulty are you playing on? The AI's are very different.

Heh. What kind of sense does it make that you HAVE to bump a first post in a new thread before it shows up on the board???

Reply #33 April 23, 2006 8:06 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Ok, the Torians just declared war on me... I am better in every respect. Their battleships are weaker than my just designed Corvettes and Fighters. I am a good civ.

How can I post screenshots?

Reply #34 April 23, 2006 8:12 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Ok, the Torians just declared war on me... I am better in every respect. Their battleships are weaker than my just designed Corvettes and Fighters. I am a good civ. How can I post screenshots?

Well for a start it doesn't matter at all what your ships are like, it's military rating. Did you screenshot the relations screen? If you have somewhere to host (some blogsites host pics, some free sites do it) upload them and link. If not, say EXACTLY what it says in relations. And are you using 1.1?

Reply #35 April 23, 2006 8:19 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

My military rating is 12. My technology rating is about 140 (I changed weapon tree after I saw that all the other Civs were going the mass driver route, so I lost a few weeks there.) I am using Beta 4B. The Torians have no chance of winning. 2 fleets are in my territory now, but I'll have 2 of my Corvettes finished next week, and they're good enough to destroy the Torian fleets.

What is a good image hosting site? I'll just upload the screenshots.

Reply #36 April 23, 2006 8:29 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

My military rating is 12

Anything under 100 you're open to attack. That's the AI choosing you to die. Even if it realised your production capacity, it would attack you quick in the hope to catch you offguard. The problem is, computers can't catch humans off-guard, since we do more than statistical analysis.

Keep it above 100 with those ships, and you will NOT be attacked. Except if they're far higher than you.

Don't bother with images, that's the reason. IT IS NOT A FAULT OR BUG.

Reply #37 April 23, 2006 8:52 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

For me it is a fault. I just scraped together a fleet of 3 Corvettes and 2 Fighters in 3 turns. Missile attack value 104, 24 Armor. It destroyed 2 Torian fleets before 3 Battleships of them attacked and destroyed it. No matter, the next fleet is ready in the next 2 turns. I will win this war. The Torians did take out my economic and military starbases, but it doesn't matter. I am just too far advanced technologically, and I have 2 major and one minor industrial planet cranking out ships now.

First off, I was a good civ. I wasn't running around conquering anyone or demanding tribute. I was trading with every civ in this game. (Medium map, Altarians, Torians, Iconians, and Drath, Tough setting).

I might've lost this war, if the AI had designed really fast Troop transports and taken out my major industrial planets in the first few turns of the war. It didn't.

But the point is: I am good. The Torians are good. I was trading with them. I am far more advanced than them. There should've been no reason for them to attack me at all, except for my military power. And that is my major complaint with this. I like this game, but as it is now ALL the AIs are aggressors-in-waiting. It doesn't matter if they're good or evil. They will attack sooner or later. I don't see a big difference between "good" and "evil" aligned AIs. This should be changed in future patches.

Reply #38 April 23, 2006 8:54 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Besides, the AI should take potential military strength into account when attacking. The player can see how far advanced the AI is by going to the Trade screen, so the AI should be able to do this too.

Reply #39 April 23, 2006 8:54 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Hmm...earlier Kingwood made a good point about the A.I attacking you when whilst you had a non-existant or negligible military rating you had a good or great tech and economic level-basically as he said the POTENTIAL to kick their ass.

This happens to me a lot as I favour a strategy of economic growth, keeping down spending and growing population before military expenditure.
The simple fact is-once a race (often the Torians first- the green fools who often in games end up in my galactic neighbourhood) have decided to declare war on you because you have no real military-
you can of course immediatly start pumping out state-of-the-art warships as you have the money and tech and then you take out their transpirts and inavde their worlds before you can say 'wasn't that a bad idea eh?' they've been conquered by your good self-
and this expenditure DOES INDEED encourage you to pursue military measures as you've now got a fleet that needs upkeep as disbanding it is a waste of money.
What should be implemented is the A.I should reconsider declaring war if you have a very strong economy and/or tech level as it really does not take a genius (or a good A.I. -we've seen it do more complex stuff already in this game!) to realise that it might be a very bad idea provoking the sleeping giant!
Whilst we are on this WWII referencing-Japan and America! Yes Japan did attack the sleeping giant but only because it was desperate as it was running out of food due to trade sanctions-so this is the exception that proves the rule:

AN A.I SHOULD ONLY ATTACK ANOTHER PLAYER WHOSE MILITARY MAY BE WEAK BUT WHOOSE TECH LEVEL AND OR ECONMY ARE VERY STRONG IF THEY ARE HARD-PRESSED AND DESPERATE-

Expansion due to failing economy and lack of resources for example-but not just based on a player's military level!! If a player is financially and military weak fair enough-they can't afford a drawn out war so they are screwed-but if a player has a lot of money they can afford ships, tech etc. so are not to be trifled with-many a foolish civ has learned that to their cost in my games

So yeah-If stardock could code this consideration into the more advanced A.I it would be a big boost in gameplay-it aint no fun when a race attacks you when you can if forced crush them with relative ease-before they had a chance to build themselves up into a decent oponent.
They should let the sleeping dog lie as it were and look for weaker prey!

Reply #40 April 23, 2006 9:18 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I didnt read every post but...

it seems the complaint is this, CPU's do not adequately take in longer term overall strenth of an opponent when sizing them up for attacking

it continue the WW2 analogies..

When Japan attacked USA, we were "relatively" weak militarily (compared to later in the war)

However the US had a HUGE manufacturing base, and that was a major contribution to the reason the Allies eventually won.

To quote that movie in the 70's about attacking pearl harbor or whatever.. the CPU does't mind "waking a sleeping giant"

alternatively, lets say someone has a pretty large military, but their economy is crappy, their colonies have low manufacturing.. assuming the CPU used espionage to figure that out... they might want to attack, because they know once the military is gone, their opponent wont beable to continue the fight effectiviely.

Reply #41 April 23, 2006 9:27 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Kingwood also has point in that the AI civ leaders don't have much of a personality. I'd like to see a bit more moral consistency from the AI, myself. It's not absolutely necessary (the game isn't a RPG after all), but it would be nice.

To the other poster trolling him, of course this game does a reasonably well defined system of good and evil. The player experiences it every time he chooses a moral dilemma.

Reply #42 April 23, 2006 9:35 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Yes it does-and also true about the personality. I often ally with the Yor-and win a diplomatic victory even though their racial profile dictates that alliances are fleeting with them and they are in it only for themsleves over everyone else-and therefore if it looks like I'm gonna win a diplomatic victory they should pull out and declare war on me or somesuch to prevent me winning.

The Dregin aren't quite evil enough-pretty pally actually -plusI often find the Torians to be the most arrogant and war-hungry, and Altarians can be quite a tempermental bunch-hot and cold -like some girls I know rather than the righteous do-gooders they are meant to be.
tHe thalans are suitably hard to please and stand-ofish though, but I often found the Dominion of Korx to be the most poverty-stricken civ when they are supposed to be the economic masters!

Reply #43 April 23, 2006 11:21 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Evil civs attack to enslave you. Good ones attack thinking they'll be making life easier for you because they're way of life is so much better

This distinction simply doesn't hold up. In GalCiv2's system of ground combat, there are unfortunately neither non-combatants on the defending side (which is ridiculous enough, try getting a 5-year old to fight) nor survivors on the losing side (which could be theoretically excused if the winning side was evil, but in no other case). Yes, those "enlightened" Altarians amuse themselves by committing genocide when they conquer any world, which they shouldn't even if their victims were say, Drengin.

In my opinion, there definitely should be be non-combatants on the defending side (more if defender is good, less if evil, see for comparison Hitler recruiting 14-year old boys for Volkssturm). Also, there should be survivors, usually most non-combatants of the losing side and a significant part of the defenders. Conquered worlds then would have a population much higher than the surviving attacking force, just with significantly reduced morale and loyalty for a while.

As it is now, I think the people who say good and evil are no different have a point in my opinion. Ideally, good civs should help other good civs and not jump on any perceived weakness. Also, they should leave neutral and even evil (!) civs in peace as long as these show no signs of aggression. I have heard arguments this would make good races too weak, and I say no, since good civs would always have RELIABLE partners.

On the other hand, evil races are not some harmonious group, but a bunch of egotistic maniacs who wouldn't hesitate to backstab each other. Any cooperation between them would always be a matter of convenience and for that reason, could never be as efficient a cooperation as an alliance of good civs since the nature of evil is competition, not cooperation.

So in a one-on-one match between a good and an evil race the evil race should always have a significant advantage (guess why), but in a team battle between several good and several evil races the good ones should prevail because their opponents would weaken themselves by occasional infighting.

If the ground-combat system were actually changed in such a way (I seriously doubt it, but that's beside the point) it would actually make sense to make some invasion techniques like mass drivers, tidal disruption and core detonation only available to evil civs since they would then also raise the non-combatant fatality rate. As it is now, mass drivers are no more evil than straightforward invasion (who cares if you die to an asteroid dropping on your house or to a gun, the end result is the same).

Just my 1 bc

Reply #44 April 24, 2006 1:48 AM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

This distinction simply doesn't hold up. In GalCiv2's system of ground combat, there are unfortunately neither non-combatants on the defending side (which is ridiculous enough, try getting a 5-year old to fight) nor survivors on the losing side (which could be theoretically excused if the winning side was evil, but in no other case)

It holds up just fine when you actually read the in-game text about population. Population (The number indicated by the game) is not the total population of that planet, it is the TAXED population of that planet. This indicates that it is generally able bodied adults who are included in that number and by extention in the ground combat.

Before you start in about pacifists and other people who would refuse to fight keep in mind your not talking about one country invading another here, your also not talking about a planet being invaded by people like you. Your talking about your planet being invaded by 12 foot tall beasts, horrible cybernetic killing machines, squishy green fish people, rampagic orc mosters. Any of those invaded earth and I'd fight, on the other hand if my country were invaded I'd weigh my options and the pro's and con's of the conquerer being sucsessful. Galciv 2 is is based in a galaxy not a signle planet, you are playing a galactic empire not a country.

Just some things to keep in mind.

Reply #45 April 24, 2006 2:20 AM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I agree about the non-combatants issue, but for me it is not a big deal.

Reply #46 April 24, 2006 6:29 AM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

As it is now:

1) No real difference between "good" and "evil" civs. They WILL attack the player at some point, if his military rating is low enough.

2) AIs do not take into account the potential military strength. Like someone mentioned above,if the player is good enough, they're "awakening a sleeping giant".

What I'd like to see is:

A) Good civilizations more reluctant to start a war of aggression. Aggression IS "evil", and thus should be limited to "evil" civilizations. They should react, but not initiate, especially relating to another "good" civilization.

Add an industry rating to the graph. If military rating is low, but industry rating is high, AIs thus know that the potential to destroy them is there. This should make them either unwilling to start a war, or forge alliances BEFOREHAND, and declare war on the strongest player together in one turn. I know gangbanging is included now, but that usually involves other civilizations joining in after the war has already started.

Would be nice to hear from the devs about this.

Cheers!

Reply #47 April 24, 2006 7:42 AM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Add an industry rating to the graph. If military rating is low, but industry rating is high, AIs thus know that the potential to destroy them is there. This should make them either unwilling to start a war, or forge alliances BEFOREHAND, and declare war on the strongest player together in one turn. I know gangbanging is included now, but that usually involves other civilizations joining in after the war has already started.

Ummm.... there is. Whether it's being used in military decisions or not is a different matter. But I agree, the AI probably needs to put more weight on a vastly superior industry when evaluating an opponent.

Reply #48 April 24, 2006 10:01 AM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Before you start in about pacifists and other people who would refuse to fight keep in mind your not talking about one country invading another here, your also not talking about a planet being invaded by people like you. Your talking about your planet being invaded by 12 foot tall beasts, horrible cybernetic killing machines, squishy green fish people, rampagic orc mosters. Any of those invaded earth and I'd fight, on the other hand if my country were invaded I'd weigh my options and the pro's and con's of the conquerer being sucsessful. Galciv 2 is is based in a galaxy not a signle planet, you are playing a galactic empire not a country.

In any war, the governments of the war-waging parties try to portrait the other side exactly as the "rampaging orc monsters". It's not true, but they do it anyway. And yes, I'm talking about wars here on earth. if aliens invaded earth, I don't doubt that YOU would fight them. But you cannot generalize from you to little children, invalids, old people, pregnant women etc... most of those would see that if they fought, they would very likely die, if not, the invaders might just be merciful on them. I say most of them (the groups I mentioned above, not able-bodied adults) would NOT fight in such a situation, no matter how green the aliens were, since they would see the futility of doing so.

Reply #49 April 24, 2006 1:16 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

The groups you mentioned also don't pay taxes. Except for pregnant women. Which means they arent included in the numbers, which means you havent the slightest clue what happens to them.

Reply #50 April 24, 2006 1:40 PM from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Kingwood,
It sounds like you have adopted the same strategy that I usually employ while playing this game. Spend all of my resources on economy, research, and infrastructure while not bothering with my military strength until it's needed. With the way the AI works currently, that's a plausible strategy sometimes. However, the thing you have to realize when you play using this strategy and then complain about the computer opponents dying miserably when they attack you is that the programmers tried to make this a fun game. Your strategy only works at all because the game gives you a warning when you're ABOUT to be attacked. If the computer opponents played like humans, you'd be in serious trouble. Imagine how well you'd be doing if instead of declaring war, then attacking 2,3,or more turns later, the computer just swamped most of your outer worlds with the large standing fleets they've got built. You are weak even if you have the infrastructure waiting to build dozens of ships--you just rely on the computer to play fair.