Morghenes Morghenes

GalCiv2 offering no fun on huge/gigantic maps

▼

GalCiv2 offering no fun on huge/gigantic maps

from GalCiv2 Forums
First of all I'm a big fan of 4x games, which is reason why I bought galciv2 in the first place. I own this game since it was released in europe and I played it quite often. In the meantime I had many galactic conquests and I must say I'm growing more an more malcontent with galciv2.
I only like playing these games on large maps.. I can't stand playing 4x games on small or medium maps that I can finish inbetween supper and bedtime.
And this is exactly the one thing galciv2 can't offer: Good games on huge/gigantic maps with lots of planets. The game is challenging at beginning, until you become the most powerful civ. From this point on NO opponent will ever declare war on you anymore nor will it try anything at all to stop you from winning. From this point on I would be forced to build tons of Transports in order to conquer all enemy races-thats an extremely time intensive and utterly boring task on Huge/Gigantic maps. And it doesn't matter what game difficulty you play on, from easy to suicidial, once you're over the initial "hump" you won the game. I waited quite a long time for some improvement here, but nothin.
I don't know what it needs to change this. I promoted Tactical combat in a other thread but i don't believe that's necessary nor a key element at all to offer an all time challenge. The only reason I still stick to this game is because I highly respect the developers openness and commitment to galciv2 and the potential I see in this game.
Sorry stardock, at the end I'm only a customer of a video game who wants to have some fun from the product he bought, and Galciv2 just can't offer that, at least not fore my gaming style.
Whatever, something must be done to keep the game interesting from the beginning to the end of a game.
24,612 views 48 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
No time to read this entirely.. But It seems that the AI doesn't band together to stop you. If you own 40 to 50 % of the map it's game won mostly, especially if the remaining 50 to 60% is divided by 6 other players.

Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the AI to work together against me at that point no matter what ?
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hmm.. How about the ability to form a "tripple aliance" or a coalition ?

I mean, the players can allready form an aliance with more then 1, but what I mean is that the player or AI "talks" to 2 or more others and if they agree all involved are alied to each other and not just to the initiator. If it's a coalition they could have a vote to go to war or not..
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Have you tried accelerating the tech?
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would appreciate a comment from someone of Stardock on this 'important' issue.
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
am unsure what this enemy of my enemy thing is that people are talking about but Glaciv has this if I understand it correctly. Once a civ declares war or is attacked then their allies have to come to their aid and seemingly always do.


"Enemy of my Enemy" thinking is the idea that relations should improve between empires that have a common enemy, and in general that relations between two empires should change becasue of relationships that each has with third-party empires.

and it's not just honoring Alliances... it's how relations change between unallied empires who aren't at war with each other either...


an example: if i have bad relations (maybe but not necessarily War) with the Drengin, and the Drengin have good relations (maybe but not necessarily an Alliance) with the Yor, will my relations with the Yor get worse? that would be "Enemy of my Friend is my Enemy" thinking by the Yor, and "Friend of my Enemy is my Enemy" thinking by me.

another example: if i have bad relations with the Drengin, and the Drengin have bad relations with the Torians, should my relations with the Torians get better? that would be "Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" thinking by both the Torians and me.

final example: if i have good relations with the Torians, and the Torians have good relations with the Altarians, should my relations with the Altarians get better? that would "Friend of my Friend is my Friend" thinking by both me and the Altarians.


so, does GC2 do this already?

or do relations between empires fluctuate independantly of relations with other empires?

yes, it would be very interesting to learn this!
Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Along with more outrageous random events, there needs to be a everyone likes you less when you are in front. You could call it the USA syndrome or something.


Sometimes called Tall Poppy Syndrome
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi PED!
Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As I said i don't like meduim/small maps that much so I don't even bother to play them. The smallest i play is large,
usually with at least 6 races, adundant planets, habitable planets also set to abundant and starsystems set to uncommon, at the very max to common on large maps

Let me see: you have set a lot of habitable planets and aren't using all AI. This give lots of room to get a nice base. Why using so many usable planets? To get a greater benefit from using production starbase? Abundant planets and abundant habitable planets doesn't really mean a harder game but surely a longer one
Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think there should be a small polarizing effect diplomatically. If you become very powerful, similar alignment races should gravitate to you and want to be your allies, while opposite alignment races should want to attack you. At least that will lead to a big war and an allied victory quickly in such games.
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And it doesn't matter what game difficulty you play on, from easy to suicidial, once you're over the initial "hump" you won the game.

Its like that on all turn based strategy games.

Also dont use the term 4x, its a term made up by the marketing director of Atari to sell MOO3.
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Let me see: you have set a lot of habitable planets and aren't using all AI. This give lots of room to get a nice base. Why using so many usable planets? To get a greater benefit from using production starbase? Abundant planets and abundant habitable planets doesn't really mean a harder game but surely a longer one


Well, it doesn't leave that much planets for each race. When I have all good and natural races plus me as the only evil in the game that makes around 15 planets per empire. Thats not horribly much. Don't forget i have stars set to uncommon.

Its like that on all turn based strategy games.


no one ever denied that. At a certain point every game is decided, the question is only how long does it take for that to happen. in case of Galciv2 I reach that point very fast.
Reply #38 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
for me the BEST part is once you are over the hump and get to pick the spoils of your hard won victory... that so called "hump" is total victory by surpassing everyone in every field from economic to military to research... why SHOULD you have troubles after you do that? the gang up is an option but even it has its limit if you set your borders properly... (they are still all sending smaller weaker ships with older weapons...)

No, the reason I think large maps are unplayable is because the micromanagement gets obscene...
Reply #39 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Unfortunately I've got the same "boring syndrome" that you describe even in Medium sized galaxy....I really hope the SD crew will find a way to makes games still interesting after you own the "Leader stick".
And I don't think this is in noway related to the difficuty level you choose to play, as soon as you have the biggest militar rating, research and economy than every AI become very very timid and try to be your friend....it should be the opposite way: the stronger you are the bigger the penalties in relationship towards your neighbours you have.
Reply #40 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
for me the BEST part is once you are over the hump and get to pick the spoils of your hard won victory... that so called "hump" is total victory by surpassing everyone in every field from economic to military to research... why SHOULD you have troubles after you do that? the gang up is an option but even it has its limit if you set your borders properly... (they are still all sending smaller weaker ships with older weapons...)


Why I should have troubel after I'm over the hump? Because I need a reason to finish off the game, and that reason is called motivation. I don't know if you play in bigger maps. On small maps once you're over the hump you just build a few transports and the enemies are conquered quickly, no problem there. On big maps the "over the hump Phase" is a pain in the a**.
Reply #41 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And I don't think this is in noway related to the difficuty level you choose to play, as soon as you have the biggest militar rating, research and economy than every AI become very very timid and try to be your friend....

When it is that case, why not finishing the game with an alliance victory: after all, you are leading, nobody can annoy you, every race reckognize your lead. It looks like to me a lot that all conditions for an alliance win are here
Reply #42 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
someone mentioned the fundementalists evil event.. now i want to see if one can be made for the good races.

as for end game, quite a few good suggestions for help in that area, the ai does at times seem to run slow on ganging up - with that being said the few 1.2 games ive messed around with did have the races creating more alliances, which should help as well.
Reply #43 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Let me see: you have set a lot of habitable planets and aren't using all AI. This give lots of room to get a nice base. Why using so many usable planets? To get a greater benefit from using production starbase? Abundant planets and abundant habitable planets doesn't really mean a harder game but surely a longer one


I thought I read somewhere that The AI is getting better when there are lots of planets to colonize? Because it takes advantage of its micromanaging skill and that its somewhat difficult for the AI to deal properly with only 3-5 Planets.
I like playing difficult setups, but I would really wnat one that includes all other races, because I think they add alot to the game. It's hard to chose one to just stand at the side and watch. In the end I would be playing against the same set of races every time. Probably leaving out the Korx, Thalan and Drath most of the time even though I like them as much as all the others. But after all my games I kind of get the feeling, that those are the races that are less likely to succeed.

As I said i don't like meduim/small maps that much so I don't even bother to play them. The smallest i play is large,
usually with at least 6 races, adundant planets, habitable planets also set to abundant and starsystems set to uncommon, at the very max to common on large maps.


A little bit off topic: Regarding galaxy setup. I also like the idea of just a few star systems with lots of habitale planets and not because I like building starbases so much. For one thing, because that way it actually makes sense to me to research stellar cartography. When there are planets in a system they are likely to be habitable. The text message says that habitle planets are showing up slightly different on the minimap, but so far I didn't notice any difference. Or am I missing something.
And for difficulty you can still set star systems to scattered so starbases can only cover one star system.


Reply #44 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Let me see: you have set a lot of habitable planets and aren't using all AI. This give lots of room to get a nice base. Why using so many usable planets? To get a greater benefit from using production starbase? Abundant planets and abundant habitable planets doesn't really mean a harder game but surely a longer one


I thought I read somewhere that The AI is getting better when there are lots of planets to colonize? Because it takes advantage of its micromanaging skill and that its somewhat difficult for the AI to deal properly with only 3-5 Planets.
I like playing difficult setups, but I would really wnat one that includes all other races, because I think they add alot to the game. It's hard to chose one to just stand at the side and watch. In the end I would be playing against the same set of races every time. Probably leaving out the Korx, Thalan and Drath most of the time even though I like them as much as all the others. But after all my games I kind of get the feeling, that those are the races that are less likely to succeed.

As I said i don't like meduim/small maps that much so I don't even bother to play them. The smallest i play is large,
usually with at least 6 races, adundant planets, habitable planets also set to abundant and starsystems set to uncommon, at the very max to common on large maps.


A little bit off topic: Regarding galaxy setup. I also like the idea of just a few star systems with lots of habitale planets and not because I like building starbases so much. For one thing, because that way it actually makes sense to me to research stellar cartography. When there are planets in a system they are likely to be habitable. The text message says that habitle planets are showing up slightly different on the minimap, but so far I didn't notice any difference. Or am I missing something.
And for difficulty you can still set star systems to scattered so starbases can only cover one star system.


Reply #45 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
why not finishing the game with an alliance victory: after all, you are leading, nobody can annoy you, every race reckognize your lead.

That's exactly the thing I did in my last game. After taking out Torians, Drath and Korx I grow so big no one was able to hurt me seriously. OTOH there would be just too much work involved in the mop-up. I really didn't want to build and dispatch ~ 60 troop ships to militarily conquer remaining races. So I opted for alliance victory. The Yor were the worst, I had to give them 5 trade wonders, ~10000 BC AND a planet, just to get them "close".

BR, Iztok
Reply #46 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I just ally with people as I go (without lots of gifts, just by trade route, military power and so on). If they won't ally quickly enough (usually the evil races) then I wipe them out. This avoids the tedious endgame of mopping everybody up, as you only really have to do it with a few of the civs. It isn't cheasy, which is the accusation some like to level at allied victory, since I will almost always be the largest by the point that I win the allied victory (excluding unlucky surrenders).
Reply #47 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The thing is on a huge or larger map you need ALL the AIs to perform well. The thing is in this game only 3 of them do anything in the game and as a result you find yourself always fighing the same races. Once they die everyone else is destroyed easily.

They need to make all the AIs play as well as the torians Altarians and Arceans usually do, if not then the maps will always be boring. Might as well play with 4 players, would be more of a challenge.
Reply #48 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Not sure what setting you are on,but I just played a duel to the death in a Large environment and I was clearly the superior CIV in all catagories and the AI did declare war on me and attack me several times untill I wiped them out.