Rendorax Rendorax

Don't expect the AI to get any better.

Don't expect the AI to get any better.

"If you can win ... you must be [cheating]." - Brad


A challenge that will take more time to deal with is that the computer players have reached the level where they are plenty tough for me. That is, unless I'm playing on a very specific setting or playing with a very specific style, the AI at higher than tough difficulties will cream me. My view is that anyone being 1.2 at anything higher than tough consistently is probably doing some sort of exploit at which point you just gotta decide whether you want to play a game or game the program? The AI doesn't "care" whether it loses. So if you figure out that you can some starbase/resource/ship combo or find some diplomacy trick to "Win" then knock yourself out. But I won't be spending my summer weekends trying to "fix" something like that.


I was just going over some of the past journals here, trying to get a feeling for the developers and the directions they intend to take the game, when I ran across this gem. Now, I think I understand Brad Wardell's remark in a previous thread I started, about finding Tough, Painful, and Crippling difficulty way too easy. He said that, basically, only cheap tactics could possibly win beyond Tough. I think I know why he said that now -- he, himself, despite designing and playing games for 15 years, according to the same journal post, can't win the game beyond that level. Argh.

Previously, I saw an interesting post from Brad Wardell on Civfanatics, where he said that he liked playing as the Romans on Small, Pangaea (one continent) worlds, in Civ 4. Ugh. Talk about cheap. If you're not familiar with Civ 4, the Romans have an insanely overpowered unique unit that stomps all over the rest of the world for quite some time -- certainly long enough to conquer a Tiny or Small, Pangaea world.

I don't like the insinuation that I must be using cheap tactics to win this game. The entire reason that I bought this game was because everyone kept talking about how the AI was so great and they had such a difficult time winning. I didn't buy it because it has no DRM (it does -- the fucking long ass serial number that I had to enter something like three times, when I installed the game), the "humor" (which generally consists of "I'm too lazy to enter any text here - ha ha, isn't that funny?", generic technobabble, or tedious, banal references to TV shows, and, worst of all, reads like some crap written by a fanboy (or Iliad, the dumbass who writes User Friendly)), the graphics or sound (which are essentially throw-away), or the "science fiction" background (which is total bullshit -- this game is about as scientific as Star Wars. I, too, used to hate it when people made a huge stink over whether Star Wars was "true SF" or whatever, but, as I progressed in my science background, I got more and more sensitive to what got classified as "science fiction", rather than "space opera" or "fantasy". As a result, I guess I'm much more a fan of what people'd call "hard science fiction", where the science actually makes sense. I do apologize for being such a wanker, in this respect. I still don't like those people so much, even though I've generally come to agree with them.).

Yes, yes, I know what you'll say. I'm being a nerd, and I can't relax and enjoy the game, for its humor. I hate this kind of humor. And, yes, I am a nerd. I've been a gamer for twenty five years (take that, Brad Wardell, with your paulty fifteen! I mean, hey, if we're going to be bragging here...). I used to write computer games like "The Political Machine" or whatever bullshit Stardock wrote before GalCiv. Back then, everyone was a programmer, because computer games were so rare (and, quite frequently, poorly done, so the bar was quite a bit lower than today). I also wrote quite a lot of fiction. Not all of it was good, to be sure, but I'd like to think that it was above the level of Master of Orion fanfic. I mean, really!! Is there no one amongst you who has ever played MOO? It's a one-to-one correllation, essentially: humans as diplomatics and traders, the mysterious "precursors", the powerful civilization that comes out of nowhere to randomly destroy colonies, starbases, etc. I could go on all fucking day.

I'm sick of people who don't have a creative bone in their body simply referencing pop culture. The Yor? Cylons. The Drengin? Klingons. Wink, wink. Yeah, I caught all the hidden references in the game. The same, tired, overused quotes and references to Star Trek, Hitchhiker's Guide, etc. I've heard people quote these things so often, I'm beginning to think that now I've got the entire movies, books, or TV shows memorized, too. I'd rather fill my head with useful information. I'm not obsessive-compulsive, but I'm starting to feel like I've been turned into one, thanks to all the fanboys on the internet.

Modding. Before I close, I just wanted to say that the back of the box lied. There is no modding in this game. This game is as moddable as a title from the 1990s! Oooh, you can change the names of the races! Ooooh, you can change the names of the techs! Do you people know what a true mod is? Try looking at Oblivion or Civ 4. You know what's sad? Alpha Centauri, released probably ten years ago, is just as moddable as this game, and it has more features, better music, more plot, actual science, insightful points (Lal's speech on freedom, for example), and the same horrible AI. Alpha Centauri was a great game, but it wasn't very moddable, and it was too easy. But -- here's the catch -- it was multiplayer. Tell me, Brad, exactly what features did Alpha Centauri have not implemented, due to being MP? It has more fucking features than your game!

Argh! MP! You know why this game doesn't have MP? It's because none of you people have the self-confidence or ability to play against another human being. I can't believe so many people here find this game difficult! You want to know what my strategy for winning on the high difficulty levels is? Here:

1) Rush a small handful of colony ships. You don't need all that many. The AI goes berserk in trying to colonize every single planet. Just take whatever it leaves you.
2) Ignore any threats. Without Planetary Invasion, they can't do shit. Much to my annoyance, neither can I.
3) Research a few diplomatic or influence technologies, as desired. The AI never researches either, so you'll have a monumental bonus to your diplomacy and/or influence soon.
4) Trade a few techs to the weakest AIs. They'll give up everything they have, just to have the scraps you feed them, thanks to your overwhelming diplomacy ability. Half of the AIs in the game will also be inexplicably stuck doing no research, on Genius and Incredible. Why? I don't know. Ask Brad. He's the one insinuating that my strategy is cheap. Because, as we all know, his AI is INCREDIBLE. My best guess is that he programmed them to spend every single dime they have buying colonizers. Why is that ridiculous lease system even in the game? The only reason I can fathom is because he wants to cripple half the AIs.
5) Build a token amount of defensive ships. Someone probably has Planetary Invasion by now. Or you probably do. Once, I did use a cheap tactic involving putting five lasers on a cargo hull. Hah! That was funny. The AI was scared to death of me for about 25-50 turns. No matter that the cargo ship had 1 hit point, no sensors, no life support, no defenses, no engine, nothing. Just five lasers. Yep, great AI that you'd have to use cheap tactics to beat. I became disgusted with myself for taking such bad advantage of his poor AI skills, and I swore to never do this again.
6) Build up your economic infrastructure. Build a starbase or two, build some trade ships, do a social project that makes money, whatever. They're all good choices, and the more, the better.
7) Build up more infrastructure, such as wonders. Or declare war on one of the AIs. Either works fine, at this point. Preferably, antagonize an Evil civilization into declaring war on you. If you want, antagonize a Good one, instead. If they declare war on you first, all your allies with intercede and no one will make a stink about you being too warlike. Or, if you feel like not being so diplomatic and sneaky, just declare war on everyone at once.
8) Make some ships that will utterly annihilate your chosen enemy. They probably haven't researched a single defensive tech, and they typically only research one single weapon tech. In the odd case that an AI has researched a defensive tech, simply take away one of the other components (such as a second engine or additional life support), and add another weapon. They never put more than one or two defensive structures on their ships.
9) Slaughter their entire fleet. This is the easiest part. It's like a knife through butter. I feel almost guilty destroying AI after AI like this, because they can't muster up the simplest challenge to my ship design. What the fuck are they thinking when they send fleet after fleet to suicide themselves against my custom-designed Korxbusters or Drenginslayers?
10) Make a few troop transports. Optimally, it'd be better if you made them MUCH earlier. But, that's not necessary, if you're feeling lazy. After having his military devestated, the AI will basically just sit there, waiting for your troop transports of doom to carve out massive portions of his empire.
11) He'll surrender to someone else. Don't fret. It's not that big of a deal. You probably conquered all the good planets, anyways. Who cares if you lose out on conquering a PQ 3 world?
12) You're probably number one in military strength now. Accept all the tribute that you're given. Build up your infrastructure and economy again. I like to pump out about 25 or 30 constructors after a big war, in order to finance my rebuilding of the conquered worlds. The AI can't build infrastructure for shit.
13) Declare war on an evil race, or wait for the Iconions to do it. Join the Iconions. Or, hell, declare war on the Iconions. Depends on how aggressive (and evil) you feel. If you're playing the Yor or Drengin, might as well go ballistic.
14) Join in with the good races on the glorious war of conquest against the evil races, subjugate the good races, or trade with everyone. My strategies are actually somewhat FLUID. Not cheap. Fuck you, Brad. I'm sorry that I can beat your pathetic AI so easily.
15) Win the game. Since you have most of the galaxy either eating out of your hand (Good) or scared shitless of you (Evil), go for political. This is particularly easy for Good races who've been devious in their diplomacy (playing the evil races against each other, for example). This is much harder for Evil races, unless you went ballistic and killed nearly everyone. Whoever is left will be all-too-willing to form an alliance with you. If you're neutral, you have more work cut out for you, perhaps. Go for an influence victory or side with the Good races and purge the universe of Evil. Or, form an alliance with both the Good and Evil races, for an even easier political victory than the Good races. The tech victory is also quite easy for Neutral races, given the overpowering advantage they have in the Neutrality Learning Centers. Just engage in a bit of trading, maybe a few surgical strikes against anyone who acts all uppity, and then go back to researching. Conquest is a bit long and tedious for my tastes. I prefer a quick, decisive military strike against anyone who won't play nice, then a return to my victory strategy.
13) If you're still having trouble with the Drengin going ballistic on everyone, and you feel you're next, build up your military. Make some ships custome-designed to kill the Drengin. Don't use the throw-away default ships. They suck beyond belief. Just name your ships Drenginslayer MK1 or whatever, load it up with a few weapons, a few defenses, and about 25 to 30 speed. This will give you an unstoppable advantage. No Drengin planet is defended by more than three or four ships, so just send in your surgical strike, take a few planets, and the Drengin will be begging you for peace. Depending on your current mood, grant it or eliminate them.

I could go into more detail here, but I'm seriously having trouble imagining what points need elucidating. I mean, yeah, I could give you point-by-point instructions on how to make a Korxbuster. But that's something you probably need to learn for yourself, through a couple games. Usually, the AI doesn't use enough defense. Use this to your advantage. Usually, the AI makes high offense fleets with very little defense. Use this to your advantage, too. Usually, the AI puts its weakest ships in reserve, as defenders, then sends out its most powerful ships to some random location. I dunno. Just hunt them down and blow them away. That's what I do. It's usually not very difficult to find them, with no sensors, and without Eyes of the Galaxy. Send out a few fleets on recon duty. Keep a fleet or two around to destroy any stragglers, near his core planets. Always make sure you've got a fleet in reserve around your own core planets, in order to destroy the inevitable, pittiable force your enemy sends. Don't play defensively. I did that once, and my ships -- while good -- were destroyed easily by the AIs fleets. Very bad strategy. That's how the AI plays. Learn from the AI's mistakes.

Okay, finally -- what's with the Cult of Brad here? I don't understand it. He calls you cheaters, tells you he's done with improving the game (because HE can't win it anymore), and you cheer him on? The fuck? I don't take well to that. No game developer I've ever heard of in the history of gaming has EVER done that before. He's like some whiney kid in an FPS saying that you're too good at the game and must be cheating. But he just has absolutely no clue how to play the game.

I'm usually not good enough at FPSes to get claims of cheating. I can hold my ground, though, even though I'm almost 35 and have dulled reflexes. I understand how to play the games. Hell, I LIKE trying my luck against other people, even the 14 year olds who can destroy me quite easily, in every session. Sometimes I get lucky. Who knows. But I'm not so chickenshit that I hide behind this "online gamers are too haaaard! other people have skiiiiiill! they might beeeeeeat me!" whine. Oh, please. Once I help my girlfriend with her initial strategies, she can learn awesome strategies herself and surpass me -- even when she thinks that she's going to suck at a game, because it's a genre with which she's unfamiliar. It doesn't take that much time or effort; just a willingness to learn.

Yes, I know that I'm banned. Yes, I know that I should just uninstall the game and play something else. Yes, I know that I shouldn't let the door hit me on the way out. And, yes, I know that you think I'm a whiney, bipolar (you'd actually be right about that one. I'll give you that.), elitist (yeah, probably true) asshole (and I should probably admit to that one, too).

So, whatever you say is probably true. I'll grant you that. But try to think about what I've said, under all of the venom and snarkiness. Is it true, too?

Finally, let's just say that I don't like when game developers promise to improve a game's AI, then whine that it's too much effort to do so. It's your fucking job, man. Do it. Don't whine about it. And, for God's sake, don't whine about it in a "blog".
86,355 views 87 replies
Reply #26 Top
Of course Frogboy already noted that the AI isn't perfect and has done so consistently through his journals. Just because the OP pointed out the obvious doesn't mean he was treated unjustly by a response about his attitude.

Further, what does 'over-hyped' mean as to the promotion of this game? All advertisements are aimed at the broadest audience of a product. I'm actually pretty sure given my experience that the AI in 1.0 was probably challenging to the great bulk of people who purchased the game. Taking advertisements personally is pretty dumb, especially for people who should know they are on the hardcore end of the gaming spectrum (and all but surely over represented on a feedback site such as this).

Food for thought.
Reply #27 Top

IllegalChase/V1,

Where did I ever imply that the AI is as good as it can possibly get? Where?

ALL game AI can always be improved. It's purely a matter of effort, time, and resources.

I wrote this on June 30th -- it's the latest journal entry:

https://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=122241

The title "Why AI must evolve after release".

So clearly I think AI can be improved.

The problem with the original post is the # of inaccuracies in his allegations as well as the lack of backup in his assertions.  I mean, if the game's so easy to beat, why isn't he beating it at the highest difficulties? Why isn't he beating it in other ways other than political alliances -- the easiest way to win?  Sure, he may claim to have won in other ways, but there's no evidence of that. If you look at someone's high score list and all their wins are at fairly modest difficulty levels (consider this: Crippling in GalCiv is equivalent to Civ IV's "Noble".

Another thing that I find problematic is the argument that the "AI in this game was hyped".  How was the AI hyped?  All we've ever said is that the AI provides a challenge without having to cheat which is true.  Here is a link to the InfoGuide on this site:

https://www.galciv2.com/infoguide.aspx

So please tell me how the AI was hyped.  GalCiv's claim to fame with regard to AI is that it doesn't have to cheat to play decently which is true.  It never claims to be unbeatable by good strategy game players.

Moreover, the other inaccuracies are just gratuitious like the assertion that GalCiv is just a MOO rip-off and that the game has no real modding, etc. just make me even less inclined to take his word on his other allegations.

But just because I disagree with much of what he writes doesn't mean I think the GalCiv II AI is the end all, be all.  Again, read the journal entry, and that is also why we're working on 1.3 and why AI is a major focus of the expansion pack.

Game AI is a feature just like interface, graphics, and so forth.  It is always something that can be improved.  But the fact it can be improved doesn't mean what is in there is somehow "shit".

Reply #28 Top

One other thing about the assertion that the "AI is hyped"

Here are our two ads:

https://www.stardock.com/media/gc2-ad15.jpg

and

https://www.stardock.com/media/gc2-ad17.jpg

Computer AI isn't even mentioned in them.

I can say personally computer AI is the most important feature in a PC strategy game but I'm biased.  I also believe that GalCiv II's AI is as good as anything else out there and is able to do so without having to cheat and for players who are really good, higher levels are available. 

I also think most players would agree that GalCiv II's AI is better than most/all other similar games that have been made. It is something we put a lot more effort in than is normal. I also think those same players would agree that despite that, the AI can always be improved further.

But the AI is not something our ads or marketing have focused on.

 

Reply #29 Top
Brad, what kind of changes/improvements to the AI are you making in 1.3 other the mentioned bug fixes? I don't recall if you specified other than "better algorithms" in the journal. I'm curious what we can expect more of. Thanks.
Reply #30 Top
Amusing.

I admit am no master gamer, I am too A.D.D. when it comes to gaming. I might play BF2 one day, GC2 the next, following up with BFME2 and WoW the next.. maybe ending my week playing a MUD.

Now, I find the AI to be a challenge even on tough. Slowly, I am getting better. GC2 pleases me because it will grow with me and always give me a good challenge. It is going to take me quite some time to beat it on all these mean-sounding levels of difficulty people keep bringing up

There are ALWAYS ways of making a game harder. For those of you who find the hardest difficulties way too easy, why not pick a custom race with crappy bonuses? Why not FORCE yourself to pursue only 1 line of tech research?

See, MOO2 had a lame AI. I could beat it on Impossible I think it was no problem. Same with Master of Magic :chuckle: Which I still play probably too often. As games have evolved AI has too. Civ IV still gives me a good challenge, but it lacks certain features I need for the game to be fun.

GC2 for me is an amazing game. My only complaints have to be the lack of depth available in espionage and the Galactic Council - and UTTERLY HORRIBLE surrender mechanics I can't enjoy my games because 1 race always gets a lucky surrender and quickly eats everyone else within a few years.

Perhaps it is this very thing that is making the game too easy for people. I just don't know... The AI seems rather intelligent to me.
Reply #31 Top
Wow. I wish I had the time to write OP's like that.

Ok, so maybe the AI isn't perfect. But thousands and thousands of people playing the game are going to find many more of the little annoyances than Brad can himself. Even though those little annyoances are there, the AI is still very good in respect to other AI's. Anyway, games are only supposed to be fun. If the AI is good enough to keep you playing and enjoy doing so, then hey, it works, doesn't it?
Reply #32 Top
Don't misunderstand me - GalCiv easily is the best 4X I have ever played, and is definitely in my top 5 of all time. I think the OPs comments are rude and overstated, and that's just for the aspect I commented on. His outright insults and insinuations were just too laughable to dignify with comment - I guess I should have made that clear. I'm just kinda sensitive to the idea of any limit as to how smart the AI should be, because for me, the AI is the game. I love how pretty galciv2 is, but I'd play it just as much if it looked like Civ1.

The nearest I'd get to saying it's "over-hyped" is that it's not smarter than me. I just took the opportunity to comment on it's biggest deficiences with respect to the way I play. It was meant as constructive criticism.

At the company I work for, we're told "The service is part of the product"; for you guys that's literally true, and damb it's a good product! I hope you took from my post the feeling that I LOVE GalCiv2, because I do. I can't wait to get the expansion BTW.

I just want it to be even better! (Game devs don't need food or sleep, right...?)
Reply #33 Top
::shrug:: I really like the game. It's fun. 'nuff said.
Reply #34 Top
I have never seen a strategy game yet where the hardcore fan didn't complain about how bad the AI was. Now I see why most developers doesn't even try to update the AI after the game is released since it seems Brad can't win. There are dozens of thread in Civ4 where people are complaining of how bad civ4 AI is. It's been pointed out that the majority of those who buy the game will never play on higher levels. So it seems there's not much profit for a developer to continue updating the AI just for the few hardcore gamers which will never be satified anyways.


Reply #35 Top
If you want someone to point to "where the AI has been overhyped," it hasn't been by the developers, per se, but by the game press. Nearly every review of GC2 out there talked about how good the game's AI was. In part, of course, this is because the game's AI is pretty damned good, especially compared to most other 4X AIs; but also, in part, it's because it became part of "the narrative" for game reviews of GC2.

Game reviewers are generally aware of each other, and any conclusion about a given game which is reached by enough reviewers will tend to find its way into other, subsequent reviews. Not because reviewers are lazy or unoriginal, but because that's just the way that the human mind works: Once we have a narrative frame for a topic, all new discussions of that topic tend to flow into that frame. Also, once that frame was in place, a later reviewer who might not have otherwise mentioned the AI in their review would almost certainly then do so, because they knew that its absence in the review would be noticed ("All the other reviews talked about the AI -- what's wrong with this one?").

So the majority of the hype about the AI came from reviewers, not from the developers here. On the other hand, y'all (quite understandably) did happily link to, and quote from, those reviews on the web site -- which could certainly give the impression that you, too, were hyping the AI.
Reply #36 Top
"Once I help my girlfriend with her initial strategies, she can learn awesome strategies herself and surpass me"

HAHA! No offense, but what kind of girl would want to go out with a 35 year old gamer??   

Also, yes, I think you are about to be banned. I've never seen so many "F-bombs" since Psycho was here.
Reply #37 Top
IllegalChase/V1,
Where did I ever imply that the AI is as good as it can possibly get? Where?


@Frogboy

Hehe, dident quite expect to get a reply from you on my first ever post here, but cheers . You dident exactly hide that you're tired of the whole subject, but to clearify myself:

I know the AI will get better which is why Im here in the first place. Heck I only bought the game 1 week ago after looking for a new game due to the last game I bought (Heroes V) was released uncompleted and had no AI at all. It had lots of scripting and AI bonuses even at easy, but thats just not the same. (duh)

-

Today I had my first "wow!" experience ever in a turn based game. And it caused me to spend the entire day playing. Basicly the Altarian lined up lots of invasion ships on my border while playing me for a little while, then they put me over the table and had their way with me.

I own all the civ games, alpha centauri and moo3. And in comparisment the GalCivII AI is in another division. Ofcourse this shouldent be news to you. But it was to me as I only found out about the game 2 weeks ago from Apolyton as I was checking some Alpha Centauri stuff.

In general I try not to expect to much from games lately as the ones Ive bought have been released unfinished or in late beta.

It was the same with GalCiv2 it looked interesting and I downloaded the demo (which is the best demo I have ever seen btw, as it shows exactly how the game is). But I dident expect to much, which is why it blew my mind and all my expectations.

The main reason I checked out GalCiv2 was due to reading that the creators were friendly and listened to the comunity. After my latest purchase with Heroes 5 (I really cant express my disapointment enough with this one) I wanted something else. And this game, the community and its creators is just that.

Again @Frogboy, Im sure that you're tired of people "whining" about the AI not sending snipers at them in RL to disable them while it micromanage the crap out of you ingame. But you should take it as a compliment. You say that you're a longtime gamer so you should know how the situation is like with most other games atm and how their forums look like.

In summary: Im not sure if you actually were annoyed as its hard to tell by reading text. But myself I love this game and what you have done with it. And I cant express how much I like a game that puts focus on AI and not eye candy.

My programing teacher once said that you can simulate a chicken almost perfectly with just a couple of thousand lines of code, but that in order to simulate a human mind you would need several million pages of flawless code. So I think some people may have a tad unrealistic expectations on the AI.

-IC
(grammar, typos, not native english and all that)
Reply #39 Top
I have played GC2 since it was originally released, after a couple of games I increased the difficulty to suicidal level and stayed there since. I am interested in seeing if the AI at any future point can beat me. Since it was released, the AI has improved, making it harder to play at suicidal level, most notably at 1.1 and again at 1.2. This has challenged me to continue playing the game.

I wouldn't call out-doing the AI in planet development an exploit really.


The only really awful point about the AI's play which could do with SERIOUS improvement is planetary development. The AI is awful at it, since 1.2 the AI is actually worse at planetary development than before. Now it spends a lot of time building nothing, before at least it built influence buildings or something, now zip.

In all other areas colonisation, war, diplomacy etc... the AI is competent to very good. It's the best I have ever played against and I have played MOO's and Civ4 etc...

I am a strategy player of 25 years experience, the AI gives me more of a challenge then 8/10 human players, it also never gets bored and gives up or loses the save game file or tips the gaming board over (accidently) after 18 solid hours of gameplay. I prefer to see the AI being improved, rather then multiplayer and I am in the overwhealming majority.
Reply #40 Top
Wow that was a long winded post. The OP seemed to have touched a nerve. I enjoyed reading Brad's rebuttal. Thanks for that.

The OP seemed like nothing but a very long rant to me. I don't really understand the point of that. If you don't like the game, move on. Why come here and complain to everyone who for the most, really likes it.
Reply #41 Top
I am nobody, but my .02 cents anyways. There are some issues I would like addressed, but, and this is huge.... they are specific to me fo rthe most part. The AI is good, I enjoy playing against it. I play at high difficulty levels. I do not play the AI where it has things I dont (i.e. bonuses), and I can honestly say, I do not win every game. Though I turn off diplomacy victory because it is way too easy, and the AI will still make stupid tech trades, so I turn that off too.

Other then that, 1.2 is excellent. I wonder what 1.3 will be all about, and waiting for the expansion.
Reply #42 Top
BTW, there's no way I could win above tough difficulty if I didn't take advantage of weaknesses in the AI and whatever else I can in the game. It's a lot of fun just finding ways to do it. Call those exploits if you wish, I just call that learning the game and it gives it more depth.
Reply #43 Top
To the OP. Its a Game!

Brad, I think most of use who have played the game for a while, or have seen it through the series of patches know what kind of a job you guys are doing.

Most of us know that the AI is competitive at higher levels but is handicaped against an expert human player especially at larger galaxy sizes. I don't know many humans who could consistely beat me, and and least the AI sticks around and keeps playing!

The new AI in 1.2 seems to be much improved and the intensive AI seems to be doing something, but in any game the variables of setup and AI interaction seem to make a lot of games unique. just because you can win once or twice at Suicidal doesn't mean you can win consistently.

I think the approach to AI that you have is proving itself over the long run. As you add more CPU cycles to the AI, the lack of scripts is showing itself in some really positive ways. I understand that having the AI calculate stuff, is a lot more difficult than scripts, and I like the wasy that every game plays a bit differently.

I also see the AI being much less at a disadvantage in the DA expansion as the initial colony rush will be changed by the different planetary colonization classes.

I just want the AI be more aggressive and to be able to coordinate more effectively.

But right now i think 1.2 crossed a threshold where the AI is not doing stupid things as much as before and it is playing much more competitivly.

I no longer see brain dead planetary mangement (gazillion embassies or morale)and I see the AI reacting to my weapon classes.
Reply #44 Top
And the final point is that 1.2 fixed fixed virtually ever identified bug in teh game. That's amazing in itself. The long list of improvements including the AI enhancements have made this game a classic. I can't wait to see 1.3 and the fall expansion.
Reply #45 Top
Man, Rendorax hasn't said anything...CMON OUT AND SHOW YOUSELF!  
Reply #46 Top


Ray, you've gotta be kidding me. Most reviews have said the AI is good. That is for the general gaming audience and in relation to other games. That is not hype. If you are unable to put positive reviews in that context, then, well...I won't say it.

But please interpret the reviews correctly before making an ass out of yourself with another reply.
Reply #47 Top
GalcivII is by far the best 4x game ever, and i've played almost everything that came out in the last 20 years. And among those only a few of them come close to the level of long-term enjoyement they provide compared to galciv(Imperialism, AlphaCentauri). If it werent for good AI (I play on tough and above) I'd get bored very quickly, so AI is the most important part of this game for me (though the nice graphics don't hurt).
As mentioned above, for a hardore player the AI can never be good enough, but this one is as good as it gets, well atleast until 1.3.

It's 1.30 AM here but all this talk makes me 'galciv needy' , and since I cant deny myself anything...

Reply #48 Top
Well, the AI does still need some work.

In my last game I captured a world that had a manufacturing center on the research bonus tile, and two research centers, one of which was on an influence bonus tile.
This is more the norm than the exeption, I'm sad to say.

I capture high PQ planets wih 90% - no exaggeration - of the tiles unused. And this is so late in the game that most of the tiles should have already been built on.

It really should not be that difficult to code the AI so it uses bonus tiles correctly. Or so it places at least some kind of building on any open tile within a certain time frame.
Reply #49 Top
Well fuck you too, sir.

XD I am most amused by the fact that several million points have been jabbed in his ass and he's not made one single reply post to anyone. Not as tough as the posture suggests, hm.

As for the AI, I suck at Normal level so I think it's good enough how it is, much less growing with each patch as Stardock does. Woot team.

Although make the AIs build shit sometimes, please, on their worlds. XD
Reply #50 Top
Rendorax, whilst you have no doubt raised some valid points here, one thing escapes me. If you hate the game this much, why do you keep playing? Personally I would like to congratulate the people working on this game for their hard work, despite the critisicm from people who appear to moan for little, or no reason at all.