Why are the altarians such and annoying race to play against?

from GalCiv2 Forums

I swear on this they're double-crossing sly foxes... In the last 3/5 games they immediately declared war against me and somehow got everyone to side with him. The 4th game I played he was my ally and owned like 40% of the land while I owned like 1% while terran the enemy owned the rest, and guess what all he does is just sit there and watch and does nothing even though hes hostile with terran, and I can't even tell him to attack terran...Whats even more surprising about 30 minutes later they become allies how annoying. The last game I started pulling my hair out.. I was allied with Yor, altarian was hostile with yor but yor was warm with them, don't know if this is a bug or not... Drengin was butt-whopping the atlarians which had the weakest economy and military.. I was baically laughing hard here, but then Drengin declared war on me and since altarian had close to friendly relations with me I decided to give him a hand out of pity.. I traded him all my techs and gave him my best fleets so he can go and defend himself hoping I can get ally off of him gause the thalans were getting really strong and also terran had declared war with me with them.  But guess what? He doesn't ally at all? Like seriously wtf??? I met all the requirements, I had friendly relationships with him and we both had the alliance tech researched??? Heres the most stupidest thing ever he somehow later gets and alliance with terran my enemy and when later I attack terran again he declares war on me so its like 4vs2 drengin the lone wolf, thalan-terran-atarian vs just me and and yor.. This became so absurd I couldn't continue playing..

10,426 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

As much fun as I've had playing, I still have to say that the AI for this game is neither good nor well thought out, especially when it comes to diplomacy.  But you do have a couple of misconceptions in your post.

Alliances require close relations, the next step after friendly.

Race attitudes are what each individual race feels about the other, not a combined relationship ranking.  It's easy for a race to like another race that hates them, just as one person can like another person who doesn't like them.

Don't be so free with your techs unless you get something in return, because the AI races will not return the favor.  Ever.

You're best off if you consider every game to be you against every other race, because that's the way it's going to be.  You have to pay for help from them, and their attitudes towards you, and each other, changes constantly.  That holds true even in campaigns where races are supposed to be on the same team as you.  The AI isn't designed well enough to understand the concept of ally or teammate. 

Others will disagree with me on this, but I've found it much easier to deal with evil races than with good or neutral ones.  The evil ones are not only more predictable, but they usually have low diplomacy skills so you can get more out of them at lower costs.  But again, remember that you're on your own.  The AI races are not your friends.  The only things alliances are good for is an alliance victory and getting you into wars you don't want to fight.

Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting Randolakes, reply 1
As much fun as I've had playing, I still have to say that the AI for this game is neither good nor well thought out, especially when it comes to diplomacy.
End of Randolakes's quote

 

Hmm.  That's interesting.  I've found this game to have some of the better AI that I've come across, especially compared to the Civ games.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting charon2112, reply 2


Hmm.  That's interesting.  I've found this game to have some of the better AI that I've come across, especially compared to the Civ games.
End of charon2112's quote

I mostly agree with you, but better doesn't mean good, and it does have some gaping holes in it.  Look at these boards to see loads of complaints about AI logic (or lack of logic), and even more posts about how to exploit AI coding weaknesses for fun and profit.  So far, I haven't seen any strategy games of this type with a really well coded AI.

 

 

Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting Randolakes, reply 3

Quoting charon2112, reply 2

Hmm.  That's interesting.  I've found this game to have some of the better AI that I've come across, especially compared to the Civ games.
I mostly agree with you, but better doesn't mean good, and it does have some gaping holes in it.  Look at these boards to see loads of complaints about AI logic (or lack of logic), and even more posts about how to exploit AI coding weaknesses for fun and profit.  So far, I haven't seen any strategy games of this type with a really well coded AI.

 

 
End of Randolakes's quote

 

That's true, although these things are relative, so all we can do is compare it to other existing games.  If GalCiv2 is the best of the bunch, then it's the best.  If the type of AI that you want in a strategy game doesn't exist (as you said), then you can't fault GalCiv2 for not having it.

Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I generally do not trade techs with the other major races, and try very hard not to do so unless I have a huge diplomacy advantage.  The closest thing to exceptions are:

1) To get them to declare war against another AI, or

2) I really need that specific tech (e.g., I've been researching beam defense and suddenly need armor), or

3) The tech I get in return gives an empire-wide bonus (e.g., banks gives a 5% economic bonus even if you never build one).

The tech trade I like the best is to trade Trade to minors for something I want.  Not only do I get something, but the Minors soon set up trade with me for new cash flow and more cash for them to give me in future trades.

Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Yea I got bored of this game when I realize the ai isn't what I hoped it to be.. Its still less dumb then the civ games... Theres just to much scripting that has to be done... Also, they got the wrong idea by giving the player way too many options, you can ally with with just about anyone or you can get someone to attack another and the list goes on and on of things you can do providing zero challenge to the good player!

Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting charon2112, reply 4


That's true, although these things are relative, so all we can do is compare it to other existing games.  If GalCiv2 is the best of the bunch, then it's the best.  If the type of AI that you want in a strategy game doesn't exist (as you said), then you can't fault GalCiv2 for not having it.
End of charon2112's quote

Actually, I can and do, especially since some of the things that the AI does, or doesn't do, aren't that hard to change. 

TBS games are a small niche market these days, and I think the AI coding is the reason for that.  If you want to see good examples of coding laziness, play the campaigns (if you haven't already).  There are many scenarios in them where you start with fewer researched techs than you started with in the previous ones.  In some you see a story line telling you that one race is fighting for it's survival against another race that launched an all out attack on their home world, yet neither one knows how to bolt a weapon onto a ship hull. They have no attack ability at all, and their fleets consist of one or two scout type ships.  Sloppy design. 

But I didn't come here to bash the devs or hijack the thread, only to let the OP know what was going on with his game since nobody else had replied to him. 

If you'd care to keep the debate going in another thread, I'd probably join in on the fun. :)

Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I haven't played the campaigns and I won't be anytime soon.  :)  I'm all about the sandbox game.

 

Quoting Randolakes, reply 7

Quoting charon2112, reply 4

That's true, although these things are relative, so all we can do is compare it to other existing games.  If GalCiv2 is the best of the bunch, then it's the best.  If the type of AI that you want in a strategy game doesn't exist (as you said), then you can't fault GalCiv2 for not having it.
Actually, I can and do, especially since some of the things that the AI does, or doesn't do, aren't that hard to change. 

TBS games are a small niche market these days, and I think the AI coding is the reason for that.  If you want to see good examples of coding laziness, play the campaigns (if you haven't already).  There are many scenarios in them where you start with fewer researched techs than you started with in the previous ones.  In some you see a story line telling you that one race is fighting for it's survival against another race that launched an all out attack on their home world, yet neither one knows how to bolt a weapon onto a ship hull. They have no attack ability at all, and their fleets consist of one or two scout type ships.  Sloppy design. 

But I didn't come here to bash the devs or hijack the thread, only to let the OP know what was going on with his game since nobody else had replied to him. 

If you'd care to keep the debate going in another thread, I'd probably join in on the fun.
End of Randolakes's quote