Yamota

Well I think the +100% empire wide economy bonus which Evil aligment get is quite good. However Good aligment is kinda sucky compared to evil and neutral.

Russia can't very well declare outright war because its people started loving our jeans and hamburgers. No, but if local russian goverments swore allegiance to USA, paid taxes to USA, built products for USA and did research for USA and stopped recognising Kreml then I bet that would be enough to declare war.

But knowing what I do about computer AI in general I'd say that the AI in GCII is far beyond what you get in most games. That doesnt neccesary means the AI is good since the AI in other games are pretty dreadful. The AI in this game got some pretty huge holes, specially in managing its fleets during war. If the devs somehow could fix those deficencies then the AI would be a really good opponent since it already is pretty good at economy/research

All strategy games are easy on the fair level if you know what you're doing. Play Masochistic or higher, the AI looks a lot smarter when it actually has enough resources to compete. In any game the AI will "look smart" if it gets massive bonuses, thats not anything new.

I don't think the multiplayer is a necessity for this game, and I don't think reviews should penalize them for it (after all, what review penalized Oblivion for its lack of multiplayer?). Neither is good gfx or good sound but games are penalized if they dont have those so why not multiplayer? Multiplayer has become an integrated part of gaming even if some people are still denying it and games without it should suffer the same penalties as game with poor

Don't get me wrong I enjoy a multiplayer game to; but if there's no multiplayer on one game is it REALLY the END OF THE entire WORLD? Or is it like possible at all to enjoy yourself on more than one game/focus. Stardock/GC2/DA may very well have faults but what I love about Stardock is that they're trying. Everybodies human and I know every game has their admirers like myself for obvios examples; and demons like the first person I quoted. Im no

Multiplayer equivalent of "political correctness"? What a bunch of bullshit. Multiplayer is neccessary for a very simple reason and that is that a human player can reach levels of skill that a AI player simply.... can.... not.

As was said in the original post a very small percentage of people really want multiplayer in GalCiv which means for all the money they would spend creating it in any form be it PbW or Play by mail would be wasted on less than 10% of the people who play it. I say we just drop it and enjoy one of the few remaining good single player games. Nonsense. Where do you get this information? The devs said that a small percentage of the GalCiv 1 wanted mult

Often times, it's not so much the AI is bad but rather that a certain % of players are simply better at the game than I am. In multiplayer RTS's different strategies come and go and good players adapt. But whn playing against an AI, it can't adapt to new full game strategies. But some of these are really basic stuff. Like having a fleet of ships in fleets defending a sector rather than spread out among X number of planets. But I dunno, maybe t

Maybe make hull sizes only mount weapons and defenses in an equivalent "tier" - tinies mount only the basic beams, smalls can mount up to lasers, etc (same for other weapons and defenses). This probably would need the techtree to be slightly restructured though. That would make smaller ships completely useless mid-late game. Unless smaller ships got other modifications, like higher defence because of their smaller size and inertia. Hey thats an

1. Multiplayer. No matter how good the AI gets it's still no match for experienced players (unless it gets heavy bonuses). 2. Better combat. Preferably tactical combat but also other things like small/large mounts, ship signatures etc. Land combat needs to get alot better. For example real soldiers should be trained and used from a portion of the population. And they could be armed depending on how much you spend on them. 3. Improve starbases. More hp, larger sphere of influen

Ways to improve starbases: - Increase hp, alot. They are many times the size of the biggest ships yet their hps are comparatively low. Not to mention that, once upgraded, they cost alot to build. Maybe their hps should increase for every upgrade. - Increase their sphere of influence. - Allow them to take part of battles inside their sphere of influence and, if attacked, allow other ships, again inside the starbases sphere of influence, to assist in the battle. Alternat

Your ideas rely on giving the AI some measure of humanlike intuition - the ability to "feel" a situation, if you will - which simply Will. Not. Happen. I dont agree that the AI would need humanlike intuition for this to work. If the AI is not your ally and if the AI detects a fleet of X strength (including atleast one transport) at distance Y, or closer, inside his space (influence colors) then the AI will warn you and start to move some ships t

This event would be alot more fun if the jagged knives actually did something after they taken all those planets. As it is now I will just reclaim my planets with little or no resistance.

Defence is really weak now. There is no need to explain it, just try out fleet decked out with all weapons and one with ships mixed with defence (even with defence against the attack you are facing) and the fleet with all weapons will do much better. So defence has gone from being semi useful to almost useless. Good thing though that the AI focuses most on offense now though.

Ive had atleast two times that a empire, that I was at war with, signing a peace treaty with me without me accepting it or even given the option to accept it. Is this a "feature" of some sort or a bug?

And I agree with Legacy, Yamota. You're suggestions simply aren't at all practical. There is no AI that would be able to out tactic a human player without some sort of rule change. Well they are just ideas to improve the AI. But the main principle should be that if the AI see you lining up warships and transports around all his planets then it should react better than it currently does. Also why are you two putting words in my mouth? Where

Edit: Just for the record, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't make the AI better. In my opinion, the better the AI is, the more I like it. Good AI = Good Thing. What I'm arguing is that it is NOT as easy as "just make the AI do X" Never have I said it would be easy. Thats just your interpretation of my post. Im saying that the principle is easy, not the implementation. And as for humans being able to outsmart AI, or exploit as you c

I like the suggestion earlier in this thread that entering within striking distance of a planet, especially with a transport be considered a decelaration of war. I belive this is already in the game as Ive had the AI declare warn on me when my transports was close to his planets. Problem is that for one, the declaration of war is too late and two that the AI wont attack until after it has declared war. Meaning you can invade his planets before he starts

My point is just that it's space. You can be well into a civ's "sphere of influence", but you're still light-years away from the nearest planet. Having these borders that encompass millions of light-years^2 ... nah. You have to see it in the terms of "turns to get to your planets" rather than "millions of light-years". When speed is extremely high (as in this game) then extremely long ranges really means nothing since an enemy can pass through that in on

You have the Drengin on one side of you, and the Korath on the other. The Drengin and the Korath go to war with each other. Drengin ships cross your border headed for Korath space, and vice versa. Do you, as a player, immediately declare war on both of them, despite the fact that they don't care one whit about you and would probably beat you senseless if you fought both at once? By your statements, you're saying that yes, you would declare war on both the Dren

And how, exactly, would I ask permission? They would have to do something like add an option on the trading screen that says "let me move through your space". Of course, once that was available, a human would just find a way to get the AI to agree to let him go through its territory, move in his transports, and then sneak attack anyways, putting us right back at square one. That's a whole lotta work on the devs' part to slow down an exploit by three or four clicks.</di

That would explain the AI's inclination towards firepower and no defenses, too. That's good news because Ive never felt that AI was good at selecting suitable defences. And actually Ive always considered defences not really worth it compared to just put in more offense unless you know for sure that your enemies will always select one area of defence.

Problem are false positives. Like you moving your ships to help Torians fend off an attack of their neighbour, but they calculate those ships as a threat and declare a war. Or even less obvious: you're trying to do a sneak attack of one of your neighbours, and discover an influence starbase of the Drath close to the target planet. Drath sees your fleet closing, calculates a false positive that it will attack his starbase, and declares you an enemy. <b

a) you don't want to turn Galciv into a Civilization wannabe, and b) it's space. Space doesn't particularly have borders. Civ is a good game and just because Galciv could be labeled a Civ wannabe game is not enough reason to not include part of great features from a great game. Also since the "space" in GalCiv is 2 dimensional there is no reason what so ever for not having borders. It adds a new dimension to the game and helps the AI defend his planets more effectively.