I wish you guys would lay off the multiplayer drum for a while. It might be nice, but I agree with the DEV that maybe 5% of you guys would use it. If Stardock wants us to lay of "the multiplayer drum" they would not have made this post sticky, they would have locked it and deleted all mp threads. They didnt so it's probably safe to assume th
And Azrune, shut up. You can't be tatical in space....it's not logical. This one makes no sense to me either. But as the devs have said that there would be no tactical combat in this game its better to just ignore it as this thread should be about enhancing combat without introducing tactical combat. But as not one single dev have r
I think the AI should really put more effort in defending its homeworld. It should be really disastrous to lose ones homeplanet, like a huge drop in approval or something.
Cool, I will try that. Thanks
I wouldnt call Guild Wars a mmorpg. Rather a multiplayer game with glorified chat rooms (the towns).
Im thinking about reducing the range of all ships significantly, maybe by 50-60 %, and by doing so making combat a bit more interesting by forcing races to build starbases to reach other races colonies and thus also have to maintain your supply lines during war. Not sure how the AI will cope with that but it would be interesting to see. Is there an easy (or hard) way of doing that?
As posted elsewhere, hit point modules as well as additional defense technologies would do most of that for us. If a starbase can increase it's hit points to 300 by late game, that means it'll have matched most fleets, or at least made it a significant contest. Well that is a solution but I think it would be alot better (and make for more interes
You cannot place an agent on the initial colony improvement or on the the Civilization Capital. In the Planetimprovements.xml file there is a new tag for Dark Avatar which is "CanHaveAgents" and can have a value of 1 or 0. So if you wanted to keep people from putting agents on farms you'd just have to change that value to 0 for all the farm improvements. I personally like
Sir, are you OUT OF YOUR F'N MIND? A maxed MILITARY starbase loses to 1 late game cruiser (medium size) ship, or maybe even 1 frigate(small size), if it's an offense heavy loadout like Drengin uses, on Suicidal. Why? Because your dealing with something that can do an average of 75 damage which will single hit your starbase. Excactly and th
Yamota, you do know that you can put defenses and weapons on starbases...right? The AI(both empires and pirates) tend to attack my starbases a lot. You build up the starbase defenses tech and starbase weapons. After loading on some defenses and weapons my starbases last for a long time. They are useful tools, you just need to know how to impliment them. <b
Youve got some interesting ideas, but I dont agree with this at all. My territories are peppered with starbases of all kinds, especially econ. Evil alignment+Starbase = teh uber. Yeah but thats because of an deficiency in the AI. Starbases are easily taken down and the AI should do that whenever possible. It doesnt for some reason. But I
I like the idea of a defensive bonus for smaller ships. My take on this would be introducing weapon mounts. Light mount is smaller, deals less damage, and has a better chance of hitting small ships. Normal mount is just that - normal. Heavy mount is larger, deals more damage, but is only good against large ships. Imagine light mount as small rapid-firing weapons,
To my dissapointment the Dark Avatar expansion does almost nothing to enchance the rather weak combat part of this game even though there are many things they could introduce to make combat more exciting and fun than it currently is without adding tactical combat. Here are my few suggestions for this: Hero characters I dont know how many here have played Lord of Magic, its a very old fantasy strategy game which had heroes to enchance your armies. I think somethi
Oh the stuff in beta 2A was just the start. If I rated the AI in terms of competence I would put it like this: GalCiv II 1.0: 1 GalCiv II 1.1: 2 GalCiv II 1.2: 3 GalCiv II: 1.3: 3 GalCiv II: 1.4X: 3.5 GalCiv II: DA Beta 2A: 2.5 / 4.0 (Normal/CPU Option) (the normal AI actually become less effective in beta 2A due to uti
none of you have heard of EVE online THE 4x mmo www.eve-online.com It has everything you could ever want and more Ive played Eve and, in my opinion, its not a 4X game at all. You control only one ship and thats it. Also it gave me a very artificial feel when I played it. Felt more like you were using some kind of (poorly designe
Sorry english is not my first language but what I meant is that the AI should try to stay in character aslong as it doesnt conflict with its objective to win the game. If it does then the objective to win should trumph. But to move to the other issue. The best way to predict future behaviour is past behaviour (dont hate me but I heard that from dr Phil But for the AI to judge you on this
Im not saying that they should be mutually exclusive sometimes the two goals to win or stay in character could go in hand. But what Im saying is that that on the HIGHEST setting, the drive to win should always trumph over the roleplaying aspect. If players want them to be balanced then they could pick a lower difficulty setting. But there should definetely be a win at all cost setting.
Yeah I heard of society but it doesnt seem very appealing for two reasons: - Its neither not a sci-fi but rather a medieval setting. - Its not really a 4X game since it seems that it will be based more on exploration, expansion rather than exploitation and extermination. Also the problem with being attacked while logged of could be solved by having an AI that controls your empire while your logged of. Since it would be very hard to have an AI that matches a human
I made a similar post in another thread but to repeat. The highest objective of an AI player at its highest level (not counting artifical bonuses) should be to WIN. Period. Regardless of its roleplaying abilities it should always, always do its best to win and hence not to lose. Which means that if they see another player that is about to win and that player is not an ally then it should do everything, EVERYTHING in its power to defeat or weaken that player. That includes allyi
One of the real challenges in writing the computer AI is whether to have the AI role play or to have it play like a multiplayer player. The role of the AI should be neither. Its role should be that it should do its best to WIN. If they see another empire, AI or human, that has a weak military is about to win an influence victory it should do ever
Why isnt there a 4X mmorpg? I personally think it would be a great idea. Imagine a huge galaxy, thousands of stars, and thousands of companies/empires whatever fighting for the control of those stars and the resources out there. The possibilities would be endless and it would take the meaning of 4X, explore, expand, exploit and exterminate to a whole new level.
Im not sure how tactical combat came into this discussion since I know from a previous post I made that the devs are not considering adding it for GC II. What I meant is more in the line of more advanced weapon system like range, tracking speed and a bigger and better done battle field so the battles looked more epic and was more fun to watch. I mean space combat is a big part of space sci fi so its rather sad that the devs are putting so relatively little effort in it.
Very, very good post. Specially the many AI bits. Hope the devs read this because currently, no matter how many threads or cores they AI use it is still totally inferior to a semi smart player. But some of the things to improve are so obvious. Like having defensive fleets patrolling its borders and not having a fleet in orbit without orbital defense. Even with orbital defense its alot more efficient to put 90% of those ships in orbit in a fleet instead and go meet your invaders or bette
I think the single biggest part that is lacking in GC II is its weak space ship combat and from that Ive read all enhancements in Dark Avatar will be non combat features. Like espionage, treaties, new technologies etc. Anything at all for us who like sci-fi games mainly for space ship battles?
Had a problem loading maps made with this program. GCII kept crashing when starting a game with the map. Found out that the planets all said they belonged to the wrong stars or only a few stars having all the planets associated to them. I had to open the map in wordpad and and tell them which star they belonged too. Is there any way to do this when I first make the map? So
