Randolakes

Guys, you're attacking your own planet. In The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, the Loonies were (sort of) attacking an enemy planet. And, once again, this bombardment idea is not something designed into the game, it's a fan-fiction level attempt at rationalizing the poorly implemented concept of defended airspace. Worse, it doesn't even manage to rationalize it, because the transports aren't being destroyed, they're being prevented from entering orbit. <b

Miners with rocks could be rationalized if it was only a miner doing the blocking, but scouts, freighters, and empty hulls do the same thing, and the AI builds a lot of empty hull military fleets in the early game. Transports have to travel around planets, stars, rocks, and space junk, at high speeds, just to get to the planet. I don't really think rocks dropped from orbit at a moving target is going to be a major concern. If you argued that the

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="7" id="2288036"] That 'story' could cover a miner blocking a troop ship, but not the empty-hull 'guard' thing that Moosetek mentioned. I agree with him that part of playing a game is learning its rules and deciding how you want to deal with them.But they aren't sacred just because they're the current rules. I also think it is a bit silly that an unarmed single ship could somehow protect an *entire world* from invading troop ships. And I wonder wh

When I first started playing, it seemed like almost the only weapons the AI used were mass drivers. I was surprised when I first saw one really pound the research line in missiles. I think part of it is random, and part of it is racial preference. Some races have unique low end weapon techs, and in my experience once a race starts with a weapon type it usually stays on that tree.

[quote who="charon2112" reply="4" id="2273149"] 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.[/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

[quote who="charon2112" reply="2" id="2273067"] 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.[/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.

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

Ouch, I was afraid of that. Thanks for the info, I never would have found that thread. I am (or was) connecting through Impulse, and it only has about half of the subforums listed, with bugs not being one of them. After you posted about the bug forums I had to do a google search to find the forums.galciv2.com page.