1.5 opt-in findings

from GalCiv3 Forums

After playing with v1.5 opt-in through the weekend please find below findings:

  • Exploitation of the AI when offering exploration treaty is still valid supplying the player with the lifting of FOW as well a huge amount of money. Re-balancing of the treaties values is not visible here. The value of exploration treaty needs to be cut down considerably (almost all CIVS give all their money for this and it expires quite rapidly.
  • Non-aggression pact is the same as above though not that exploitable. AI should not give any value for this when in good terms with the player (why would it pay to have this if there is no tension? Currently it works as a tax for friendly CIVs
  • Breakdown of moral shows a value titled "Missing Info (6) +0" - might be a leftover form large empire penalty
  • Final UP vote on "Galactic Domain" act still does not show resolution. Both options are red and no final verdict displayed
  • Embassy text claims to have influence bonus but does not list the effect in its desc. When looking at breakdown of planetary influence there is a category called "Consulate" but might be referring to something else
  • Tech treas are referencing to default CIV names instead of the custom CIV name. Need to change fix text to variable to reference custom CIV race name. e.g.: "Defense Meditation" return text for "Altarian" race independently from custom CIV race name
  • Diplomatic act to have AI starbase destroyed in player territory needed like the AI has as the AI still does not destroy their unneeded bases generating costs for them and hogging the space from the player.
  • Requesting AI to move away ships seems to be working but is a bit strange as it gives a diplomacy penalty if requested independently how the AI reacts. Can the AI refuse and does this automatically mean a declaration of war? Not clear from desc. Does the player risk war when requesting it?
6,836 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Final UP vote on "Galactic Domain" act still does not show resolution. Both options are red and no final verdict displayed
End of quote

  Did someone defy the UP on that vote and leave it? If so, the vote fails completely. (This doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me, admittedly - just because one race storms out of the meeting doesn't mean the rest can't finish voting on it.)

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

There was no CIV that defied the vote as far as I could see - nor in the list afterwards in the diplomatic menu

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top


ting AI to move away ships seems to be working but is a bit strange as it gives a diplomacy penalty if requested independently how the AI reacts. Can the AI refuse and does this automatically mean a declaration of war? Not clear from desc. Does the player risk war when requesting it?
End of quote

The AI doesn't like being told what to do regardless of whether or not they comply with your request.  The AI can refuse if they are unfriendly with you (or worse).  Making the request does not explicitly declare war but it may push you towards it.  

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting pshaw, reply 3

The AI doesn't like being told what to do regardless of whether or not they comply with your request. The AI can refuse if they are unfriendly with you (or worse). Making the request does not explicitly declare war but it may push you towards it.
End of pshaw's quote

AI declining to leave should definitively allow you attacking its ships in your ZOC, without DOW, but with huge relations penalty. Otherwise it just doesn´t make sense.

See the unfortunate Russia - Turkey incident for details.

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I imagine the most logical way to go about it is to have the same rules applied for player and AI. What if the AI tells the player to move out? - I actually cannot recall any such case though I never send military ships to their territory without being in war so that might explain it.

 

But the actual problem here is the AI parking ships near the player without any good reason even if it gets beaten up in the meantime by other AIs - this will probably be resolved via AI changes though so should not count.

 

A more long-term valid case will probably be to force ships out in any of the below scenarios:

  • Constructor going for resource in player territory
  • Survey ship going for anomaly in player territory
  • Massing attack fleet next to planets as a preparation (oldie but goldie)

 

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top


Breakdown of moral shows a value titled "Missing Info (6) +0" - might be a leftover form large empire penalty
End of quote

Were you using the Malevolent ideology?  If so, it might be the same problem as reported in this post, it's been around since the beginning and never fixed.

Edit: No, it's not the same thing.  I just upgraded to the 1.5 opt-in and started a new game with Benevolent, and I'm seeing the same thing.  In my case it's a "Missing Info (3) +0" and I have 3 planets, so if you have 6 then we have a clue as to what the number in parentheses is.

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Bingo. The number in the bracket shows the number of planets the player has

 

This means that it is in fact the residual reference from the large empire penalty where the number of planets gave a negative bonus. Only the negatvie bonus is set to zero and the text does not seem to be found for this attribute anymore