Have you found a way to make Promethium more common? Also, Thulium is dead planets vs resource frequency. Not sure how it matches up between them, but I'd suggest more planets with less habitables results in more Thulium.
[quote who="KD7BCH" reply="39" id="3563153"] What if they never gain superiority? [/quote] And more importantly, [i]how[/i] could they gain superiority when nothing is telling the AI to reinforce them?
[quote who="marigoldran" reply="11" id="3562997"] Is it better than the AI we have now? [/quote] In a word, no. You have spectacularly failed to produce rules for a working AI. It is more dependent on bonuses than the existing AI; it is less competent tactically than the existing AI; and it is more predictable than the existing AI. It is an awesomely poor idea. It is so bad, that for centuries to come it will be legendary amongst A
[quote who="node10" reply="17" id="3563104"] The point here is to correct a serious mechanical failing with a thematically compliant solution, and Nas's idea does that IMO. [/quote] This; while I do get the whole idea of the tiles being different sizes etc (although I find the idea that we can excuse [i]some[/i] mechanics working through 'magic' but need to stick rigidly to physics for others a little distasteful), game play should always trump lore whe
[quote who="marigoldran" reply="4" id="3562919"] The problem is that in fleet combat with maxed out fleets it doesn't matter if you have 10 fleets vs 1. ONLY ONE OF THEM CAN ATTACK AT A SINGLE TIME. Regardless of the final outcome, even the winner will come out heavily damaged. Put it this way: if the human catches the AI off guard and has superiority at the beginning of the war, the AI is dead anyways regardless of how you program it.
The 'tiles are subject to relativistic forces' argument may justify things staying as they are, but it doesn't really help with the mechanical problem at hand. This would. It would produce some reaction time in-system, which would largely be beneficial and reduce the power of hyper-fast transport fleets. Consider it the difference between being able to use your warp engines, which propel you to faster-than-light speeds in interstellar space, and having to drop back
[quote who="Sweynforkbeard" reply="6" id="3562914"] I theory yes. In practice no. Since production cost of ships is more or less a non-issue I exclusively go for any tech that increase mass. So, in practise, the AI will never have the mass necessary to actually use the designs I create. [/quote] Plus, a player-built design is usually more expensive. Not a problem for a fully-specialized player, who produces 300+ military product
[quote who="marigoldran" reply="2" id="3562910"] My philosophy is that the best strategy is to win the game before the AI can actually hurt you. Fights are a lot easier to win WHEN YOU CAN STAB THE OTHER PERSON IN THE BACK. And if you can't do that, bribe the AI to attack each other. THEN STAB THEM IN THE BACK. [/quote] This is probably why your grasp of tactics is so weak, then. Which isn't a criticism, tbh - I generally pr
[quote who="marigoldran" reply="31" id="3562903"] Um, no. Because the AI has massive production bonuses. It can AFFORD to take 2 to 1 losses. What it can't afford to do is to take 10 to 1 losses. My point isn't for the AI to fight at parity with the human. My goal is to make the AI fight CLOSER to parity with the human so eventually their massive production bonuses kick in AND WEAR YOU DOWN. After you take out one fleet, 3-4
[quote who="peteincary2" reply="4" id="3562865"] If you are at the point in the game where you are ready to be at war with every other civ in the game, then either don't sign a non-aggression treaty and just finish the game, or wait a few turns for any you did sign to expire before completing your domination. [/quote] So not automatically push you into war with everyone then. It shouldn't be anything like so absolute. But nothing wrong with making
[quote who="node10" reply="5" id="3562652"] Quoting Kyoss79, reply 4 Nothing is safe in GalCiv, the AI can't cope with that. Once you're into the stage of the game where fleets have dozens and dozens of moves Humans find it very difficult to defend anything as well. Turn based sy
[quote who="marigoldran" reply="26" id="3562836"] A maxed out fleet logistically is about as concentrated as you get. [/quote] Not really. If I have 2 maxed out fleets at a planet, my forces are more concentrated there than an enemy who only has 1 maxed-out fleet present. Sure, I can only attack him with 1 fleet at a time, but I have twice as many independent mobile units in the area. I may take horrendous losses with (or even lose) the first fleet that fights... b
[quote who="marigoldran" reply="20" id="3562594"] Concentrate your forces , is I believe, a military adage for precisely this reason. [/quote] But your AI design doesn't concentrate its forces. It concentrates a single fleet and then sends this off alone, without reference to any other units. Your AI withdraws from the superior enemy force and hides in orbit, waiting for reinforcements. But those reinforcements
You know, the most amusing part of the whole thing is what would happen if two AIs went to war with each other using this strategy. AI1 sends it's doomstack at AI2's planet. AI2's defending fleet is, of course, weaker, since otherwise it would've started it's own oblivious charge, so it retreats to the planet, is defeated and the planet is lost. So far so good, even when the few surviving ships go off and die at the next planet along (where an undamaged fleet is sat
Good AI is written to achieve it''s purpose as simply as possible. Yours manages to be simple, but mostly just because it''s not able to achieve it''s purpose. Seriously, you have designed an AI that runs away from tech-equivalent combat fleets 100% of the time. That's genuinely comical. Also, most of the strategies you employ require considerably more than two sentences to explain, given the rather convoluted exp
Can't tell if you're being serious or joking. But here goes: [quote quoting="post"] 1. During war preparation, the AI will mass fleets next to their shipyards. In other words, each shipyard will generate a fleet. That fleet will NOT rally anywhere. It will literally sit next to the shipyard until it gets to a certain size. Consequently you (the AI programmer) won't have to worry about rally points anymore because the fleet
[quote who="Franco fx" reply="7" id="3562468"] I guess it depends on how you look at it. I see the refined Durantium being spent (used) on the adjacency bonuses, maybe not ship augments. [/quote] Yeah, I see what you're saying; it's just saying it 'refines' it implies a different result from other stuff that just 'uses' it, which is a little confusing if you're at the stage where you don't understand the basics.
[quote who="Franco fx" reply="1" id="3562463"] Will the AI figure this out, or just curl up into a ball? [/quote] It seems to do OK with it tbh. The AI is only really in 'rapid expansion mode' for the first 30 turns, which usually gets them to around 5-6 colonies; after that it's much more laid-back about colonizing anyway, which is part of the reason it's so easy to outpace it even without cheesing the ideologies. It also generates money from
[quote who="KD7BCH" reply="2" id="3562289"] Would be nice to see but Gal Civ far outdoes any of the Master of Orion 2 or 3. [/quote] Saying [i]anything[/i] outdoes MOO2 on a 4X forum is quite likely to get you assassinated, you know. And quit hating on MOO3. Buried underneath the horrible interface and game-breaking bugs there was actually a top-drawer strategy game. With all the necessary balance-and-fix mods and 12 months of inte
This is just a small mod which takes the maintenance feature from my other mod, but doesn't include any of the other changes I'm experimenting with. All this mod does is: removes all maintenance from buildings, adds 3 maintenance cost to Colony capitals, and makes LEP take the form of and extra 0.2 maintenance per colony per colony. This should make rapid expansion more difficult, reduce the penalties on staying small somewhat, and counter some of the advantages
[quote who="Franco fx" reply="5" id="3562437"] The mines mine it, the refinery refines it and the improvements and/or ships use it. You have to build more mining star bases to produce more. [/quote] Um... the refinery just uses it too. If it 'refined' it, it suggests you get another resource out of it.
[quote who="Reianor3" reply="50" id="3562396"] At one point their system was working. But then they went and broke it again. The primary factor in it's workings was... economy. Maintenance namely. Once upon a time building those happiness improvements REALLY costed you. It was actually in favour of tall empires a bit. But then they had to go and rebalance the numbers. THEN building those now MANDATORY happiness improvements stoped being such a notable detriment, and it
[quote who="marigoldran" reply="55" id="3562187"] It would be MUCH easier if we could, you know, make the AI ACTUALLY intelligent. [/quote] Um... is that not basically saying 'it would be much easier if we could do something really, really, really hard instead?'? :P
[quote who="marigoldran" reply="21" id="3562263"] So, uh, naselus they're going to listen to us now? [/quote] Actually, there's somewhat more chance of it than there was during the beta phase. For starters, they'll now be looking at producing DLC etc. This is a whole new process using the same roadmap model, so the DLC goes into design phase first - and if the designers want to include a revamp of, say, the economic system, then they're in a po
[quote who="MacsenLP" reply="19" id="3562248"] Been enjoying your posts recently marigoldron, hope you keep at it doubt you will get through to Stardock though with your concerns. My feeling is Stardock have their own vision for the game and their own timetable for doing things, and don't divert from that basically at all unless they get an avalanche of feedback. I felt as if the Beta testers were mainly ignored I believe there was very little added or removed from the ga