Reianor3

Not really. In the question of AI balance it's was about a disproportion of Yor and all the rest of them. That, afaik, isn't as disproportional as it was meant to be. What IS as disproportional as it's meat to be is the AI in "suicidal" games. Both the balance between Yor for AIs and Yor for players is equally "borked" (not equally in measure, but rather equally in founding principals that define the measure of it's belonging to borkedness...). And the question

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="6" id="3563024"] I'm talking about jet fighters flying into another countries' airspace. What exactly are you talking about? [/quote] Real world... [quote who="Christian_Akacro" reply="7" id="3563026"] Necessary: required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential Sorry, couldn't resist. How about war? That seems like a good requirement to me. [/

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="46" id="3563030"] Ah, back in my day, men were men and video games were released without any bugs. You kids, get off my lawn! [/quote] Funny thing about sarcasm is that sometimes it lands on the truth and thus doesn't work. It's not a "greener grass, higher trees, younger gals" effect. It is in fact how that happened. Most of the games "at release" nowadays, even the good ones, can't hold a candle to "your average j

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="10" id="3562759"] I don't think Stardock put a lot of thought into balancing the game at that level of difficulty. I don't think they ever will (or should). [/quote] From what I've seen, the "challenge overachievers" are not just the least numbered group but also the most vocal group. And nothing raises hype about a game and builds up reputation like a vocal group of old-timers complaining on each and every forum that

[quote quoting="post"] ... That's how we do it on Earth. [/quote] Nope, not quite. On earth we cross borders, ignore "the right of the host" on each and every imaginable front including vocal and cultural, break other laws and moral standards, and then after being persecuted raise a stink about it to the point that should the one who is in the right go through with exercising his rights, he ends up being the guilty one in the public's eyes. Sorr

+100500 Beats me why we even have borders if nobody gives a damn about them. That said, currently Culture=Influence=Borders. If we want a more strict border system it'd be wise to separate the concept of borders and "staked" territory form the concept of culture and influence. Mixing them would go sideways both ways. You shouldn't loose borders with influence, only with actual border source that was lost. Nor should you gain "ground" just because you songs can be heard

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="36" id="3562994"] Just tell the AI to spam the strongest unit. [/quote] But that's exactly what it shouldn't be doing. Aside from the whole big deal of unit balance and the idea that spamming one kind of unit is bad in itself (not to mention the matter exposing that lack of balance), this automatically stops the whole ruse dead in it's tracks. It's supposed to look and feel alive. Spamming one unit it just looks

[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="15" id="3551336"] A vocal minority does not mean much. [/quote] The majority of minorities are vocal, and majority of majorities are not. This is because being vocal vastly depends on not being content. And majority that is not content is a flint for disasters. Disasters such as genocide or revolution. However, it's the not the content people who act as an engine of progress either (nor is it lazy ones, if anyone still humours that c

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="23" id="3562715"] Quoting Reianor3, reply 15 The point - it's not AI's job to BE smart. It's not the AI's job to be EFFICIENT. It is not even his job to force YOU to be efficient and smart to beat him. His only jobs are to pretend to be smarter than he is and to make YOU fe

[quote]Think of Russia vs Germany in WWII. The Germans would out-smart the Russians at every single battle, BUT IT DIDN'T MATTER because the Russians had a MAJOR production advantage and knew how to use it (like a big giant bludgeon). [/quote] Honestly, I can't look at this and not crack out a joke in response. You think a smart person would start a land war in Russia in winter? Yeah, right. Not unless we're talking alternate history. That said, I'd ask yo

[quote who="HardWere" reply="1" id="3562530"] I don't like request as I can't choose where to build the constructor. [/quote] Nor can you use it for dual CM-ed ones. Or any custom ones at all, if memory serves. AFAIK all it does is order one DEFAULT constructor. "One vanilla constructor coming right up." Yeah, right, like those were ever worth a turn of your shipyard.

What beats me is why there's a need for the constructor to arrive in the first place. Sure it's a game element... Which degrades into nothing better than a pointless mountain of micro faster than you can say "Look, Martha! Those folksy shipyards are making one constructor per turn!". From that point onwards it's nothing better than a ship-moving chore and a management screen juggling lumped into one big pile of disappointment. IMHO it should only take one to establ

[quote who="Heelidar" reply="9" id="3562497"] A quality game manual can help. The one we have is very basic. The only problem is that nobody reads tha manual [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Manual can explain concepts. But it can't show you active number from within the game. If nothing is showing your TM, no amount of manuals will make it easy to know your TM. (although that's an officially recognised problem AFAIK) AND reading the manual is

[quote who="gambit1077" reply="13" id="3562500"] How about limit it at the max amount a player can make per turn. So the amount you'd get for setting your resource slider all the way on wealth. That is obviously way more than you're pulling in per turn so it would let people with large amounts of credits spend them over time but wouldn't allow huge exploitative amounts to be entered. [/quote] There's no point in setting a strict limit at all. There IS

[quote who="Grongh" reply="10" id="3562473"] But that's my point! A.I. should be smarter. Trading immediate stuff for my "honest" promise to pay up in time is ridiculous. Would it not be better solution to disallow that, instead of introducing made up limitations? Also, don't forget, there is a cooldown of 15 turns on trading, so it's not always possible to trade for the cash ahead of time. [/quote] How do you propose to deal with an

[quote who="Grongh" reply="3" id="3561019"] It's already been discussed here https://forums.galciv3.com/466602/page/1/#3557802 and here https://forums.galciv3.com/466443/page/1/#3556919 , and I don't agree with limiting your offer to amount that you earn. In my games I almost always have negative earning, but a lot of money from trading technologies, so this solution will just remove ability to offer credits-per-turn to A.I. for no reason. I believe that I should be able to

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="4" id="3562474"] The title is called "The Yor Bop" strategy. Otherwise known as a strategy for Bopping the Yor. Get it? Of course you can use it to Bop other things BESIDES the Yor, but the Yor is currently the biggest threat which is why they deserve the most bopping. I thought the title was pretty obvious to understand, but apparently I was wrong. [/quote] English can be confusing like

[quote who="wpkelley41" reply="3" id="3562447"] Yes, but is it for every civ, or just mine? [/quote] At the very least it affects all humans in an MP game. If it's indeed a slider setting then PROBABLY it's the same for all others as well. Though after this revelation I'm no longer sure if common sense applies to this game. So who knows, it might not affect AI's at all for all I know. Wouldn't be any "wronger" or weirder than making it additive is

Wait, wait, wait... The GAME SET-UP SLIDER SETTING IS ADDITIVELY STACKING WITH IN-GAME BONUSES? Colour me surprised. Colour me disappointed while you're at it. What the beep are the guys at SD thinking these days... P.S. And I though that it's just a bonus given to all participants except the minors. (Which still looked crude and made me wonder why it was made to stack additively)

Um... how is that strategy related to Yor? Can you not use it against any other and with any other race for the same result? Also, you called it "Yor strategy" but then talk about it as if it is an ANTI-Yor strategy. See the difference here? I mean it, really, I was expecting to see some synthetic-based strategysing here, and all I see is a cheesy way to exploit an AI's inability to react to player's actions which has nothing to do with Yor at all. What a let-d

[quote who="Christian_Akacro" reply="8" id="3560858"] Not all mechanics are meant to be visible to the player, if you want to know it figure it out. That being said, yes some things can be made more clear and Paul has noticed the lack of clarity on your total production. It'll be addressed. [/quote] Yep, and in fact there's even a whole genre focused around the idea of player figuring out those mechanics. That genre is called economic simulator (although, to be fair

[quote quoting="post"] ... If decline: Second faction is forced to surrender to Player/First Faction. ... [/quote] +1 Up to this point. If third party doesn't want to deal with the first party's wrath it doesn't automatically mean that the second party wants to surrender to the first party any more than it did before. The whole point of surrendering their assets is "Look, we're done but we HATE the guys who "did us in" so

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="16" id="3562332"] Ok I get it.Whatever. You found a way to Xploit the AI. WOW you are a supra cool... [/quote] I'd agree with this point (but not with the manner it's stated in) if not for a simple fact - it's an MP game. In single, as long as exploit is easy to avoid I couldn't care less about it. Fighting that is about as valuable as fighting cheat software for SP games. If it's hard to avoid (that's a ha

[quote who="node10" reply="51" id="3562402"] Quoting Reianor3, reply 50 Complete and utter nonsense. First - nothing FORCES you to specialise. It's only a matter of efficiency. The game punishes you for splitting a world's output therefore specialisation is the only correct

It's all a combined issue if you ask me. IMHO: Maintenance needs to be higher, so that it's harder to cover. Buyout needs to be cheaper, so that it's worth doing more than just covering your maintenance. THEN and only then will wealth become an "equal ground" part of economy along with production an research. And I guess it wouldn't hurt to have even more uses for money, as long as those new (and old but redone) uses are done right. [quo