hfxnikolai

[quote who="Horemvore" reply="21" id="3640680"] I changed Invasion costs, same cost for any type seemed a bit silly to me, why would dropping leaflets cost the same as peppering the planet with planetry bombardment? [e digicons]:)[/e] I noticed the same things in regards to the AI taking Engines over anything else, I have recently (last week or so) done a balance pass on the blueprints to re-adjust the order in which AI pick components (Engines are no longer grouped). <b

Slight feedback delay due to 1.8 issues freezing my game....200 turns in so far. Huge-antic galaxy (which I stole from you), me +11 ai. Genius difficulty. I'm no modder, so all these are just gameplay observations. Forgive me if my comments have an easy answer related to modding that I'm unaware of [e digicons]:grin:[/e] 1) The engine tweak definitely works. But perhaps too well. While 3 engines on a ship is good, it's a bit of over

Regardless of difficulty, the Ai empires trade tech to each other with only volume of techs in mind. They're not careful like humans are. They'll trade anything to anyone. Pretty much every game I play, by turn 150 or so, all the Ai empires have traded each other most of their tech. (tech brokering disabled). Think of the way you trade. When you get a tech you want to trade, you trade it to each civ you have met. Assuming you get 1 te

The other major flaw in the system is currently the Ai isn't smart enough to use the ship roles effectively. A ship is a ship. It can't build bricks or glass cannons because it doesn't understand the difference. If a fleet ends up with a mix of escort and capital ships, it's because that's what was available at the time for it. Most likely due to design sloth, I almost never build anything but capital or support ships. I lose more ships in t

The civ power score is very heavily weighted towards offensive ship strength. Any civ (not just the Drengin) who builds a ton of ships and/or has good offensive weapons tech will get a power score that really is not reflective of reality. The previous poster is absolutely right, after a few battles, their power score will drop dramatically. The other thing going on may be that the Ai makes very little effort to expand it's planet count through any means. They all

[quote quoting="post"] I am playing on genius and have the problem that the AIs never finish each other off. Once an AI is pretty much defeated and most ships/orbital infrastructure is destroyed, they suddenly get tons of cash. Im guessing this is the bonus income they receive from the difficulty level and not spending it on any maintenance. At this point the AI wars are always ended, so I assume they use their boat loads of cash to buy peace. The problem with this is that the AI empires

[quote who="Decepticons" reply="3" id="3626084"] Gotcha - thanks again for the information. So if I build a bucket load of crappy attack ships I should see this "Ripe for Conquest" thing less? Not that I'm going to do that - so far in the limited wars I've fought in, I seem to kill enemy ships at about a 5 to 1 ratio (I have no idea if this is good or not). [/quote] Yes it should help. Also, I read somewhere that it might have to do with unprotected planets as

[quote who="Taslios" reply="1" id="3632125"] 1st Question because someone will ask it... what difficulty level are you playing? [/quote] Genius. Huge galaxy. 8 opponents + minors.

Currently, the Ai does not meaningfully expand its empires much past colonization. Through the mid game, their empires do not grow and expand to become a challenge to the human player. They turtle in their provincial empires and fall like dominoes after you take your first few planets. The AI planet count per empire at turn 100 is roughly the same as it is at turn 250. If you're playing in a galaxy filled with peace loving scientists and traders, that makes sense. In a game with war

I've played a couple games in 1.7 opt in 4. The changes really help the 'flow' of the game. Great update, and kudos to all the 'small stuff' that got fixed as well. That's a long list! I believe diplomacy needs a boatload of work still....but apparently you do too (1.71 and 1.8), so keep up the great work!

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="4" id="3628450"] All of these are QoL requests. I am sure these could be put into patches in the next year. Fundamental changes to game-play will sadly only be released as Expansions. While this drags out the time for this, it does allow more features to be added to said Expansions. I am all for it (waiting that is). <span style="font-family: &#3

[quote quoting="post"] This is what I've been thinking about with all the ease of exploiting the AI when it comes to diplomacy. Why is the AI so easy to exploit? Here is what I would change... Okay now that I've lost many people trying to understand my thoughts on how the diplomacy process should work anyone have any other thoughts on this? [/quote] Diplomacy affects every player in every game in one way or another. Even if

1) I've seen that in a recent game as well. I declared war on someone who was Close, and a couple turns at war and relations were still Close. Relations take a few turns to deteriorate, depending on the +/- difference. In that case, I had same ideology and high diplomacy skill and few other minuses. 2) That's one of the major flaws with Diplomacy at the moment. The scale is far too narrow, allowing for easy diplomacy exploits or overwhelming Ai aggression to happen far t

[quote who="bertranhalfwaite" reply="14" id="3630312"] Which is actually their biggest weakness in winning the game. They often attack the human player who will be able to organise and beat them (due to the faulty power graph making them think they can win... with billions of their rubbish ships vs fleets that they can't beat) when they have puny AI players neighbouring them and som

They don't go for anyone vigorously, except possibly the human player(s).

Alliances are essentially just in there to take up a slot on the tech tree. They don't actually have any material benefit in game. It's one of those 'cool ideas' that was added in, just not fleshed out to integrate into the game. Hopefully this will change in the future. It's one of the many, many broken pieces of diplomacy right now, although some diplomacy tweaks are coming in the official 1.7 version. All treaties beyond non-aggression an

Agreed. Minors in this game are just another one of the many cool ideas that were added into the game, but not developed in any way. Shame they don't have a role beyond cash/tech fleecing and free real estate. I play with them off now, to reduce exploit temptation and increase challenge. If the Ai could actually fight a war with some degree of competence, then minors (and their ships they pay 0 maintenance on) might at least be useful in different ways lo

Ai doesn't pay maintenance on garrisoned ships. The devs are looking into making all empires, including human, only pay 1/2 maintenance on garrisoned ships, but it hasn't happened yet.

[quote who="Ed1975" reply="7" id="3628650"] In my experience you can't survive in this game or at least prosper if you don't have a decent military. You will get crushed. I don't know how ppl win who do ascension or influence victories and don't have any decent defence when the Drengin or others come knocking. But I have yet to hear of the AI totally wipe a human player out so he has zero planets left - does this ever happen? [/quote]

[quote who="Taslios" reply="30" id="3627811"] But beyond proper scaling of many things based on size of map, and number of planets/items and the eventual inclusion of Espionage... what are the major improvement areas you guys are looking forward to? Lets focus a bit on what we are looking for... and not so much on what we disagree with from others.<br

Regarding #6: Both your points are well taken, and I agree with the logic behind both. In your Van Gogh example, I agree that trading a resource that you got for free makes sense, because you are getting something for nothing. The key word there is 'free'. If those resources exist on planets you colonize, sure, why not trade them away. Something for nothing. But, as you said yourself, there

This is NOT a post about introducing new mechanics ( like espionage) or radically redesigning the system, or listing bugs the devs already know about, but rather to inject some common sense into the process (and close some exploits) using existing game structure. Why Fix Diplomacy? 3 reasons: 1) Draginol's first post in the Wish List thread on Steam from 9 months ago, listing "major diplomacy update

This is NOT a post about introducing new mechanics ( like espionage) or radically redesigning the system, or listing bugs the devs already know about, but rather to inject some common sense into the process (and close some exploits) using existing game structure. Why Fix Diplomacy? 3 reasons: 1) Draginol's first post in the Wish List thread on Steam from 9 months ago, listing "major

Best I can tell, you have to give them a solid smackdown before they want to talk peace at any reasonable price. I've seen the Ai ask for large sums as you describe, but I've also been able to demand large sums from them. However, the latter only occurs when I've taken 2/3 of their planets and destroyed 75% of their ships kind of thing. The situation you describe is hardly what I'd describe as a crushing defeat scenario, so I'm not surprised the d

[quote who="Icemaniaa" reply="12" id="3623961"] Don't get me wrong, I've got value for money out of Gal Civ III. I just can't get value out of Mercenaries and hence can't recommend it. I can't see how to have fun with the game anymore without massively nerfing myself strategically, which is sad, because I do enjoy the game and see it's potential. [/quote] Agreed. It's that the game is a fait accompli at any level righ