Auramagma

Thank you Taslios for this topic as I was going to share similar observations myself and I can add to what you were saying. GalCiv3 went long way since the first release. Originally it felt pretty much like a wargame - all you needed to do was: build manufacturing planets, build research planets, build few market planets as needed - research some weaponry - conquer everyone on Godlike. No need for diplomacy or building anything else on the planets, no need for anything else to w

The point IMHO is not only about small games design, but coherent one with different systems interlinked on many levels and working together. Endless legend and endless space 2 and civilization 4 are not small games, but all are very well designed. And I think people are buying them.

[quote who="Jolly Joker" reply="33" id="3681226"] I think, what Oliver says, that we need to go back to SMALLER designs. [/quote] I agree with every word. You expressed what I was trying to say before much better. We need better designs of the limited number of basic functions, which together produce coherent gameplay. Not big amount of loosely connected functions, which feel quit

First of all, thanks Brad for this opportunity to express the opinion about current state of GalCiv3 in the format, which I find most relevant (y)! So, let me start with the statement that I definitely find GalCiv3 polished in it's current state. What do I mean by that: 1. It doesn't have bugs, which annoy me enough to mention them... 2. GC3 Crusade stream lined the gameplay and made some important interface changes, which made the game experience "smooth"

My list is exactly as yours Brad. Looking forward to these changes. I am happy to see that devs look at the direction, which makes the game much more interesting for myself as well :) Thanks for posting and keep up with the good job :D

[Quote] In fairness, Marigoldran isn't the only person who's made the point, and some of us have covered in great detail why colony spam is overpowered (see https://forums.galciv3.com/466675/page/3/#3562801 for instance). It's not an AI issue, it's a mechanical issue; the AI can actually (fairly easily) be taught to exploit it, too, though not to the same level of cheese that Marigoldran does. It all ties into a few things

For me this argument is not about realism, but about game mechanics. Introduction of borders will allow to: 1. Have more diplomatic options with AI to ask to leave these borders, open borders will make much more sense than they have now. Might introduce an option when you can only move in to other faction space with your trade units if there is a trade agreement between you. 2. It will allow for better pre-war/war behaviour, when there won't be longer possible to par

[quote who="asinine_99" reply="1" id="3562610"] Civ series moved away from them in the latest incarnations because everyone wanted them gone. [/quote] Well, not everyone. The current system in Civ5 is hugely worse IMHO since AI has absolutely no idea what to do with it. It is good for multiplayer, but kills interest in single player games. So SOD Are better than impotent AI IMHO.

I think it is important to improve AI if you (as Stardock, Brad...) believe that (very) good AI will bring additional benefits to the players and more sales as consequence. GalCiv2 AI was highly praised and I strongly believe from reading forums that that was an important factor in GalCiv2 sales and then it contributed nicely to GalCiv3 sales. I certainly bought GalCiv2 after reading reports on how good AI was in that game. I think realistically it was not that AI in GalCi

[quote who="leiavoia" reply="81" id="3561765"] In the situation described above, would you rather have the AI: [/quote] It should be consistent IMHO. If it tries to crash you, it should try hard. If it tries to do more diplomacy and role playing, it should have enough tools to do so. Meaning that diplomacy oriented AI should have enough tools to express some sort of "personality" and base it's war and piece choices on that. I.e. Altarians are super moralist, if they are

[quote who="adamb1011" reply="23" id="3560058"] 1) large map 2) all 8 predefined races 3) godlike 4) you must play one of the predefined races 5) min-maxing is ok, but no cheese - ie sensor buoys, 3 constructor exploit, carrier spam, etc. [/quote] Tech trade? Pirates? I haven't used any of these exploits: sensor buoys, 3 constructor exploit, carrier spam, but since devs are saying they are not e

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="28" id="3559783"] I feel its a bit unfair to compare a current reinstall of Civ 5 to the recently released Gal Civ III [/quote] Thanks Larsenex. I actually would compare any diplomacy to Civ4 as a better example of diplomacy rather than Civ 5. My view is that diplomacy in Civ 5 is still inferior (and very much so) to that in Civ 4. I give you an example, similar almost to the letter to what someone on this forum has given when the simila

Expoits are not such a big issue IMHO. They do exist in any game. The thing is that if you choose not to use them, then the game is still streamlined. You develop to medium sized hulls with 2nd or 3 rd level weapons plus biowarfare and you crash nearby AI. Repeat as many time as there are AI on the map. With changing game mechanics, making ships and bases cost resources this can be made slightly less easy. Also ship construction has mostly decorative function at the moment

[quote who="AlLanMandragoran" reply="22" id="3559691"] In other words, “I feel diplomacy needs additional work in order to give the player a more satisfying game experience. Combined with the concerns I have with the battle viewer and how the AI builds their planets (mentioned in this and other threads), I do not enjoy the current game. However, if these things were addressed I might sing praises” (J5S, 2015). [/quote] Very well put. Apologies if my poor

[ quote who="Larsenex" reply="9" id="3558453"] diplomacy is far better than other vanilla 4x at launch [/quote] I think it is an overstatement. I have disabled tech trading in my game, to give myself more of the challenge. So that AI won't to be exploited with unfair tech excexchange. And I found that I didn't have reason to go the diplomacy screen for entire

In game with technology trading disabled, if player doesn't research universal translator, then AI will stay neutral towards the player fo the whole game. Like/ dislike points are allocated, but seem to have no effect on the war condition. That also results in no wars with AI. UPDATE* Just got the first war declared on turn 120. Seems to just taken longer than usual. Please disregard the bug report.

I think the starbases should be able to attack everything in their influence zone. When I first saw them, I thought they would. Logically, having a starbase on the orbit around the world should provide defence to it.

That's why taking patriotic is a must IMHO. All of these problems, costly buildings, techs, possible reduction in production/research/money eliminated upfront. It is way a stronger benefit than others.

I guess I can simply give AI logistics. Well, actually sell it to everyone once I have it [e digicons]:-"[/e] . The related point though is that AI (Yor in my game) despite being 2nd in production, didn't have any fleet to speak of... So logistics or no logistics, there was nothing for them to apply it to. The possible solution to this I see currently is not to prepare to wars. And start building military once already at war. Declaring wars with no military

Some AI like terran for example do something strange with their colony ships. I am playing on Tough, Huge map. There were 3 habitable planets between me and Terran. They colonised closest to my borders and furthest from them. Other two were left vacant. One they have colonised later. Another one left uncolonised for abot 50 turns. Also AI level of playing is too easy so far. On that map I have 30 my own colonies. The closest AI, Krynn, has 20. Terran live with

I thought I saw mentioning that AI does' t see the entire map upto Normal including. After that it sees everything. .. May be the change I've mentioned above was to make AI not see the map on upto Challenging including. .. [e digicons]XD[/e]

It is a bug. And a very bad one. It is described on this forum. Basically, when power meter reaches 5000 points, it drops to 0. It is all finished for that game at that point. Since race with 0 points will quickly surrender to someone. Then, that race will fo over 5000 and so on.

I remember people complaining about AI colonising too aggressively. To which Frogboy said that it will be looked at. So, here you go. It has been looked at most probably. Now two questions remain: 1. Whether on the higher difficulties it colonises quicker? 2. Where is that setting which defines colonisation speed? So that people can adjust it as they see fit...

How did AI do with specialising planets in GalCiv2? I agree, that it seems to be the most efficient strategy for the human player, but was AI ever capable of it? And yes, I agree completely on point 2) - super aggressive AI would make the game way more challenging and interesting.