I think the tile is discriptive enough.
But for those of you who like to be specific ....
What new features do you want to see in Gal Civ 3?
Is there something that you want to see from Gal Civ 1 or Gal Civ 2, only you want it to be better?
Do you want it to have Real-Time, Control Your Warships, Space Battles?
Etc.....
So please respond.
ROCK ON!!!
You mean my Space Monsters idea? Also it's not supposed to be funny, I tought that Space Monsters would be an interesting in-game element.
No, he's talking about something different that I have never heard of. I think it is some sort of comedic mod, but I really have no idea.
UPDATE (NEW IDEA): You know how the AI will tell you to move transports out of their treeitory and stop culture-bombing or face a relations penalty? You should be able to do the same thing from the diplo screen. (I know you can demand stuff, but I always saw that as a "please help out the other guy" polite request rather than an ultimatum.)
Here is how it would work:
The diplo screen would have two buttons on top. "Request" would not penalise your relations that much unless you do it a LOT in quick succession, and the willingness of the AI to agree to something would increase the friendlier you are with them. Of course, the AI would not agree to a request if you had relations of hostile or below. "Demand" would really hurt your relations, maybe even give you a persistent - on the relations screen if you did it enough to get a reputation, but you would have no required relation. Instead, the AI would weigh your comarative military mights. You could not demand things from allies w/o breaking the alliance.
You would also have several new options on the sides of the screen.
It all depends on how "enginified" it is.
Some "game engines" can only make games similar to the original game (if there was such a thing). Others are more flexible. You can use the Unreal 3 Engine to make both Gears of War and Mass Effect, yet one is a shooter and the other is an RPG (despite how much it may try to hide this fact). You could probably use the Source engine to make GC2 if you work at it enough. I pointed out how moddable CivIV's engine is, yet you cite CivIII as though it somehow counters CivIV's moddability.
And there is a big difference between what you can do with an actual game engine and what you can do by modifying a few data files. And since they're writing the Elemental "engine" knowing that they'll be using substantial parts of it to make GC3, I wouldn't worry about any design cross-talk. Also, they'll have the source code and be perfectly willing and able to freely change it.
Yes, but on Suicidal, it has an automatic research advantage. If the AI knew how to play the game better in any area, it would always win.
That doesn't make this mechanic a good one.
One for this, one for your "culture metrics" idea as a whole.
EDIT: Sorry, Scout, but it seems I can't give you more than +1 karma at a time, and ginvig someone karma five times for the same reason seemed a little silly.
The ships would be the oposite of whatever allignment you're leaning towards at the time, and if you were exactly on neutral, or had chosen neitral after researching Xeno Ethics, it would be more or less random.
Also, you'd get a temporary diplomatic penalty when this happened, as the inversed ethics of the fleet's crew would expose your civ's brutality (evil), crusader mentality (good), or ambiguity (neutral).
Lastly, each penalty would be different in severity and length.
On the diplo screen, I actually want to see real threats and all kinds of stuff like that.
If you don't know what I mean by threats:
I mean stuff like: "Your mom was a Space Worm's Sleez Bag, now why don't you give me X amount of money, and I won't make you mine!!!"
You should be able to actually compose your requests, demand, whatever. So from a few drop down lists, you would select pieces of text which will then be put into order to form an actual sentance. After the sentance is formed you will then be able to request the amount of stuff that you want from that race.
Or instead of asking for stuff, you could just go on insulting or kissing up to another race until they have had enough (if you are insulting, they might eventually start a war with you, if you are kissing up to them, they will be flatered for a time, but after that, they'll start getting pissed at you).
And the list of possibilities goes on.........
Well of course it has an advantage, it has all kinds of massive advantages. Yet Suicidal is not even difficult to beat on a regular basis using regular planetary builds. If the AI knew how to play better, it would make for a more interesting game, one that might take some actual creative thought to win. The point of Suicidal difficulty is to be theoretically possible to win, yet incredibly tough and difficult to do so. Therefore, vast majority of players would play on a less difficulty or one they feel comfortable with, but the option is always there.
I'm not sure why you are so 'for' an absolutely dumb AI that has no clue what it's doing. You stated it's a BAD mechanic to have GOOD AI, solely so you never lose. That's about as challenging as watching paint dry. Better AI is a better mechanic if it knows how to play the game more realistically and closely to how a human player would, and that is the goal of what Stardock is trying to achieve, they have said it time after time.
So you are FOR the mechanics 'AI being clueless to research priorities' and 'AI being clueless how to build ships correctly', as well as being 'better in any other aspect' for GC3?
I'm not referring to your idea, the fact that Stardock tends to through space humor into the game, and the GC1 Space Shark Space Monster was an aspect of that humor. The different names of space monsters I found to be interestingly amusing in a good way. Don't take it personal. You know, as discussed before, Space Sharks chasing Ships with catnip modules around, etc, etc. If you don't find that visulization even a tad bit on the humurous side... then, well, <shrug> who the hell knows??
I think it's a great idea they should expand on (other than taking it out like GC2 did). Civ4 had wildlife. Star Trek has had space dwelling life forms: Protozoa creatures in Voyager. It's one of those things that when they first pop up in a game, it's like "What in the world is that!??". Adds a unique element to the game.
Ick - dont - just . . . no EF. Seriously.
Someone mentioned this a couple screens back, and I like it more generally than he actually has it -
You should be able to have a starbase module that allows for ship construction - industrial input would only be from asteroid colonies, exactly as if it were a planet.
On the one hand, the gives another 'strategic resource', especially around 5-6 deepspace asteroid belts with no other bonuses, but also no loss because the Starbase is of course, right there, on the other, it doesn't have *any* of the advantages of a planetary resource, no bonuses above the civ wide ones, maybe require upgrading the starbase for larger hulled ships, maybe even allow a starbase getting industrial capacity from asteroids to upgrade itself without constructors being built.
That seems to me to be realistic useful, and add options without unbalancing anything
Pug
I agree with your principles, sooo second that...
-- plus, there should be a direct & intuitive way for AIs to declare *what* exactly they'd care to offer for the human Trading package or individual items.
-- I **Know** they just popin such demands at nearly random pace; it should be available as soon as contact is made by me on the diplomacy screen itself.
-- A button or two optional or otherwise that states the particular of any possible deals in the following manner(s);
a) What do you (AI) can spare for tech X?
b-- What would you offer for --my-- Planet Y, exactly and can you throw in that specific ship too?
c) How far would you go for Trade Goods Z besides the usual BCs maximum value?
Up for us to decide which offers are best, anyway. But at least we'd have a reference factor to judge the complex decisions.
My point is that if the AI knew how to actually play, you would never be able to beat it on Suicidal. It wouldn't be a challenge; it would be a flat-out mathematical impossibility.
No, I did not. You originally argued that the GC2 combat mechanic was good, only the AI wasn't smart enough to use it correctly. I argued that the combat mechanic isn't good even if the AI could use it correctly, because it merely exacerbates an already existing economic disparity. That is, if someone's already winning the econ race, they'll still beat you if you switch techs.
At no point were any value judgements rendered on whether having good AI in a game is a good idea.
Furthermore, AI is not a game mechanic at all. Making AI into a game mechanic was one of GC2's biggest failings: Diplomacy. Being able to game the AI just because you had a higher score in some stat was incredibly silly, even moreso when it could not do the same to you.
To be entirely fair, you could also blame the undeterministic algorithms for the slightly weakened (current, that is) challenges available & even some aspects of the ruleset, Alfonse.
Well, the only way to fix that is to introduce a corruption model of some type, no other way around it. That would keep all civ's regardless of how many worlds they own more on a even level (to an extent). Civ 3's toughest difficulty level is 'theoretically possible to beat' but I don't believe anyone ever has. But still it's there if people want to try, I still would prefer the AI to play the game correctly, then each player can simply find what difficulty level they prefer best.
Also, it is highly unlikely Stardock will drastically change the combat model anyway, since they state they don't want combat to be too much of the game, since it is a civilizaton game and the focus is on empire building. So we're probably all stuck with it... first time I've actually hoped for a corruption model into a game.
Not really. GC2's rules are not hard to figure out. It isn't that difficult to come up with a half-way decent algorithm for GC2's economy that allows a race to use its resources reasonably well. Even if you had to program it with specific build orders and rules-of-thumb, those are preferable to the current decision making which is simply wrong.
GC2's rules are complicated, but the AI is in the perfect position to evaluate a world, evaluate its needs, and run the various functions based on the currently available buildings to see what it should build. Indeed, it wouldn't be too far to say that GC2's rules are easier for an algorithm to find the right solution for than for a human.
Nonsense.
The problem we're now talking about is the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" problem. That, as a race gets an advantage, economically, militarily, etc, it becomes easier for them to leverage this advantage into even more advantages. Greater economy leads to greater military, research, etc. Greater military leads to more worlds, which leads to greater economy.
The key isn't to make getting richer useless; there should always be an incentive to get bigger. What should happen is the imposition of friction, such that the rich get richer more slowly. And this should not just be one dimension, but several.
For example, in GC2, researching one of the government trees basically gives you a free economic boost. All you need to do to use it is to research the tech and you have no real cost to switching to that government. What if advanced governments gave a strong economic boost, but switching to them required then investing in their economic output for a fairly large number of turns? Or what if switching to an advanced government required resources equivalent to a Wonder. Yes, you get a good boost out of it, but you had to spend more than just research to get it.
Or perhaps a planet couldn't make use of this advanced government unless it were within range of a special kind of starbase (that can also provide other similar benefits, so you don't need a separate starbase network for each type of upgrade). Again, there is an advantage to doing it, so everyone will want to. But it requires economic spending on multiple levels.
Let's say you research a new weapons technology. But to use it, you need to build a special starbase somewhere, at which point all your planets can build ships using this tech. Building the starbase requires production resources and acts as a drain on your money.
The best part about putting such things in starbases is that they're on the map now; you can actually attack someone's tech tree directly. It gives them more things to defend, which means it gives them more places that could be weak to a surgical strike.
The fundamental problem with the corruption model is that it is a negative feature; it takes something away from you. These are positive mechanisms; you have to spend something, but you get something for it. The key is to make the spending increase, not just along a single dimension, but across multiple dimensions.
Why not? They "drastically" changed it from GC1 to GC2.
Guys, I think I have a solution: Do not have a highest level. Difficulty is primerily based on the AI's tax revenue, correct? Well, tax revenue seems to me like it could be increased indefinately. So, have a level after Suicidal where you can set the % increase as high as you want. This will make the game essentially have no upper limit to its difficulty (I realise that there is an eventual limit simply because you can only enter a finite number of digits, but that is so rediculously high I do not think it will matter.)
Also, improving my Diplomacy idea:
Be able to trade spies like techs and trade goods. You would get them forever, but could not sell them to a third civ. Also, have "remove" appky to spies, and create a "no esbionage" treaty that would prevent either side from spying on the other.
EDIT: By "have 'remove' apply to spies", I mean be able to tell a race to remove spies from a certain improvement.
That's not actually a solution. If the AI can't use its already incredible economic advantage on Suicidal, it won't be any better at using an econ advantage arbitrarily higher than that.
The problem is that the AI doesn't know what to do with its resources. No amount of giving the AI more resources will help.
Drastic change from GC1 to GC2? If you assume drastic to mean they added 3 weapon types and 3 defense types from GC1's 1 weapon type and 1 defense type, then sure... but in reality combat essentially stayed similar. GC1 had a weapon roll from 0 to max, and defense roll from 0 to max and the difference was the damage. Similar method applies to GC2 for damage (although more complex). They should bring this GC1 mechanic back into GC3:
"Ships with a defense value that is greater than their attack value get a special bonus – when attacked, half their defense counts as an attack. A Battle Axe with 3 attack and 6 defense actually gets to roll up to a 6 for its attack roll when it is attacked."I don't believe GC2 does this, but could be wrong... this is an excellent way to help defenses all-around without overdoing it. Add in the bonus ships get for being in orbit, and it would make defense much more viable, without creating the stalemates / trench warfare that was discussed on earlier pages.
Therefore, it's highly likely that combat will go along a similar path with GC3. They will add the 'Option' of tactical combat, and do some tweaks, make a relevant change or two, and probably leave it at that. Stardock said themselves they are not going to make this a combat game by implementing too much emphasis on combat. I guess they prefer to keep it simple and emphasize on empire building. Why not? I agree with you, they should... but it's doubtful it will be 'drastic' (which means a massive change).
Perhpas, but apparently Brad, who is in charge of the AI, wasn't able to accomplish this task to where he wanted it to be, so there is obviously some difficulty involved. Perhaps they gave the AI too much freedom to choose what to research... or more likely the tech tree branches WAY too much and would HAVE to be slimmed down without so many choices available, so AI would only have to choose between 5-6 techs at most. It's the only way to make the AI seem intelligent (unless they dump loads of cash into AI development, which no software company will ever do, since they will see no return on their investment).
Most companies give the AI very limited number of decisions it can make, while making the game appear to the player to have a vast number of options and decisions.. it is an illusion, and only those who truly know that game, realize it. Stardock went off this path, and that's why they have had these AI problems pop up.
The original statement I made was in reference to combat not being as bad if AI could change it's research priorties more often if it needs something, and if it doesn't build ships as well as a newborn baby could. But even if they fixed the economic problem, without fixing the ones mentioned before, the AI is still weak because it wouldn't know how to fight the player.
But regardless, with no corruption model, all the other mechanics are still on a level playing field and rich will still get richer no matter what you do... because the same ideas apply to all civ's. The rich will just get richer very slightly more slowly. <-- of course same applies to corruption model, but it is more apparent immediately as you expand... a slight amount of corruption wouldn't be that bad, say if a planet on the other side of the galaxy takes a 10% hit (that's not that bad, and wouldn't effect the game too much).
You threw some good ideas out there, but to keep runaway games... for techs:1. Techs would have to become cheaper for civ's that don't have them yet, and they would be most expensive when few / no civ's have them.2. Economy - there is no 'positive way' to reduce economic power from a leading civ.. taking or lowering their income would be a negative penalty any way you look at it.3. Production - same as economy, only negative ways to go about it. If you lower it in any way because you are a powerful civ, that in essence is the same idea of a corruption model... and if you don't, it becomes a runaway game.
I see what you're saying, positive things that may be costly, but are worth it in the end. The cost would HAVE to be relative to the civilization though. So a superpower would have to put out ALOT more than a smaller civ for the same change to government. If the cost was the same, that would make 'richer get richer' even more so than now, since small civ's could not afford to do so.
I do hope resources come into the game... but then again, if it comes down to placing a constructor on a resource, superpowers will still just take it from weaker civs. Planetary resources would be best, since it would take more effort to do so, imo. Perhaps resources on planets would not be able to be seen through espinoage, so big civs can't just take 1 weak civ's planet solely for the resource.
True, it makes me wonder if they will program the AI this time around to actually protect their starbases and transports. (they do occasionally with escorts, but those are laser fodder). That would work quite well.
Here's my guess, Stardock will add a 4th weapon and 4th defense, have optional tactical battles, and do some tweaks to make AI fight better (engine will probably do a good job of this from what I've read).. and that is my guess for GC3 combat. Can't wait to see if I am right in 2 years!
I guess my "no highest level" idea will not be a satisfactory fix... Nonetheless, I believe it does have merit, and there is always the brute-force approach of giving the AI fantastic resorces if fancy programming fails .
Well as far as GC2 is concerned, Diplomacy is the easiest way to win a Suicidal game, since you can be the tech leader the majority of game (except in beginning), and be an economic superpower solely by trading crappy influence points. If they fixed that, Suicidal would be much tougher, and then the all-factory and all-research strategies would 'most likely' have to be used to keep up, although not necessarily.
They need to take influence points out of trading period, and just leave it at that.
Just out of curiousity.. what strategies do you all usually use on Suicidal games? Diplomacy? or all-x builds? or something else? or all?
Culture-Bombing. Plain and simple. Jacks up my tourism income (sometimes to the point where I have a 0% tax rate!), allows me to rule over the UP, and I can trade vast swaths of those crappy IPs to get the rest of the galaxy to destroy anyone who poses a threat.
They should have UP votes more often... 52 turns usually seems way too long... perhaps twice a year would make things more interesting. I wonder if the other civ's votes are purely random or based off something? Since the civ's can't really 'understand the question' and make a 'decision based on their best interests'. Such as small weak civ's voting to have a galactic speed increase (or w/e that UP vote is, can't remember) seems ludicrous, they would be the ones who should be against it at all costs.
Some civ's will go to war with anyone for as little as a few hundred influence points... Civ's that have economic/research treaties though, makes it very tough to get them to go to war without giving them 20+ techs.
There is a "HowAIWoudlVote" field in the UPissues.xml that seems to govern the decisions... although not very well! Try to fix the voting system in 3, Cari!
EDIT: Also, the UP should have actual TEETH. If a race is conquoring left & right, it should vote to ally all players against them until they are dead. If someone has all six ascension crystals, it should force them to destroy a few of their ascender bases. That sort of thing. It would make the UP more improtant, and probably make it harder to stay ahead once you are there (which seems to be a matter of some consternation(sp?) among the people on this forum.)
I've seen it... but it can't be a field that makes them vote a preset way (or I hope not), although I haven't looked into it at all other than seeing it there.
The field's values (assuming they haven't changed in D- or TA) are:
0
Randomly vote, no logic involved
1
Vote on the higher letter if winning the game
2
Vote on higher letter if losing the game
3
Vote higher letter if evil
4
Vote higher letter if good
5
Vote for your enemy, or random person
6
Vote for you friend or yourself
7
Vote for yourself if losing, otherwise for a friend
And, no, they are not all set to 0!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
