Yeah um. So diplomacy I can declare war, or I can try to trade. But if it has been pretty recent I can't trade again for awhile? So really all I can do is declare war or piss off? I don't really understand the mechanic on this. Is how often you can trade a function of a technology? Please enlighten me on what is going on here with this...
I think the whole trade whore should be a strategy but should come with checks/balanced, you trade a tech soon after you acquire it, and the race you got it from should slap you with a trade embargo, or diplomatic penalty or possibility of war. Those make for consequences which would create depth. In any event it doesn't appear to just affect trade. If you make a trade you can no longer even talk to that race, just declare war. Either I am inaccurate on that or that totally blows.
Yeah, the whole lockout thing is a big part of the placeholder feel - it screams 'this feature is incomplete, so we'll prevent you from taking the piss with it'. It's a little cheap, and it really feels like it's just there as a means to cover an AI deficiency.
I'd like to see a sort of inflation mechanic put in instead - make the AI increase the value it puts on trades with a player for a short while after a trade, and have it decline by a little % per turn. So say the 'inflation' is set at 100%. On the firs turn after a trade, the AI will demand double the value of anything it's asked for. The next turn, it only asks for 90%, then 80% the turn after that, and so on. After 10 turns, the AI is happy to trade at normal rates again. This could be further modified by differences in diplo rating, various treaties, even the AI's personality (some AIs have a 20-turn c/d; some only 5 etc). Hell, add a UP decree based on it. Reset it if the AI approaches YOU with a trade afterwards, but make it stack so that if I'm looking to trade 3 turns in a row, I'm paying 300% for anything I ask for.
That way, if you NEEDED to talk to the AI after a trade, you could, but trying to rip the AI off would rapidly become very expensive and would benefit the AI more than the player; but a series of bilateral negotiations would avoid major price hikes.
The other big thing that makes diplo feel incomplete is the lack of threats and demands. The fact that the AI can make these and we can't really suggests that more diplo work is in the pipeline, which feeds into the whole 'placeholder' thing and makes me hope that the current diplo lockout is a temporary thing while Stardock come up with something cooler.
[
quote who="Larsenex" reply="9" id="3558453"]diplomacy is far better than other vanilla 4x at launch
Auramagma, Thanks for the reply, My response is have you or ANYONE here played Civ 5 vanilla upon release? I say this because so many people compare today's install of Civ 5 to today's install of Gal Civ III.
The two are not even remotely comparable. Civ 5 At launch was such a steaming pile of crap that the ONLY worse launch was Sword of the Stars II. Now with that said, after YEARS of updates, patches and fixes, Civ 5 is now one of the best 4x games out there. I feel its a bit unfair to compare a current reinstall of Civ 5 to the recently released Gal Civ III.
My only response to folks who are (vocal) in stating how bad the game or diplomacy is, is to simply give it a few months. Currently the (ai and diplomacy) in general is just ~ 'meh' however they are not terrible and they are certainly NOTHING like other 4x games were at release.
^^ Larsenex pretty much sums it up for me, but better stated as always.
I have to agree about Civ V. I was really looking forward to it and it stunk so bad that I shelved it for a couple of years. Then when "Gods and Kings" and "Brave New World" came out, I said THERE is what I have been missing. Looked up the reviews (both pro and users) and got them on sale. It was awesome! I have played the hell out of it ever since.
Back to GalCiv
Really, I would like to see no tech trading or brokering option be EXCEPT techs can be used in a peace treaty. That would be interesting! Perhaps you have a chance of getting a bonus on research of a tech you don't know if you take over a planet? Add capturing ships and getting a tech bonus on things you don't have (like weapons, engines, defenses, etc.) depending on damage. Capturing enemy equipment has always been a major boost. You get to see the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy units. There is a reason the US capturing a nearly intact Zero in WWII helped develop the F6F Hellcat.
Diplomacy, Strategic AI, building AI and ideology need another pass. The AI is getting better and I know they said they were looking at Diplomacy and Ideology changes (other ways to get ideology points). They desperately need password protection for MP games as well. I look forward to 1.03 and 1.1.
I would like to see the AI bribe other factions to do a DoW on me. Then it will be interesting if I do it to them.
I would like to see the game start with a "cold" war. If no one is in an area of influence, then shots can and while be traded.
Non-aggression pacts would then stop this. Perhaps a UP resolution for galaxy wide.
Then open borders. (I know it is there, I am saying you have to have non-aggression first.)
Perhaps free trade after that.
Perhaps for now I will make teams of AI. Drengin and Yor or Krynn. Terran and Altarian, etc. That would leave me odd man out if I feel so inclined.
I like that they are adding random factions in 1.3. However, I would say ever game ever with this feature needs a "but not these factions". At least let me choose a list of factions for the random selection to come from so I can cull the worst ones.
Don't get me wrong, the game is MUCH better than most games when they come out. (That is the way of things lately, games rarely come out spot on) It needs some love, and they are giving it. Unlike Total War or CIV, Stardock kicks out updates fast and furious. Some use that against them to say "See, it was not ready!". Hell, would you rather wait until an expansion 6 months or a year later to get the improvements? Look at Beyond Earth! I don't mean to bash Firaxis, but as that is a house I respected but lately they have let me down enough to just wait for a year or more to buy.
I don't feel that way here. Maybe I am naive. I LIKE that they are constantly improving it. I LIKE that the Lead Developer and the CEO come on the forums and say what is going on.
Look at Blood Bowl 2. It was supposed to be released last weekend and now it is "June" and they aren't saying a thing.
So yes, there is work to do as Larsenex and I said, but we (well, I think I can speak for you bud, I see you one the forums all the time. If not, feel free to say this guy is nuts!) still like to play it.
Quote Auramagma, Reply #24
1. Currently resources in the game play secondary role. They are not needed to win the game. They are not even needed to make your empire stronger. What if resurces were the essential components to build the ships and starbases? Then all the sudden you uncover a very important strategic and diplomacy layer. Now you will have to do these resources trading treaties. You will have to visit diplomacy screen often to see who has what you need. And either trade with them or go to war with them, which will be dangerous since they have that critical resource and you don't.
This is where you can make good use of designing your own ships and selecting weapons/modules etc that require specific resources - eg using the prototype elerium beams etc can give you a significantly better range and hit rating over opponents but quickly uses up these resources - adds an extra dimension to the game.
2. Trade routes. Make freighters to execute specific trade treaties. If you agreed to trade something in eexchange to something else, then you need to say 5 freighters constantly working on the trade routes for resources or cash to be delivered to your empire. If pirates or other hostiles kill the freighter, then you loose the delivery.make each delivery a persantage of overall deal.
Like the train of thought here, might even need to provide escorts etc (which introduces a compatible range issue so new design required....)
3. Empire boundaries need to start working. Currently, open boarders do not have any meaning. And any faction can fly freely through your space.
Not quite accurate, if you have an open borders treaty with another race they don't get so upset with your scouts traversing their space or that inadvertent starbase sucking up the resources . Was mentioned on another thread but the concept here is you don't actually 'own' the space, you 'influence' the space - however it will be nice (and I'm looking forward to implementation) to have the diplomatic option of telling the AI to destroy their starbase etc. Should be a range of 'sanctions' that could be applied, request trade sanctions, cancel trade routes, cancel extant trades etc.
4. The like/ dislike option needs to work better and as was suggested on this forum take in account how far you are on the particular root through ideology. I personally would consider restricting your ideology to one or two options insyead of giving freedom to select all 3. That would make possible to outline AI personalities better. AI would prefer some ideology combinatons to others.
5 Consider adding additional race specific features, I.e. the way they run economy, what planets they live on , etc. That will make playing them more unique experience and might and should affect diplomacy as well.
To fantasise a bit) - consider having 5-6 ideologies instead of 3. And let player and AI to choose only 2. Each combination of 2 fully covered ideologies will will give that race some superability Of course, diplomacy will take these new combinations in to account as per 4.
Like all of these thoughts.
Yes, I would wait. Look at GTA V for the pc or The Witcher 3, both which had extended delays so they came out `right`.
I don't mean to bash Firaxis, but as that is a house I respected but lately they have let me down enough to just wait for a year or more to buy.
Beyond earth was a huge let down, but more because they played too safe and therby achieved a very boring game rather than anything exciting and interesting (so glad I never bought it and checked utube plays first). They recently released a big statement stating that fact. they never actually said `Sorry` but it was basically an apology.
We were feeling a lot more civil prior to the revelation that if and when someone who doesn't agree and expresses is therefore censored, meanwhile what point they make has merit and truth and discussion ceases. The tact I use in the post is a reflection of the level of diplomacy available to players in the current build. All or nothing. Trade lockout means you can declare war or nothing. Furthermore, you can understand or can not understand but not everybody sees the value in sugarcoating and fluffy-izing as opposed to direct.Feedback is feedback. If you want only to encourage only tactful feedback and see that all others is censored well I conclude that is a contributing factor to what led to the state of the release as it is.None of my comments have been toxic or venom. Diplomacy is all or nothing is it not? Once you've made a trade you are locked out from doing anything but declaring war, even if it is an ally. What if you need help from that ally or want to propose another agreement? Too bad. That sucks. It is not well thought out. I said as much, if you want specific details on all of the unfinished and poorly done have a look at the threads in general. Not all of my threads are negative either so have a cookie.
1. No one has censored you. This is a public forum and your posts are still visible, despite their toxicity.
2. Saying that there is no care put into the AI, or any aspect of the game, is the point that I would agree with AlLanMandragoran is toxic. You may dislike or even hate its current iteration but that's no reason to shit on the developers who clearly show they are constantly working to improve the game.
3. Basically it comes down to this: If you like the game and want to see it improve, temper your comments and give constructive criticism; if you think the game sucks and you have nothing good to say then perhaps you should find something else to do with your time.
I feel its a bit unfair to compare a current reinstall of Civ 5 to the recently released Gal Civ III
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 similar point was discussed.
In my Civ 5 games one of the neightbor AIs always gets annoyed with my empire. Usually it is over shared boundaries and my rapid expansion (this is on high difficulties). Then, it declares war on me. I take couple of it's cities.Everyone get annoyed, even my friends and allies. One turn they were friends. After capturing AI city - they aren't any more. And they declare war on me very soon after that and every single AI, even ones who are miles away do the same. Now, the diplomacy is finished at that point for that particular game. From that point onwards it is only war and crashing AIs. This was like that in vanilla and still like that in the latest expansion even with the Community Mod installed.
So, I guess, there could be a good example (for me that is), like Civ4 or better still Distant Worlds, where diplomacy feels meaningful and no so good and something in between.
Another problem with Civ5 is AI's one unit per tile management. Which is still not there (IMHO) even after expantions. Civ 5 has lots of interesting staff to explore and is very polished, but these 2 elements: diplomacy and warfare could be better.
Sure, GalCiv 3 has long way to grow. I just hope it learns from the good examples and that developers actully agree that there are some shortcomings in current implementation. Not only because things are limited in quantity at the moment, but also because some of the game concepts need to be looked at and modified IMHO.
You see my kind of "issue" )) is that GalCiv3 makes very good cash. That might (as with civ 5) create a feeling that some of the fundamental game concepts do not require much enhancement, since people are buying it anyway. I have quite a bit of hope though that some staff, like espionage and goverment systems, which devs said they are working on already will shift the diplomacy balance so that it becomes quite useful...
It would be good also )) to hear something of what can be (planned to be) done with some other parts of the game which need work. I.e. currently game is based on 4 major resources: manufacturing, research, cash, happiness. The absolute majority of the enhancements in the game give you some +% to one of these or your unit characteristics. At some point, usually in the second 3rd of the second age, you accumulate enough to win the game. At that point any further % increases become irrelevant. You simply switch everything to manufacturing and building ships\transports and crash all AIs, occationally building cash planets. It doesn't feel quite right.
The above is not that much of the critisism for it's own sake, but since lots of people already said how great the game is (and it has a very good potential!), it would be good that these things are pointed out as well. And they are not small things. They affect gameplay greatly and require quite a bit of work. I suppose I just want some sort of communication that we (players like myself) and devs are on the same (similar) page.
1. No one has censored you. This is a public forum and your posts are still visible, despite their toxicity.2. Saying that there is no care put into the AI, or any aspect of the game, is the point that I would agree with AlLanMandragoran is toxic. You may dislike or even hate its current iteration but that's no reason to shit on the developers who clearly show they are constantly working to improve the game.3. Basically it comes down to this: If you like the game and want to see it improve, temper your comments and give constructive criticism; if you think the game sucks and you have nothing good to say then perhaps you should find something else to do with your time.
Pretty sure a thread with a feedback discussion was closed over nothing. Developer threating to disengage with the community because issues are being presented and reviews are being invalidated, a different story is being told than the reviewer club.
What exactly are you finding toxic about honest-direct feedback about mechanics and design of the game?
Please explain this apparent movement on here to sugar coat everything and now you are sending me pictures of thumper logic?
Do you understand the difference between a rabbit and an alpha? No because you are a beta clearly. A rabbit runs to a hole and lives in the dirt or gets eaten when confronted with a threat. An alpha bites back.
That god-awful spaceship game was bad too - and tbh, I don't share this fondness for Civ 5 everyone's acquired. It's still riddled with fundamental design flaws even with the DLCs (which is why BE sucked so badly really - same game, same flaws). X-COM was OK, but had been heavily dumbed-down compared to the old games. These days, Firaxis seem altogether too keen on striping out complexity in the name of 'accessibility', which has cost them a lot of the old-school, hardcore fans from the '90s, even as it's increased their general sales.
And yes, even in it's current state GC3 diplo is better than Civ 5 diplo was on launch - the AI's choices made no sense whatsoever. They wanted to make it act 'more human'... but all they did was make it act completely batshit crazy. It was impossible to divine what the AI wanted on initial release. After the huge backlash from players, they hastily added in tooltips to find out what motivated it, and that basically revealed that [i]it was insane/[i]. It hated you for no reason. It would flip between being your best buddy and wanting to destroy you from turn to turn. It was programmed to dogpile the player, and was obsessed with going to war constantly. It wasn't until Brave New World that diplo became passable; but even with the expansion, diplomacy feels hollow.
Even in it's current far-from-perfect state, GC3's diplo has more features and a less inanely stupid AI than Civ 5.
Sorry J5, you're too toxic for our forum.
I see what you did there.
That god-awful spaceship game was bad too - and tbh, I don't share this fondness for Civ 5 everyone's acquired. It's still riddled with fundamental design flaws even with the DLCs (which is why BE sucked so badly really - same game, same flaws). X-COM was OK, but had been heavily dumbed-down compared to the old games. These days, Firaxis seem altogether too keen on striping out complexity in the name of 'accessibility', which has cost them a lot of the old-school, hardcore fans from the '90s, even as it's increased their general sales. And yes, even in it's current state GC3 diplo is better than Civ 5 diplo was on launch - the AI's choices made no sense whatsoever. They wanted to make it act 'more human'... but all they did was make it act completely batshit crazy. It was impossible to divine what the AI wanted on initial release. After the huge backlash from players, they hastily added in tooltips to find out what motivated it, and that basically revealed that [i]it was insane/[i]. It hated you for no reason. It would flip between being your best buddy and wanting to destroy you from turn to turn. It was programmed to dogpile the player, and was obsessed with going to war constantly. It wasn't until Brave New World that diplo became passable; but even with the expansion, diplomacy feels hollow.
I pretty much agree with all you`ve said there.
I agree Gal Civ 3 diploamcy was better than Civ 5 diplomacy at launch, but not current game. Sorry. I would say Civ 5 (with add-ons) is slightly better for these reasons...
For example, you can ask a Civ `what do you want for that?` To save you clicking thu a dozen options, which is nice.
The AI has several levels of diplomacy in warfare which is quite detailed, depending on how well it`s doing against you. If you are bff with a civ and it takes a city which was yours from an enemy, it will give you back that city.
As for the AI warning you of enemy intentions, well Civ 5 does that too. I also miss spies big time. Where are they? Although spies were not in Civ 5`s original game either, interestingly...
Gal Civ 3 could do with quite a few more diplomatic options to feel more `human` or in the case of Gal Civ 3, to feel more `sentient`.
All that said I don`t think Civ 5`s AI is all that great either, but at this point in time, at kleast with the add-ons, there are only a couple of things it don`t do that Gal civ 3 does is give away it`s entire army and cities to you to prevent a rival civ from getting it and gifting military units.
I don`t know what Civ 5 standaone is like as I have only played with all the add-ons.
Was wondering when that would happen.
I tried.
Its quite alright. I'll survive. Simply confirms my assertion that there is censorship here, and there, plenty of need to stifle real feedback and monitor dissent in the ranks. Feels rather Chineese or is that more North Korean? Hard to say exactly. Hence the situation with the game and how it springs forth as it has with the AI it has.
Happy as you may be with it's launch and it indeed not all bad, it needs some work. Ban or slap all of us around here you want. Close threads but it doesn't change any real facts. Those Alphas sure are crafty aint they
Please hurry up and patch us something we can brag about to our friends so I can get at least one of them to play with me in Multiplayer. Been waiting for this for over a decade.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
