I simply cannot take this any more. Somewhere along the line, someone thought that an AI player should be able to jump into your strategic rear (more or less so to speak) and colonize planets without even an atom of consequences.
Here's a newsflash from reality: violation of sovereign space in order to colonize "property" of an empire is a HOSTILE act, not a neutral or friendly one.I have every right to reduce that minor AI player to cinders for a transgression like this, but no, it's from a "trusted, warm" *ally* who cannot for the life of them understand why I now need to BLOW THEM INTO ANOTHER UNIVERSE!
In short, because the person who did this has zero geostrategic sense, I have to not only lose the asset (thus throwing my own strategy into turmoil), but get punished as the bloody aggressor for defending my $&%*&*$ space!
Sorry, I can't take this kind of thing anymore. Paradox pulls the same garbage in their games too often.
I buy no more until this kind of crap gets fixed. I cannot have "friendly" AI behaior like this. You want to program a policy of "open asset, fair game everywhere"? Fine, but don't punish your players for responding aggressively to the exercise of this policy. I just got this game and I'm in my fifth skirmish mode start and this has happened 4 times now. I am really hacked off. I can't plan under these conditions.
I think this type of moment right here, is precisely why humans will end up at war with some aliens one day lol.
Perhaps "territorial" would be a good personality trait, some races like our's naturally determine territorial ideas by proximity, others, being alien, don't necessarily see the proximity as a big deal.
Maybe try bigger galaxies but less stars or planets, helps you and the AI have, some distance.
Well, it's not an actual border, as in nation, in GalCiv3. You have an area of influence. If an AI grabs a colony within your area, they run the very real risk of losing that planet to your influence. This is the consequence of colonizing within someone else's area of influence.
Once you have 2x influence over their planet, the timer starts and there's an increasing chance that you'll annex the planet. I like it, since it's a free planet that's usually built up by the time I get it.
I don't know what to tell you. That is exactly what I do to the AI and feel no shame about it whatsover. They have the same options you do, make me stop or shut up about it. In the latest game, one of them has declared war. I am not sure it is because of the back settling and borders violations, but I am sure they didn't help.
Are you expecting that in an MP game I would honor your borders if we didn't have a treaty? Seriously?
I am with Erischild on this one. If you can do it in Multiplayer the ai should do it and more so.
Why not? You know the AI will colonize everything they can get their dirty hands on. It is a known fact, so you can plan with it. For me, it is part of the challenge.
Eh, not so much.
I wouldn't mind if the AI was doing this as some sort of cunning plan. Some players may even fool themselves into thinking it is. But it isn't. 90% of the time, it'll colonize a planet that is instantly flipped. It doesn't take a planet in your influence and then think to itself 'ooh, I should turn this into a big culture planet'. It just treats it like any other planet, and so inevitably gets drenched in culture. That's not the AI attempting to put influence pressure on you; that's the AI giving away resources by being too damn stupid not to.
Until the AI is actually bright enough to pull off something like this, it should respect cultural borders for it's own sake, never mind for the player's.
Honestly I kinda feel like we should have REAL borders, and then also INFLUENCE area. Real borders would be quite tight, say, the standard Starbase area of effect, but around every planet. Whilst influence is just that. Could just a have a more transparent version of the border for one or the other to represent on screen.
that was what I didn't. Like in galactic civilizations 2 is the Ai couldn't. Colonise fast enough. If you can't. Plan then Ai succeeded. If the Ai is slow at colonizing, and I roll all over them that's. Not fun either. Here's. My answer play better. If the Ai can't. Expand, and specialize it doesn't. Stand a chance against me, and that ruins the game more than anything. Please don't. Nerf colonizing that hurts gameplay more than anything. If you do need colonizing then plan for imfastructute that can keep up with a really huge empire. I do think that there needs to be two ais one for bigger maps, and one for smaller maps. This could be an option to nerf colonization.
please no closed borders.
sigh....yeah, my take was fairly toasty, so I'm responsible for that. However, none of these replies appears to be getting the complaint.
Up front the "play better" response I'm just crap-canning for being pointlessly aggravating.That means you, Wilber.
I'm not complaining about the AI taking advantage of an open planet. I *am* complaining about the move being treated as benign when it shouldn't be.
As some other posters discussed, if there is no such thing as a Zone of Control (ZOC), then get rid of that concept of influence in your game entirely.
There's something else missed here: the AIs own rules recognize a form of "trespass" as an act of hostility--you know this when you look at the civ screen and look at the pluses or minuses.. When you're in their "space", they're not happy about it. And that's great,, because they shouldn't be. But that rule needs to be applied to their behavior as well as yours.As things stand, friend are enemies and enemies friends because there's no playing style distinction between them. That's a design fail IMO. If the Drenghins took the planet, that would be consistent with their character. It wouldn't bother me then. I also wouldn't be punished for responding, either. But turning on an "ally" is a whole different dynamic.
So here is where you can tell the differences between playing styles. Instrumental players don't particularly care about rule sets. Its a series of actions and reactions. AI takes planet, you take it back. Everything else is superfluous or secondary.
But other players have race traits that they are committed to playing, and when you're being forced out of that "role'--and to play more aggressively than your race is set up for--diminishes that choice for the player. You either get that or you don't.As I said in my OP, sure I could go take the planet back, but that turns me hostile, even though the offending action is not perceived that way.
Keep the rules consistent or dispense with the fakery of ZOCs altogether.
In any event, thanks for responding and hearing me out. This stuf has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time...
I don't understand how real borders work in space. The only real borders you have are the boundaries of gravity wells. Everything else is arguing about which drop of water you own in the ocean. Only the islands really count. The rest is what you can object to effectively, an abstract notion at best.
Actually, most land based borders are that way as well. I live in the rectangular state of Colorado. How is that real or natural or whatever?
What if there were some sort of "settling in" period where you could harass and destroy the offending colony with normal starships? Making it so they would need to defend their newly settled colony if it was in hostile space. You should be allowed to do that without DoW as well, and just get a diplomatic penalty. (this is how diplomatic messes are created) Then you could code hostile settling into expansionist/aggressive races only and get some variation, and actually add depth to something in the game already lacking. There are a lot of unexplored possibilities here that could work.
Read 'Old Mans War' to give you an idea on what colonization is like. Wild Cat colonists.....
Actually, most land based borders are that way as well. I live in the rectangular state of Colorado. How is that real or natural or whatever?
Given the engine technology of GC, I would argue any empire would reasonable want all enemy ships to stay out of basic 1 turn engine range to prevent blitz-like shenanigans. And since apparently, our sensors RULE and there is no strategic stealth... empires are quite capable of monitoring and abiding by this.
Real borders (smaller than the influence remember, and in addition to them) could have some interesting fun if strategic stealth was a thing (which could violate those borders with impunity).
Also, Colorado is a very bad example of borders, as its a state of the United States and its borders weren't really dictated by the same sort of pressures that nations have. Typically, a border is heavily influenced by terrain, in space, this is as simple as a certain threat range around one's planets. For a better example... look at say... oh I don't know... France and Germany lol.
since my last post I thought something. I still stand on what I said, but galactic civilizations had advanced algorithms, maybe something like that would be a solution here. Now as far as telling other empires to not colonize, survey, or build star wars yes I agree. Tell them, but no invisible force field. I would be willing to compromise with giving you an ability to arrest, and confiscate ships, or returning them back to owner if you were to catch me, and I have an option to fight, or give up. If you tell me I should have an option to agree, or say no to the request. If you start arresting people that should have a diplomacy penalty not as bad as being an aggressor, but on nevertheless with the offending civ, or ones who don't. Already like you.
here's. One idea that you could do, not saying this is a solution, but a workaround. Customize a bunch of species with colonization with a lower priority. In the custom screen, and play only with custom species.
See John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" for an example of a galaxy with many races and little planetary space. Civs would have rogue "wildcat" colonies from desperate or stupid groups with a race trying to colonize in locations not only in someone else's area of influence, but actually on some of their own sparsely populated planets.The official government position was that these wildcat colonists had no permission to colonize and were thus disavowed.
Suggestion for the devs.
Make new Option for "wildcat" colonies. (as always, please allow the option to be disabled/or enable per user choice)
"What do you mean Earthman, a new Deregin colony in your backyard? Oh, those guys? Huh, they aren't mine." "They sure look like Deregin." "Ah, well, see but they aren't official, just a few overeager fellows from that other political party" "So, then, you aren't officially worried about their fate?" "Meh, I never liked them anyways"
1) Let races colonize where they will
2) Note if colonization occurs in on a planet that is already within the sphere of influence, by default, note that and mark the colony as a wildcat colony
3) Do not penalize a civilization for removing wildcat colonies in its sphere of influence.
4) Do not penalize the "parent" civ if the colony can defend itself.
5) For diplomatic purposes, a wildcat colony would be treated as new minor race that a civ completely controls, but doesn't affect their diplomatic status.
4) A variation would be to allow the civ colonizing a planet in those circumstances the opportunity to "formally dispute the territorial claims" of the original owner, so as to protect it's new colony. On the next turn for the other civ, pop up a diplomacy dialogue with that information, and give the two civs a chance to negotiate over the new colony. If they come to agreement, the colony is protected. If not, they go to war over it.
It's like a nation tried to claim the planet of Crimea, wait no, bad example. Ok, like they tried to claim the colony of Golan Hei, ah no. The star system of Poland?
Ok, I give up, but you guys get the idea.
I forgot to mention above that if you colonize or build star wars in someone's solar system that already owns a planet, or resource that would give a diplomatic penalty to who was there first, and the penalty should be more if they are your ally. This would probably affect those who don't. Like you, but if their okay or like the offending empire then maybe that should be a plus for them.
caryhage vs. Rome started that way. Scicily. I forgot to mention I think we could use a separate Ai for smaller maps, and bigger maps. I might check that game out. Your idea about rogue colonies might work.
reasonable want all enemy ships to stay out of basic 1 turn engine range to prevent blitz-like shenanigans.
Actually, you might be onto something here. The game isn't consistent about how it treats influence borders. Sometimes it's just influence, sometimes it's more like a real border. So, no wonder it does cause misunderstandings and frustration...
Elaborating on your suggestion and trying to keep this very simple, would this work:
The command "guard" can be applied to ships stationed in a planet. These ships will now watch for, scramble, and intercept foreign ships. The new thing is that instead of waiting for the enemy to strike the planet they are guarding an area centered on the planet with a range equal to the movement of their slowest ship. If any foreign ship with attack more than zero tries to move closer to the planet than the intercept range, it results in a battle between the violating ship and the planetary fleet. Of course, a human player would get asked whether he really intends to attack and the AI would calculate it the same way it calculates whether to attack a planet or not. This way the foreign military ships can fly through your influence space but not through your controlled space unless they want to fight for it or they have an open borders treaty.
Essentially, it would be analogous to the real world distinction between international waters and territorial waters.
It would also be quite traditional as it resembles the "original definition" of national sea borders that was "the range of our guns"...
You should probably also have some kind of maximum intercept range regardless of your defense fleet's speed to prevent clever human player from creating ridiculously large intercept zones.
It would need some work to implement but not that much, I think, as the core mechanic would simply be a distance trigger causing a battle. The AI path finding would need modification to take the new intercept-ZOC into account but that would essentially not be any different from circumnavigating a black hole.
I stand by the point that borders are what you can enforce. In land based borders there is often terrain that looks obvious or was obviously enforceable. In open water, all borders are arbitrary. In space, it is more so. "This bit of vast empty nothing is mine!" is an inherently illogical statement and therefore becomes a fiction of law and diplomacy.
Whatever is worked out, what I don't want is for some game mechanic to forcefully enforce all this. I don't want a magic shield that prevents me from entering opponent space. I don't want my ships magically transported out of their space when I declare war. While I fully understand why that was in place in GC2, it was the one mechanic I had real immersion objections about.
What I do want is a UP proposition that says declaring war while within the opponent's borders makes you an enemy of the UP and all members declare war on you for it. Get your ships out of there yourself or be in trouble. You will probably want to exempt unarmed ships from all this. Many players will hate it. They may be right and it may be one of the good reasons for implementing it. It can seriously affect vicious warmongering. But, if sneak attack isn't prevented/discouraged by game mechanics, you need a very strong diplomatic mechanic to provide some replacement for that.
I hear a lot of demand for the ability to say "Get out of my space!" through diplomacy. I think that does need to be added, for roleplay if nothing else, and it needs to be expanded. If you have open borders and have a mega fleet hanging out by their planet, they ought to be able to object to that. Maybe they can cancel their open borders treaty. Maybe they can drag you before the UP and get you condemned. Obviously, that won't even slow down the evil decision process for some of us, but it may be a controlling inconvenience.
THIS^^^, Leave it alone as it is now. I absolutely favor the diplomatic destruction of yourself if you choose to sneak attack INSIDE another's borders. Also if you are the ai or a player and send a constructor to mine inside my 'cultural area of influence' then we should also have the opportunity to flip those starbases, the problem is dropping a cultural starbase next to the ai worlds. While not directly attacking, the ai already gets really uppity if you plop one down next to him. I feel we should have more UP resolutions to deal with this type of player actions and that UP election/resolutions should be immediately triggered (optional of course) for actions like this.
instead of recapping erischild, and larsenex I agree. I would like the ability to tell you to get out, but not the ability to make you unless I can catch you, and beat you.
I bet if "real borders" were introduced into the game, there would be tons of threads of the theme "Why can't I go there? Why do my ships travel such weird routes?"
Keep in mind, the freedom of movement is a key part of GalCiv. With any kind of impenetrable borders there could be situations - especially in mid-game - where the galaxy would be a mosaic of open and closed space. Ships would have to fly a zig-zag-path like the pilot is drunk. There also could be situations where some factions are totally cut off from certain parts of space.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account