Ok I know they are not finished and I hope they will turn out to be at least somewhat useful. Played several games mow with 1.3 #2. I avoided using the planetary wheel opting only for the global. I found this to be very playable, most of the time I had it set to 40/40/20 M/R/$ adjusting it as necessary to rush something or stop from going broke. Not utilizing the planetary wheel changed the way I built out planets, opting for more balanced worlds and it worked out OK. I will miss the planetary wheel but can learn to live without it just fine. Governors on the other hand are another story. A big part of the games challenge (at least for me) is deciding what to do with each planet and how best to build it out. So even if gov’s were good at doing that I would opt not to use them. Big problem is they are actually very bad at it currently and will never be nearly as good as the average player. I spent more time tearing things down and rebuilding than I ever did “micromanaging” my planetary wheels. And letting the gov do terraforming? those tiles are just too valuable to randomly plopped down or leave to chance . How is this helping the player avoid micro or improve the gaming experience? Unless they come with focus buffs I suspect most will leave them off, I know I will.
It, um, helps balance the game by making your civilization as dumb as the AI's.
It is all a matter of what they program them to do. If they are programmed to build improvements, I am pessimistic about their usefulness. I have been following the GC games for many years and the AI can't build improvements that will satisfy a human player. This is especially true with adjacency bonuses. I would trust the AI to colonize for me before allowing them to build improvements.
In a game today I set the governor to wealth on a PQ9 planet. It immediately started covering half the hexes with factories.
For the AI to succeed building improvements they would have to scrap adjacency, and just set recommendations for each hex. I.E. this hex is suited for factories, research, farms, etc. Then you could set the AI to build improvements in a certain order, I.E. build only factories until I say change. Even then based on my experience with AI in all startegy games, they will find a way to screw up.
In the old SMAC game, the only improvements worth building over the long haul were Forests, so you could set the governor to build only Forests and that worked pretty good. Bottom line, the more choices they have, the more they screw up.
in gc2 you could tell the governor exactly wich buildings to build and in which order,
(as far as i understood it this will evetually come back)
it was also able to utilizise the bonus tiles,
but with adjacency and the changed terraforming its likely that the governor will screw up
exactly my point.
Same here, and the kicker was it built two stadiums and two consulates. Thats what prompted me to do a winy post. I trust SD to eventually get us something we will be happy with, just a question of when.
I haven't tried governors in GC3 yet. The feedback I read make them seem detrimental to the game and the game is in flux enough as it is without adding another layer of management IMO.
Once they're worked out, I might give them a try, but a 10% bonus isn't worth the headaches I see coming along with the package.
They took out all the bonuses. I used them just to see if they were playable
They did? Well, that makes it easier to not use them.
I think not only can they improve governor improvement AI, they must. Otherwise the AI will always be easy to beat. That said, I will never use improvement governors for my main empire. But I would like to use them after conquering distant worlds so I don't have to build them up myself. Improvement governors need to be separate from production allocation. That's how opt-in #2 is now, where governors only build improvements, not mess with production settings.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
