Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The journey to v1.1
Published on March 21, 2006 By Draginol In GalCiv Journals

In testing the computer AI's updates for v1.1, I'm also making use of some of the new features in v1.1.

I'm playing on a large galaxy.  In this game, I'm playing as the Dominion.

Back Story

The Dominion was a commercially backed colonization effort from the year 2178.  Over 10 million humans from across the globe took part in it and headed out into the galaxy.  Over time, humans and aliens migrated to the new colony called Haven.

The year now is 2225 and the quadrant Haven is located in now shares space with the Terran Alliance, Drengin Empire, Torian Confederation and Arcean Empire.

No technology trading is allowed amongst civilizations. Only the Drengin and Altarians are equipped with the updated AI.

Running in a window in case anyone wonders why there's a title bar:

The quadrant's control was something like this at the start of 2227:

The Dominion had a vast area of territory under its control -- the light brown (me). The Terran Alliance (blue) had the "north" and the Drengin had the red middle.  The Arceans (yellow) and Torians (green) were on the east side.  It would remain to be seen how things would progress.

AI Evaluation

Our spies have been reporting back to us on how well the Drengin, Terrans, Arceans, and Torians are managing their worlds. The Drengin have an updated social manager engine so in theory, it should do better than the others.

The Drengin have used their own planet very well.  Two factories, one on a mineral rich area ensures that they are maximizing their planet. One might quibble over whether they should have bothered to build more farms or not.

Their advanced marketing center combined with high taxes with native morale bonus has given them a very high amount of income for this planet when combined with the economic capital.

Our grade: A-

 

The Terrans have really focused on research for their planet. Their native morale is lower than the Drengin's resulting in a lower income due to lower taxes. It's a bit weak on production.

Our grade: B+

 

Arcea is still using the 1.0X based social manager.  No huge errors but one might argue whether Diplomatic translators were worth having on their home world.  Their lower morale ability means that they can't keep their taxes as high as they might want. However, at 70% approval, one might argue why they don't push their taxes up in order to be more competitive economically.

 

Our grade: B.

 

Toria is also using the 1.0X engine but did a decent, but not great job at its planet. It's in the same boat as I am overall in that it doesn't have a great natural morale ability or big economic ability like the others picked.  Three economic boosters  helped their planet some but I think they'd been better off with another factory.

Our Grade: B

So what's MY home planet situation look like?

So this is what my home planet looks like at this time.

The biggest difference, however, between the two groups of 1.0X AIs and 1.1 AIs is in what techs they have.  The Drengin and Terrans have a lot of miniaturization technologies which they now value far more.  The Torians and Arceans, meanwhile, don't even have basic miniaturization.

Another research weakness I've noticed is with life support. The 1.0X AI doesn't tend to value it very much. Hence, on large maps, wars become less likely and give the human leader a big advantage in being able to isolate players.

The various civilizations tend not to go to war with anyone they don't have in range unless they've been...paid off to do it.

..Time
    Passes...

I have used my distance from the major powers to stay neutral in their wars.  I've also been able to watch and modify their behaviors based on what they should be doing.

Now we're in December 2233.  Almost 9 years have passed since the beginning.  The Torians are gone.

The Drengin seem to be on the rise having defeated them. But not so fast. The Terran Alliance have been building up the whole time.

So why my civilization, the Dominion, watches on, the Terrans and Drengin have an all out war. It's a great way to see divergent strategies take shape.

The Terrans have built no less than 6 starbases that cover earth. Moreover, these aren't the crappy little starbase spam of 1.0X that you sometimes saw.  They're maxed.

By contrast...

The Drengin Empire has no starbases around their home world. Instead, they've been focusing on building up a huge military machine which took out the Torians with impressive lethality.

The Drengin are using the Nano Ripper to create very nasty ships. I think I agree with others who feel that the Nano-Ripper is overpowered.  I also think Good Races need to get a new power. I was thinking a 50% bonus to their ship defenses.

The Terran Alliance isn't using the full 1.1 AI either.  They can't upgrade their ships yet.  The difference is quite apparent.

But they are making use of the improved ship design system.  They have a new type of Battleship:

14 moves!

So the question is, can the Terran Alliance's strategy of peaceful coexistence, weaker military but strong technology defeat the Drengin's further improved AI and ship upgrading?

That's what we were about to find out.

..and the answer...

The Terran Alliance crushes the Drengin Empire completely.

Twilight of the Drengin Empire

The Drengin Empire is nearly destroyed. The Terran Alliance, despite their weaker AI, is about to utterly destroy the Drengin.  This is an important thing to evaluate because it can mean one of three things:

1) The Drengin have a poor strategy

2) The Drengin just had some bad luck

3) There is a basic game mechanic that is non-optimal

I know #2 isn't true.

#3 the jury is still out.  The Drengin tend to build more, smaller ships. The Terrans tend to build more capital ships.

I've thought about making logistics go like this:

Tiny: 2
Small: 3
Medium: 5
Large: 6
Huge: 8

Anyone have any opinions on that? Basically two small vs. a large seems iffy as is. And right now a small is still worth 3 and a large is only 5. If I have a logistics of 15, I could have 5 small fighters vs. 2 capital ships. That seems more fair than 5 small fighters vs. 3 capital ships.

I think the real answer is this graph:

The Terrans simply were vastly more advanced than the Drengin were.  With the no-tech trade option on, the Drengin can't extort techs out of weaker civilizations like they'd normally do.

Let's look at the Drengin home world now:

Research Academies and Enhanced Factories.

Now for Earth:

Research Academies and Manufacturing Centers. The Terrans have better manufacturing capability.

Both reasonably designed.  I think basically the Drengin and others need to put more emphasis on technology research.

The Humans..are coming for us...

The Terran Alliance decided it was time to wipe me out. They also have an alliance with the Arceans so things are getting painful.

I do have a pretty good ship though against them.

It's a BIG ship. 

And now for the test.  4 of them vs. the Terran Armada.

Not enough.  My logistics is just too low to fight 6 ships of that level.

The Terrans dismantle my network of starbases around Haven.

Oh but I do love scaling.  My large sized ships against fighters.

 

And so the end comes..

Check this out :

The Terran Alliance destroyed 163 ships while only losing 38.  That's a 4 to 1 kill ratio. That's amazing.

Ironically, on the forums you hear people complaining that the AI always out techs them. I usually find myself out teching the AI but I'm more experienced.  I think we'll have to put in some effort into having it so that at lower levels the AI techs a bit slower but at higher levels it techs much faster because clearly the Drengin got smoked despite having all the advantages. It just doesn't research as well.

Next game: All AIs upgraded fully to 1.1 with tweaks from this game.  Stay tuned...


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Mar 21, 2006
Nice, interesting read. Looking forward to the next one.
I'm all for the change in logistics.
on Mar 21, 2006
The first thing I thought when I saw the final screenshot with the humans' ship kill rations was, "that looks like a human player's stats."

This looks exciting.

I've only thought about it for a few minutes, but I'm in favor of your proposed Logistics change. What I've found is that I can rarely pit smaller ships against the enemy's larger ones if we are at the same tech and logistics levels. That makes the choice of going for many small or a few big ships less interesting unless I'm also chasing down Logistics techs.

Perhaps you could argue that wanting to field many smallers ships means I should be chasing more Logistics... Hmm.

I also like it because I think it will lend itself more to a capital ship system, in which each fleet gets its biggest ship, to have the ranks filled in with smaller support craft. As it is now I never pair Medium ships with anything else because the logistics cost of 4 almost always divides into my Logistics ability without enough left over for small or tiny ships.
on Mar 21, 2006
I'd agree with the change in logistics. The jump to medium ships is a huge bonus right now. A fleet of medium ships can currently take out a fleet of small ships of the same tech level and logistics points. I'll be interested to see how the change goes.

-Dewar
on Mar 21, 2006
Great post. I'm with you 100% on the logistics change. I like fighter craft, as I tend to play mostly on small-medium galaxies...and in those games you rarely get past that point before someone wins.

If I really race to them I'll pick up a medium...but I only get to Large or Huge if I slow-play and get there on purpose. If I play to win I can do it with nothing but fighters. It's tough taking on large ships with fighters if your enemy has advanced logistics. Fortunately for me when I play the computer rarely gets that unless I sell it to them.
on Mar 21, 2006
Yeap, the logistics seem to be "unfair"... In my very first game of GC2, on all Intelligent, I found myself dominating the battlefield (battlespace? ) only because I focused on Building techs.

I think the problem is in Linearity. The logistics system is LINEAR (2,3,4...), while if you think on a spaceship, I would say the logistics needed to support a growing ship should be proportional to volume, or at least to surface.

What that means is, that logisitics points should be based on at least square feet of ships. A simple representation of that would be to use the square points instead of the linearity as is now.

Example: tiny=1, small=2, medium=4, large=8.

I know, that calls for a complete redesign of the system. But I think it will work better in the end.

Maybe, hull space should be the baseline for logistics. Use the hull space as representation, instead of linearity.

Example: baseline, tiny hull= 1 log point. Then, for all others, use the ratio of hull space to the baseline to define log points. That would make sense, and is easy to implement.

My 2 cents.
on Mar 21, 2006
I'm more into capital ships and prefer medium hulls and up. I don't want to have to build tons of fighters. I'm all for balance but I don't want fleets of tinys/small ships to have an advantage over mediums and up.

A medium ships is obviously going to be more powerful than a similar tech small or tiny, and IMO, 3 mediums should obliterate 5 tiny/small of similar tech.

on Mar 21, 2006
Looks fantastic. Thanks Draginol, and thanks Stardock.
on Mar 21, 2006
Looks and sounds good. Really like the better ship designs the AI are coming up with.

I noticed that the Terrans still built one of those annoying orbital fleet managers on a bonus farm tile though! In fact they all completely ignored increasing their population at all, which will mean that they are economically dominated, and easier to buy off (not to mention easier to conquer).

As for the logistics changes - sounds reasonable, but how about a logistics value of 1 for any ship with zero attack ratings - would really make shifting constructors around a lot less mind-numbing early-mid game.
on Mar 21, 2006
I have a question about how you make these screenshots:

Do you use cheats/debug modes to "spy" on the AI? or are you doing this by spending tons on espionage. I don't usually spend much on espionage as I'm not that good at managing my economy yet...so I'm usually strapped for cash. I've gotten to the level you need to view planets on several occasions...but not on every single AI player as you have.
on Mar 21, 2006
I've been messing around with the log values of the ships myself. As of now it feels like once you've researched med ships you never have to build a tiny ship again. I'd like to see value placed on each size of ship so that no matter what stage of the game your in, the ships all have value.

Tiny: 2 pts, Decreased range. Cheap local fighters for defense.
Small: 3 pts, unchanged
Med: 5 pts, increased hull and HP.
Like to see the above three used by a swarm/fleet type of player.


Large: 10 pts, increased hull and hp
Huge: 99 pts, vast increased hull, hp. Ship maintence cost high enough to restrict a player to owning only one.

The above two ships for the player who wants his big bad destroyers all alone in the night.

I'd also like to see the total amount of logestics reduced. I don't think a player should have more then 20-25 ever.
on Mar 21, 2006
You should be rewarded for building ships of larger size since you took the time to research the hull tech. If you have a fleet of larger ships you should always be able to easily beat a fleet of smaller ships given the same logistics and weapons/shield levels.
on Mar 21, 2006
I noticed that the Terrans still built one of those annoying orbital fleet managers on a bonus farm tile though!


Tell me, how many Entertainment Centers and stuff would've been needed to keep the morale of the population from going into the toilet? How many factories and research labs would've needed replacing? The Terrans did great, in my opinion -- I only build farms on Gold Farm Bonuses when they're on Class 15 or higher planets. The morale hit and the many entertainment improvements needed to counteract it are, in my opinion, far worse than any economic hit you'll take in the long run. Now, if they'd built an Orbital Fleet Manager on top of a Precursor Lab or something, then there'd be something to complain about.
on Mar 21, 2006
This kind of shows me that tech trading really smoothed out the difference in racial traits from a bonus research race to an average or poor research race.You could equalize it with a high diplomacy skill for another race.Add a race with a high morality skill and research bonus and it would be seriously lopsided.It seems you may have to adjust the native traits of the races to equalize this out somehow.Tech skill may become too important without tech trading.Perhaps a finer adjustment of percentages in racial traits.
on Mar 21, 2006
A large part of the advantage of larger ships is the defense. It's hard to fit much in the way of shields etc on less than medium ships. Due to how combat works defense can have a major affect on battle results. (As can ship speed since a faster ship will stand a better chance of being attacker than defender.)

As is logistics is a huge factor already. Be sure you balance increase in logistics with increase in ship size. (ie. Getting medium ships should be about equal in value to getting equilivant in logistics. Don't make one a "bad" research choice.)

Want to see a ship walk? Make a huge ship with 20 def in shields, missiles, and armor, perhaps 4 nano rippers, and a few engines. Then watch it fight AI fleets of tiny, small, medium, and large ships. I think it might give you a feel for how to balance.

on Mar 21, 2006
I agree with looking at tweaking logistics, making it harder to make large groups of large ships. But the equation has more variables than that.

Logistics
Maintenance Cost
Build Cost
Speed/Range
Internal Space

Maintenance Cost
The maintenance cost for making a small vs a huge isn't even double. Since I can only dedicate so much of my economy to maintaining a fleet (15-20%), I really like big ships for their economy. The initial purchase cost is insignificant to me. I regularly destroy my old ships because I don't like the monthly payments.

For the same maintenance burden, do you want 20 Dreadnaughts, or 35 Scouts? IMO, the advantage you get for dreadnaughts ought to come with a large, ongoing financial burden. But the opposite seems true.

Build Cost
The cost of constructing each next level up of ship isn't that significant, maybe 15-20% more expensive. Why buy the smaller when I can buy the larger for not much more? Again this seems backwards. I would think you could get 3-4 small ships for the price of the large one, not 1.5.

Speed/Range
Maybe small ships should be fast with a short range. Large ships should have more range but drag tail a bit. Or maybe the fuel consumption required to push dreadnaughts around at high speed should show up in a big way in their maintenance cost.

Internal Space
This is where I envision the advantage really comes in for the bigger ships. But in game, they don't really have that much more space. I can build a small with 10 missle attack, or a huge with 20 (although with some defenses as well).


I am not really saying any one of these is out of balance. Out of sync with my view of a space world, perhaps, but who am I anyway? But all of these factor into finding the right balance between large and small ships. My vision is that small ships are more ideal for scouting and local defense. They are speedy with good offense & defense, but it should be difficult to buy range with smaller ships. Large ships are slower but inevitable.

Its your game, and I love it. Not sure if you want to head down the path I describe, but those are the factors I see to futz with.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last