Gameplay Example: Computer AI in transition

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 3)

Kalin

on Mar 21, 2006

The AI does not normally trade that mcuh tech. You can look in your debug.err and see for yourself. Most human players simply rarely trade.

The AI doesn't trade tech that often? are you serious? here's a part of the debug.err from my recent game (v 1.0X large galaxy, 6 intelligent opponents):

Debug Message: Updating ZOC.
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Terran Alliance traded Stinger to the Altarian Republic in exchange for Laser III
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Carinoids traded Missile Weapon Theory to the Jessuins in exchange for Enhanced Deflectors
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Jessuins traded Enhanced Deflectors to the Terran Alliance in exchange for Laser III
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Jessuins traded Laser III to the Drengin Empire in exchange for Advanced Trade
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Jessuins traded Advanced Trade to the Altarian Republic in exchange for Stinger
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Jessuins traded Laser III to the Arcean Empire in exchange for Research Centers
Debug Message: Jessuins (14): Researching: Laser IV
Debug Message: Destroying ship Colony Ship M0-1 227. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Destroying ship Colony Ship M0-1 190. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Destroying ship Colony Ship M1-1 383. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Updating ZOC.
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Drengin Empire traded Stinger to the Carinoids in exchange for Enhanced Deflectors
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Yor Collective traded Mass Driver Theory to the Jessuins in exchange for cold hard cash.
Debug Message: Yor Collective (5): Researching: Stinger
Debug Message: Destroying ship X2C - Builder 475. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Destroying ship Constructor M1-1 471. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Destroying ship Constructor M1-1 440. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Destroying ship Constructor M1-1 474. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Destroying ship Constructor M1-1 425. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Altarian Republic traded Advanced Trade to the Torian Confederation in exchange for Research Centers
Debug Message: Altarian Republic (2): Researching: Stinger II
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Carinoids traded Enhanced Deflectors to the Altarian Republic in exchange for Advanced Trade
Debug Message: Destroying ship X2C - Builder 481. Orbiting: 0
Debug Message: Yearly Status Dialog
Debug Message: Yearly Status Dialog: 2
Debug Message: Yearly Status Dialog 2c
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Drengin Empire traded Enhanced Deflectors to the Arcean Empire in exchange for Research Centers
Debug Message: Year: 2226. Yor Collective traded Mass Driver Theory to the Drengin Empire in exchange for Laser III
Debug Message: Scottlingas (13): Researching: Advanced Trade

In TWO turns (every ZOC update is a turn right?), EVERYONE has enchanced Enhanced Deflectors, Laser III and Research Centers. In the two turn that followed this (which I didn't include because it was an auto-save turn - with a ton of unnecessary info) virtually everyone ends up with it along with Stingers, and Advance Trade. How can you say they don't trade techs that often? Unless by that, you mean, that this only happens a few times a year then sure, it happens when the races comes up with something new to trade away, which is like every 5-6 weeks or so. The reason you are completely out tech in the early part of the game is because early techs comes by that much faster. Later on, when the AI drags behind in research, or ends up researching the same things, they don't have much to trade away. In my experience, the only reason a certain AI doesn't have a tech that another has is because they are just too poor and doesn't have anything to trade for it.

What I don't get, is how the heck the Yor (with their diplomatic penalty) managed to get the Drengin to agree to Mass Driver THEORY in exchange for Laser III (the latest weapon). It just makes no sense.

Off limits? Well if you're a nice ally, sure - I often play as the peacekeeper with a price: You give me that mining starbase, or you might as well surrender to the Drengins now, because a) no-one else is going to stop them and

I'll take it anyways if you don't, so you might as well get to survive while I do it. The same could be true for extortion - sure it hurts to get rid of the base, but my fleets will hurt more.

As for trading Starbases. I still say it should not be allowed simply because the AI doesn't put enough value on these things. Trading of mining starbase is even worse. I've seen trades of military, economic, and morale starbases with nearly full mining modules (at the time) and defenses. This has got to be the stupidest thing that you can ever do. Not only is it a huge bonus to your opponent, but is a huge and potentially crippling loss to you. The reason I say it should be off limit is two folds:

1. The AI obviously doesn't know its value. Maybe this can somehow be fixed, but it will be insanely complicated, further...
2. The diplomatic model is too simple. For example, if you are demanding its bases for peace or help, the AI should HATE you for it. It should put down some points along the lines off, "oh, this guy did this and this... if I ever get the opportunity, I'm going to stab him in the back". Right now, trades are just trades... it's all 'fair' and everyone is happy. The problem is right after they lose that morale mining base or military mining base, they are basically cattle for slaughter. Friend or Foe.

Drakenred

on Mar 21, 2006

I would have to agree, the only time a starbase should be traded is if its currently in someone elses teritory.(hey might as well get something out of it) but even then your better off making them nuke it if they want you to no longer controll it, unless it will somehow help bolster an ally.

As for AI teck trading, their have been games where I was somehow able to keep tradeing tecks every round with someone.

Victarus

on Mar 21, 2006

The reason I say it should be off limit is two folds:

1. The AI obviously doesn't know its value. Maybe this can somehow be fixed, but it will be insanely complicated, further...
2. The diplomatic model is too simple. For example, if you are demanding its bases for peace or help, the AI should HATE you for it. It should put down some points along the lines off, "oh, this guy did this and this... if I ever get the opportunity, I'm going to stab him in the back". Right now, trades are just trades... it's all 'fair' and everyone is happy. The problem is right after they lose that morale mining base or military mining base, they are basically cattle for slaughter. Friend or Foe.

Well my two cents for number one was the crisis idea - they aren't traded unless it's a last-ditch effort to survive. Admittedly there's some exploit possibility in relative strengths with Spin Centers and all, but it seems simple enough in theory: A crisis is when a civilization is fighting alone against a significantly larger foe or several foes and losing (ie, offering generous peace terms that aren't accepted). A single foe's superiority should be easy - that's in there as it is for the sake of peace negotiations - but multiple might be tricky. Maybe if such-and-such percent of systems have been lost over such-and-such period of time, the crisis flag is enabled. Either that or a strength comparison, but larger than what is required for a single foe - disorganization and all.
If the crisis flag is on, starbases and planets are availiable for trade, but only for things that directly benifit the war effort - advanced military techs, money or ships. Ships might be difficult because of positioning - no point in getting a bunch of ships on the other side of a large map - but money and techs seem simple enough. Tech is good in large enough doses, but not when things are truly grim - advanced weapons do no good if you can't make them fast enough. Money could be translated into a strength value based on the ship they'd buy with it, or at least an approximate average. The starbase would be extremely expensive either way, but you save the civ (or try, at least) and get a base to make it worth your while. Relationships will be strained though - this is, after all, essentially an indirect version of your standard "give us this or die".

For the longer lasting effects, maybe a long- and short-term relationship score could be implemented (in a far-future version, of course). The long-term relationship is a kind of weight to the short term, gradually dragging it towards the average and being brought up or down in minute doses with every action. A new trade route could bring up the long-term relationship for example, gradually pulling up the short term as a result, or a declaration of war would hit the long-term, making recovery in relations difficult, especially if the war is a hard-fought one. Likewise, dealing with a civilization's enemy would hit the short term but, unless the act is major or consistant, relations would eventually normalize (trade perhaps counting as consistant, forcing players to choose between friends...). Certain civs would obviously start with long-term relationships in place (Altarian-Drath, Drengin-Torian, etc).
Just some ideas. I'm obviously not making the game, and I'm certainly not complaining about it. I'd be a fool to do so.

Alstein

on Mar 21, 2006

Few comments:

1) The logistics change: Agreed Entirely. Two Dreadnoughts or Battlecruisers can tear through fighter fleets with ease already, gaining hp's as they do so, making it harder for swarms to beat said ships. Also, Capital ships are quicker. I think engines should have a moderately higher size cost with size then they do now.

2) The nano ripper is overpowered. The evil weaponry is slightly overpowered. Perhaps weapon techs should diverge in the expansion, between nano ripper type weapons, which would be powerful but have drawbacks (like a hp penalty due to being unstable weapons), and more conventional weapons. The downside is the railgun tech tree is the least powerful of the three branches until nano rippers.

3) To me, this proves that the problem wasn't "AI tech trading", but "Stupid AI tech trading algorithms". This is one area I think Stardock needs to redo the AI on completely. There have been numerous suggestions on how to fix- Stardock should look at those for a 1.2 patch. I have a feeling No Tech Trade will be a novelty fairly shortly after implementation.

4) Farms. I tend to build farms on bonus tiles, and combine with econ buildings. That pumps my economy more then pure econ buildings. That being said, there does need to be a research bonus for population- more people= more geniuses. I think that would be more useful then the prodcution bonus mentioned, and more realistic (automation should be 99% of industry in the future)

5) Perhaps starbases should be as valuable as planets to an AI- at least in terms of its own starbases. They also provide supply points for invasions later on.

6) Idea: You gain no xp for defeating a smaller hull. That would solve the Uber-Dreadnought problem. My last game I had two of my dreadnoughts topping 400hp. I think one hit around level 60 just from smashing about 3000 enemy fighters. My tech was dragging since I knew my enemies couldn't throw anything to hurt it- especially since everyone went missile- so I got some Droid Sentries...

7) I have to repeat this again: The AI tech trading needs to be reworked. It's the one critical AI flaw I see so far that hasn't been fixed.

CraftyMule

on Mar 21, 2006

2. To be honest, as far as I can see, the problem with large ships and small ship isn't really about the logistic points itself, but rather how experience affects them. Right now, when you gain a level you gain an amount of HP porpotional to your original value. A tiny ship, needs to gain 3-4 levels to gain a single point in HP. A medium ship only needs 1 level to do that (and sometimes they will gain more than 1 HP). A huge ship gains 4 to 5 HP (because you have +hull techs by the time you have huge ships) per level. Now I ask you, how easy is it for a tiny to survive a battle versus a huge? Now, put in the fact that after every battle, a huge ship will gain 4 HP after every conflict and you can easily see why huge ships are god forsakenly more powerful than tiny ones. Just a couple of skirmishes and you will have a ship that can tank an army of tiny ships. Personally I fear the day the altarians/humans can upgrade their battleships. I've seen some of those things with upwards 200+ HP. The only thing that could kill them was to load a couple of fleets of transports with nano rippers and go suicidal (I've never seen the AI used this tactic, so... they are usually completely screwed when one of those shows up, and they tend to show up in pairs). If they can upgrade those things? The races that use smaller ships is like a snow flake in hell, they don't have a chance.

Excellent point. I have had huge ships with 200+ hps, and with a little D on them, its not hard to get there. I like xp for ships, but I think it gathers too fast.

SSG Geezer

on Mar 21, 2006

I have found it hard to get enough large ships to take out the pirates or even some AI fleets until i have all of the Logistics upgrades. No change on the large and huge ships.
I have had the AI coming after me with small fleets with 40+ Mass Drivers and over 60 pts of shields and PD. They had movement too!
They put mad points into the military skills and i had to struggle beating them. No change on the log points please.

Frogboy

on Mar 22, 2006

ZOC updates aren't every turn. They're win someone builds a starbase or someone colonizes a planet, that kind of thing.

Here's the problem: Good human players will literally go, eveyr turn, to every player and trade tech around. There's nothing stopping a human player from doing the same sort of thing.

The tech trading algorithms are something I have put some attention to in this week's build so that it no longer does the rand()%great deal anymore.

But I have to strongly disagree that the AI trades tech "too often". What I've found is that most human players simply don't want to trade tech very often and so it's annoying that the AI doesn't get tired of trading tech very regularly.

I think the only long-term solution would be something that limits how often you can trade tech like once every X months or something. But that might seem artificial.

Mysterial

on Mar 22, 2006

I'd have to agree - every time I research a new tech I do the rounds of all the AI I know to see who I can trade it to and what I can get off them. It makes sense that the AI do the same, and IMO the problem here is general game design rather than AI - it simply should not be so useful to trade techs this way. I personally liked the idea of trading techs only giving you some percentage (say 50%) and you have to actually research the rest, but it's probably way too late to implement and balance something like that.

I also agree that the experience system is a bit screwed up. It feels like the ships need about the same amount of EXP to gain a new level no matter how high they go. I'm not a fan of hard limits, but it probably needs to be on an exponential curve so that it's not so easy to get ships to such insanely high HP. Possibly also adjusting how much EXP is awarded for battles as well.

Oh, and please fix Neutrality Learning Centers for 1.1.

Foslex

on Mar 22, 2006

"
3. Also, not sure if this made it in 1.1 or not, but the AI should definitely stop giving starbases away for support of war (because starbases are usually their strongest unit/ship), I've had games where the AI would give me 2-3 economic starbases around their homeworld to support a war, not only does this make it prime for me to culturally subvert them later, but it SEVERELY weakens them because they have suddenly lost all those production bonuses. Bases should really be completely off limit for trading, unless it is a military base near the area of conflict, it doesn't even make any sense to give them away, except to weaken themselves. "
--------------

I'm in complete agreement here. Since my first game I've seen the AI gift me mining or econ starbases in their own territory to help me out in a war against a third party. I've actually been surprised at how few comments this has generated prior to this thread.

I am enjoying the discussion here about ship hull sizes. So far my favorite ideas are those of increasing engine scaling (my capital ship fleets are all capital ships because nothing smaller can move that fast). I love anything that leans toward making balanced fleet compositions more viable. As it is now I almost always have each fleet consisting of one type of ship because it is nearly always the optimal approach. Sometimes I'll throw a specialty ship in, like one with sensors.

But it's usually better to keep my super-fast, amazing capital ships in one fleet to bring the fight to the enemy, and all of my smaller, slower, and less hard hitting ships together to hang out in the home space. This is weird, at best. It isn't broken, of course. But some little tweaking to logistics, scaling, and maybe cost and maintenence (as brought up earlier) could make it much cooler.

I'm really looking forward to this patch.

To weigh in on the tech trading... I'm pro tech trading, and I'm pro having the AI check for trades every turn. One place the AI can beat the human is in always playing its game optimally (even if it can't play an optimal game). Making the AI less willing to trade away its techs, and especially techs that are seen as crucial, will make the game better than no tech trading or artificial tech restrictions will.

It then becomes harder to buy techs for money from AI players, and tech trades must be perceived as being in the AI's favor for them to make the deal. With both AIs involved in a trade needing to think they are getting the better deal, which they can both think if they have different priorities, research rates, etc., tech trading will slow down yet become more interesting. Diplomacy will become more important, not less.

My rambling must end...

Martok

on Mar 22, 2006

No change on the log points please.

I have to agree with SSG Geezer on this one. Unless you're going to significantly increase the number of points a player gets for each new logistics tech (and in general just re-tweak the whole system), I think all ships should retain the same logistics requirements as they do already.

In truth, I think the number of points per logistics tech *should* be raised, as this would allow for better balancing of ship sizes. It would also address one of my few complaints about the game, which is that fleets are WAY too small. Not that I want fleets consisting of hundreds of vessels, as that would probably cause massive performance issues for a lot of players (myself included). It would be really nice, however, if my logistics ability allowed me to at least stick 3-5 battleships in a fleet plus a couple dozen auxillery/support ships (cruisers/frigates & corvettes/fighters). As it stands right now, GC2's logistics rarely lets me even put that many battleships together, never mind all the smaller warships I'd like to include as well.

I'm well aware all this is only my own opinion, but it does bother me that a "powerful" fleet in GalCiv 2 can at best only consist of a few large ships or several dozen tiny ones. I realize that probably sounds like a petty complaint, but for me it really does hurt the game's immersion factor. Is it possible you could increase the logistics, Brad? Pretty please?

Chrominium

on Mar 22, 2006

I'm going to to voice my opinions too. Although the 'no tech trade' options seems great to some people at first, it won't be what they were expecting.

The Dregins should be able to extort tech from other races because that is what they should do. The 'no tech trade' option basically crippled them, and making them focus on research more just kills the dynamic of who they are. This just means that when using the 'no trade tech' option, the focus will always be on research - you can't demand or buy tech so your research abilities are very important.

Suralle

on Mar 22, 2006

I have tried not to review what the other players have stated an instead want to focus on a few things I believe I have noted from the above demo.

1) As a strictly neutral player (ie: I tend to take the middle ground between good and bad as events go, although sometimes I am forced either way by situations like a poor morale or simply needing more research so I swing more good or evil based on needs per game occassionally). Anywho, I am not feeling the love for the folks that keep the faith in the neutral sections in the tech tree.

2) Overpowered Nano-Rippers? Right now they are the neutral players only great save, their cost is hideous to bear but when evil has great weapons (although the missile section could use a look at) and good has great defense (although Telepathic Defense could use a look at also) neutral folks take it up the steer so to speak on both counts.

3) In huge and gigantic games (which I have a hard time keeping a running game going due to poor video graphics and a spouse who has stated that no matter how many honey-dos I get done I am still not getting a 300 dollar video card (or for that matter a 100 dollar one, any time soon)) I have seen that the AI trades techs like freaking crazy, frequently with 9 AIs assigned I am doing 35% to 49% of the total research (which is great for me as I tend to have a weak economy and can sell what I want to). From what I have seen this is possibly being addressed by a tech-trade ban as a front page option. So although that is addressed, was there an alternative solution presented, such as a scaled down diplomacy affect on tech trades?

4) Big ships versus little ships, with there being no tactical control of the battle field the attacker still has a huge advantage in the big ship versus little ship area. The games I have been playing at home tend to be on a larger scale than the lunch games, although they typically take the same amount of time in days to complete due to only having 45 minutes for lunch and typically 2 to 3 hours at home unless the step-kat is over and than its only play time if I can somehow figure out a way to play through Myspace.... Logisitics anyways...

Huge = 8
Large = 6
Medium = 4
Small = 3
Tiny = 2

The problem is not so much with a change in logistics, I could live with the numbers above although I tend to be more Terran like and design and build on the following breakdown.

For every 1 Huge
There are 2 or 3 Large
And about 4 to 5 Medium
with 8 to 10 Small

Perhaps if your going to look at logistics you should take a more aggressive approach to miniaturization... The phrase "Cramming 20 pounds of pogie-bait into a 10 pound sea-bag" screams to mind. I believe it could be applied here in the following example

Take a look at the crafts weight allowance available and make it scalable:

1 - 14 weight = 1 logistic point
15 - 24 weight = 2 logistic points
25 - 34 weight = 3 logistic points
35 - 44 weight = 4 logistic points
45 - 54 weight = 5 logisitic points
55 - 64 weight = 6 logistic points
65 - 74 weight = 7 logistic points
75 - 84 weight = 8 logisitic points
85 - 94 weight = 9 logistic points
95 - ??? weight = 10 logistic points (at this point everything is a super-carrier and takes the proverbial metric-butt ton of support)

This system would give some creedance to developing a better logistics base and perhaps open up a whole new series of events around ships in the following areas:

Planet Event (Choices of Good, Neutral, Evil)
We have received a communique with some nefarious types in the underground of Earth, they are willing to provide black market good for our ships providing we overlook them starting a red-light district in every major city.
A. (Good) No way, trace the source of that transmission and lock them all up (-10% Logistics to all ships from this planet, +2% planet morale and military production)
B (Neutral) Really, how interesting, figure out who their source is, make it a governement agency and allow them to open a few select red light districts in major political arenas on Earth. (+5% Logistics, +1% planet morale, -2% military production.)
C. (Evil) How nice of them to finally step up to the plate and start making good on their campaign promises! (+10% logistics, +1% planet morale, -5% military production)

Or

If a planet can have a substantial asteroid belt in close proximity (kinda like rings and moons) perhaps it could have a small negative impact on logistics but an equally small but positive impact on economics.

Or

Give every race a base logistics such as 5% and a choice in the abilities section to increase it... while I am on that soap box again and your reading, add the choice to increase miniaturization also.

5) Smaller is better? Obviously this phrase was invented by a male of some species and probably believed by every male of every species in every galaxy in our universe. Simply speaking I can only pack so many weapons onto a small craft and if I overpack I can't defend it from any point of view without sacrificing speed, which is a poor choice as frequently the only way on intelligent and above to beat the AI now in wargames is by being able to be in two places in one turn and attack them first. Until miniaturization gets me a net of at least 25% my ships are always underpowered attack wise from aliens, unless I want to match them design for design which would be, frankly pretty boring and basically leave the only tactic as to who attacks first whens. Defense counts, ships need it, yet the protection offered is frankly half of what is required to stop damage all the time. Until your a medium with great miniaturization or a large with decent its a shooting match of who is the quicker draw right now.

Wow, thats alot, I know I tend to digress so read carefully, I recently went off the premium Kat-Nip and have more frowns thans smiles now-adays.

Reading between the lines for you though...
1) I really love this game.
2) I love the fact that SD has SDC and uses their own tools to create a wonderful u/g experience consistent with what they brag about.
3) I love the fact that even though this is not an interactive game (Such as "DragonRealms") that the staff puts up with and I believe reads what everyone has to say. (And if not I will post alot so that the few times they do read they get the gist of what I am posting about in the last four posts

)

W/R (With Respect)
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

Haasen

on Mar 22, 2006

As for tech trading, how about limiting it in an by assigning a cost to it (say 200bc or, even better, a price in relation to the amount of research it takes to learn that tech) so that less trading will go on. If the AI has to pay 200bc plus the tech to trade for something that used to just cost it just the tech, the trading that goes on won't be for approximately equal techs but trading will instead end up happening only if the AI is willing to trade current techs for older ones.

sushiK

on Mar 22, 2006

I bought the game last night and played a game on "CakeWalk".
I liked the overall game but I was disappointed with the ship to ship fighting.
I play for about 2 hours and got up to lasers II or so.

I was disappointed that space battles took about 2 secs to play out.
I am imagining that once I get bigger and better ships the fighting gets more intersting. i was thinking based on the great images Drag has been showing the the space battles would be epic like they were in MOOII.

Do the space battles get better? Please say yes

Haasen

on Mar 22, 2006

Do the space battles get better? Please say yes

Not really. Sorry. It's a little more fun watching your hulking dreadnaughts blast at a swarm of fighters, but it pretty much stays the same all game. The battles aren't really the games focus, which is a shame since they have such a great ship designer.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!