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 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Mar 22, 2006
Just a few questions regarding no tech trade option:

Is it possible only to choose no tech trade for money etc. but it would bes tlill possible to give techs as a gift or extort them?

on Mar 22, 2006
I've had little problem with AI tech trading, since I do it myself. I normally manage to out tech the AI, especially in the mid-game.

I do think that the 'great deal' should be eliminated though, since you get some really stupid trades. It's a bit silly when the AI gives an advanced weapon/defence tech in exchange for a basic weapon/defence theory.
on Mar 22, 2006

Do the space battles get better? Please say yes

If you turn on full battles in options, then non-fleets will fight it out in the combat viewer too.

on Mar 22, 2006
The fighter vs. capital ships is not hp/engines/etc but the chance to hit

The larger the ship the harder it should be to hit a fighter
The other option or addition to the above is the greater the power of a weapon, the harder it is to hit a fighter or other small ships

A super weapon should not be able to target a small fighter

IE the Death Star could not hit the small fighter

This would make a fleet more mixed some large and some small ships within a fleet

The following would require major changes to the game

I would also like to have carriers. A large ship transporting 1-4 fighters. Keep the fighters range and or speed limited.

Weapons firing distance
Missiles should have a greater range than laser
Laser should have a greater range than the gauss gun

Weapons ammo
Missiles should fire several missiles but wait several turn to fire again
Laser should be the same
Gauss gun should fire several times per round

Weapons damage
Missiles should have less per missile damage but more missiles fired
Laser should be the same
Gauss gun should have less damage but more shots per round
on Mar 22, 2006
Problem with tech trading for me is value of techs. AI seems to value them much different than I do. Since they are not a hard coded amout of research to get the relative value seems to often be off in the trade. Like AI's want Lasers IV for basic logistics or such . If they wanted Laser III for mass driver (I think that' s eq spot on tree at work so no tech tree) then that would make sense. Still AI seems to not value a corner on the market! That goes for all tech branches.

Perhaps a limit would work, other options might inclued a known by Xraces factor in the tech value. SO for example if only one race knows the tech it's value is 1000, if 2 know it it's value is 500, if 3 know it the value is 200, if 4 or more know it it's value is 100. This would probably need modified a bit more by a race factor associated with the tech. and also for any wonders associated with the techs. So if only one race has the tech and ir leads to wonder XXX then a multipler on tech value for that owner race is Y resulting in 1000y for tech value. This is all mainly for the "selling" races value of the tech. The buying race might look at it from hom many turns would it take to get and using that as a multiplire then modifing it by does this tech help my racial traits and if so applying a modifier.

Well, the above may give you ideas or may be something you have already thought about and discarded.
on Mar 22, 2006
#42 by Suralle
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:00 AM


I think this is the best idea so far regarding the logistics question.
on Mar 22, 2006
I am really surprised that the No Tech Trading option has been implemented to stop AI Tech Trading.

I figured it was implemented to stop the game from being a walk over. If they player uses tech trading then they can easily trounce the AI in most games with a reasonable number of players.

I'll explain. I find that I always out-tech the AI. I build research buildings, set my research percentage up a touch and set my production slider to 100%. That leaves me with a significant deficit in economy but my research will typically be at least two or three times the next highest competitor. it is very easy to keep positive cash by trading techs. Every few turns (or whenever I need money) I spend a minute going around all the AI's (both minor powers and the major powers) and trading the same tech (or two techs) to all of them. Most trades are for cash but if the AI has a researched a tech that I don't already have then I will try to pick that up too. Usually nets me significantly more money than I lost in the time spent researching the tech(s). Thus I only have to trade away maybe half of the techs I research so I simultaneously build up a good tech lead.

Unless someone hits me early that is pretty much it. Game over, I win.

It gets boring so I have considered playing by house rules where I limit the trades I make so that I can't just do this... then I heard you were working on improving tech trading. Just surprised to hear you are working on it for a completely different reason from the one I expected.
on Mar 22, 2006
I agree that the problem with tech trading is that the AI does not value techs properly or enough. It especially doesn't value keeping tech out of the hands of the other players! For instance, trading Diplomacy techs ensures that the player you traded it too now has an advantage in the next trade, but the AI doesn't consider this.

I think that the bar should be set very high for initiating a successful tech trade, something like:

You are only allowed to do one trade per turn period.

You must have an advantage to get fair market value for the trade. So races that specialize in diplomacy will be able to get techs in trade at the old values, but everybody else will have to pay more. If you have a military advantage you can extort it. If you have a cultural advantage you can trade that, etc. This has the bonus of restricting tech brokering by weaker races.
on Mar 22, 2006
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.


Yes, I understand that this is a strategy used by some players (not me, I tend to be the complete opposite), which is why I said this in my original post:

Frankly, I'm all for more emphasis on research for most AI, and a much higher value for each tech, so that they don't pass around as often, but still possible (just much more expensive). Also put in some sort of tag to completely prevent tech trading (so that modders can change it if they want). With this, I think the core game will be much better, and a no tech trading option won't really even be needed. Taking tech trading out completely, IMO, severely weakens diplomacy as an ability because then it will just be a market.


The emphasis on a little more research, and a higher value for each techs means that players who sells them cheap will literally be selling themselves short. Here's why: I'm great at managing my economy, and always have plenty in excess. I've found that researching techs that the AI DON'T have or techs that I know they probably won't even touch is one of the best way to keep several steps ahead of them, because the other ones I can just buy it right off of them. The AI simply just does not put enough value on the tech that it trades (or anything else for that matter, mining starbases, trade goods for 2.5K, are you kidding?), so it becomes a real problem. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I could skip research completely and just buy everything from them. Worse is how the AI evaluate the value for techs, like the case with the Yor and Dregin I pointed out, the techs that they don't have is completely useless, and the tech they give is the top of the line weapon. I'm not against tech trading, I just think it should be a lot more expensive. Players who go around selling techs may get money, but since the AI doesn't keep alot of reserve around, they will probably sell themselves short, and players like me, might have an incentive to actually research because of the cost. Think of it this way, when you buy a ship/social project, the cost of the ship is multiplied several folds. I think it should be the same for techs, but much more so, because techs have VERY long term benefits. I'm not saying it's the end all solution, but it's a definite start at least for the core metaverse games.

IMO, the best solution would be my second point in the first post. That is, put a tag in "TechTree.xml" to label a tech as completely off-limit to trading/stealing. Perhaps another tag to show the AI how 'valuable' it is, and not the current, how often it should be researched. This will go a long way in making everyone happy. Modders can go crazy and find their best setting, I don't think you can go 'wrong' with this option, everyone will be satisfied, they just need to spend some time with it (or find a mod to their liking). Further more, this will open a whole new realm of possibilities, like adding 'race specific techs', etc... there are a lot of things that can be done with it. Turning tech trading off completely, like many have said (myself included I guess) would severely weaken diplomacy, and make espionage the way to go. No-tech trade is only a short-term fix to a much deeper problem (sorry, I just can't think of a better word for it, I have no intention of calling this a 'bug", maybe "mis-feature?" ).


For the people who complain there aren't enough logistic points right now, and logistics tech should give more, I would like to say that you can mod all of that. So go crazy, and make insane fleets if you want, but personally, the numbers right now is ok for balance. Although I do think that logistic will need a LITTLE boost in the core game if the changes to the large ships are added in, but I can easily do that myself so I'm not overly concerned.


As for carriers and new weapon options, that's just way too complicated. The 'range' factor is the biggest problem (especially when one square is a parsec = very very long). The game just isn't built for that kind of game play, there would need to be way too many changes for that to work. Currently lasers, mass drivers, and missiles is just a paper, rock, and scissors game and it works well for its intented purposes (IE: there's no reason to make it 11' x 8.5' print paper, soft granite, harvest scythe, and volcano game). It seems nicer and more distinctive, but in the end it's just the same, especially since you don't have actual tactical combat.


Finally, to the one person who thinks missiles need a better weapon, you OBVIOUSLY never got to the end tech... my god is that thing sick. I'll let you find out for yourself.
on Mar 23, 2006
Looks good, Brad! I especially like the 14 moves battleship!
I won't have time to play in the next three weeks (well, except today ), and I hope to be CRUSHED the first time then!
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4