Yes... yes... and um yes... . I can see all three of those and probably a few other cases. I know how I intend to use them and have used this sort of thing in other games. So I'm sure there are plenty of nifty ways for the AI to employ them as well. One question that I'm sure will be answered once we can play the beta (yes the day you announced the open beta I bought mine) is whether or not spy cost goes down if you lose a few. If it does then I'm most likely to stockpile them using them to counter other agents (hoping that is an option) and then when war is imminent send most of them off to cripple my would be adversary before I start sending in the troops. Can't wait to see all the underhanded things they'll do.

Do spys gain experience? If so maybe it is better to keep them all in the field so they are powerful when I need them to do a lot of damage. Oh so many possibilities. And of course I'm sure no matter what you'll be tweaking them even after we get our grubby hands on them.

Definitely looking forward to this!

I'll probably keep mine for defence. Espionage has never really interested me in other games, like the MOO series. It's just another level of micromanagement I can do without.

A bit off topic, but your blogging interested me so I looked it up, and then from link to link I read your "background" post...

and funny thing, I'm a proof operater too!!! Yes, its mind numbingly repetitive to the extreme, but every day I just daydream about the PC games I'll play when I get home... lately GalCiv2 has been the only one that keeps me sane Anyhoo, very interesting reads, even if I don't agree with everything you say... also, some of what you've said is very thought provoking and challenged me to examine some of my own beliefs.

Good stuff.

PS - sorry for double posting, but its not letting me edit my post for some reason... (access denied?) But I am curious if the "When I was 19 and 20" was an inside joke? I don't know if its universally how proof machines work, but 19 and 20 macro is how we log out of a proofing session, so that caught my eye.

I'll probably keep mine for defence. Espionage has never really interested me in other games, like the MOO series. It's just another level of micromanagement I can do without.

Same here,I always found that to be the least interesting aspect of the MOO series. I also will just use them for defense only as I did in MOO. I view it more as an annoying aspect to have to deal with rather then something that makes the game more enjoyable. I prefer to destroy my enemies in a straight up fight, my military against theirs.

Back to non-political stuff, been working on the AI for Dark Avatar. It's really proving challenging on how best to use espionage agents. Should they be concentrated against a single player? And if so, who? Should they be held in reserve (since new agents cost increasing amounts) so that you can do a mass attack or should you do a steadily increasing stream of them to an opponent?

Do you mean that agents (collectively) would only be able to operate against one opponent at a time? If so, it would probably be better to allow them against multiple opponents. Races with greater resources can afford to fight on multiple fronts, it would be too bad to see a superpower attacked by 3 puny races and have to pick only one to fight. The higher cost of successive agents already guarantees a diminishing return, so agents can't take over the game anyway. Maybe agent cost could actaully increase by a greater amount each time, instead of the same amount.

As for reserve agents, I think a stream will be much easier for the game to react to than a sudden attack. Agents won't be much fun if they only have an effect 1 turn out of every 20.

Would it be possible to set off a 'mega-event' due to hording agents?

What I mean is that by having agents idle / in defence for long periods could potentially destabilise your own world. For example the event could result in the alteration of morale / productivity due agents acting against (or in the supposed interests) of your own people.

I almost wish I wouldn't have read your blog. It was depressing.

I agreed with almost nothing you said (except for the point that there should be no income tax on incomes less than $30,000). The Republican party is about one thing: greed. What can I get and how can I screw over everyone else to get it.

The last 6 years prove that.

Reagan and Bush went to war on the Middle Class. Neither cares about democracy. They want (ed) the powerful to stay powerful and their friends to get rich.

I agree that Democrats can also be corrupt. All politicians suffer from this.

But at the core the Republican agenda is greed.

In the last 6 years they went too far. They took too much. It is sickening. They were in control of the executive, and both the house and senate, and what did they do? They ripped off America. Greed unchecked is a disaaster.

- Livonya

PS: Actually, I agreed with one other thing, the Republicans deserve to lose.

I almost wish I wouldn't have read your blog. It was depressing. I agreed with almost nothing you said (except for the point that there should be no income tax on incomes less than $30,000). The Republican party is about one thing: greed. What can I get and how can I screw over everyone else to get it. The last 6 years prove that. Reagan and Bush went to war on the Middle Class. Neither cares about democracy. They want (ed) the powerful to stay powerful and their friends to get rich. I agree that Democrats can also be corrupt. All politicians suffer from this. But at the core the Republican agenda is greed. In the last 6 years they went too far. They took too much. It is sickening. They were in control of the executive, and both the house and senate, and what did they do? They ripped off America. Greed unchecked is a disaaster. - Livonya PS: Actually, I agreed with one other thing, the Republicans deserve to lose.

Well I woudln't want to get into a political debate here but let me make one suggestion: It is never a good idea to ascribe motives to people you don't understand.  I'm not a Republican (or a Democrat) but I can tell you that it's not about "greed". It's about wanting to keep the government (any government) out of people's lives in any form (with taxes being one example).  It's not about the money, it's about the principle of putting in hours a week for some far off government beauracracy. 

Do you really feel that I'm screwing you over by writing Galactic Civilizations? I didn't make the game because of the money. I made it because I love these kinds of games with the hope that others would agree.

Getting back to the expansion pack...

The hording of agents issue is going to be something very interesting in the beta to see how that works out. In The Political Machine, in multiplayer I used to horde up operatives to great effect.

 

I am sorry, but I disagree.

I can and do jude people's actions. So do you.

Designing a game and running a country are not the same, and you can't compare them.

Your motivations for pleasing your customers so that you can make money are not the same thing as setting a policy for the country. Greed is a good motivator for running a business, but not a good motivator for running a country.

Your basic political argument is that taxes should be lower and that we shouldn't give people things for free.

You are saying that you want to pay less and that other people should get less services. For instance you would like to pay less corporate taxes because you want more money and to accomplish this you argue that medicare and perscrption drug programs should be cut.

That is just selfish and greedy.

You want more money in your pocket and to get it you are willing to take medical services and drug programs away from other people.

If you don't want to live in a society with governments then move into the woods and don't participate in society.

The entire point of having a government is to take care of OUR needs. You don't like that because you are more concerned with your personal needs.

Government policy should serve the people, not just you.

Like you I am a CEO of a corporation. But I don't mind paying taxes when the money goes to services for other people. I don't mind helping people that are less off than I am. I have done well, and I am glad to help others with my tax money. I certainly do not need a tax break.

I want my taxes to go to help people, not corporations.

Every American should benefit from our government policy, not just the wealthy elite.

- Livonya

Actually what I have said is that I don't want the GOVERNMENT to be the one to do that. I want individuals to control how their earnings are spent.

If you define greed as not wanting the government to re-distribute income to other people then I guess I'm greedy.  But I think you are misusing the term greed.

Like I said, it wasn't "greed" that motivates me to come in in the morning. It is making cool and fun stuff.

If you don't want to live in a society with governments then move into the woods and don't participate in society.

..Or alternatively I can vote for people who have a similar philosophy.

I wish we could incorporate more political features into the actual game so that the political parties had more of a role in the gameplay.

Back to non-political stuff, been working on the AI for Dark Avatar. It's really proving challenging on how best to use espionage agents. Should they be concentrated against a single player? And if so, who? Should they be held in reserve (since new agents cost increasing amounts) so that you can do a mass attack or should you do a steadily increasing stream of them to an opponent?

Bit of both? Deploy agents in small groups at a time, that way the espionage war cranks up a notch with each group but you don't get a crash and burn situation where everything lurches from reserve to the field at once. Might that help the AI to keep its own offence/defence balanced as it would be re-evaluating dispositions as each group becomes ready to go?

Do you mean that agents (collectively) would only be able to operate against one opponent at a time? If so, it would probably be better to allow them against multiple opponents. Races with greater resources can afford to fight on multiple fronts, it would be too bad to see a superpower attacked by 3 puny races and have to pick only one to fight.

I think Draginol was talking in terms of how the AI uses its agents rather than how the player is allowed to use them. You will be able to order each agent individually so if you want you can put one in every opponents empire. The question is how is it best for the AI to handle them?

I would like to add to the debate that if a Republican or conservative is not spending some of his money or time or both to aid his fellow man,then he has no right to complain about redistribution of wealth.An ideology that doesn't address a problem in a practical matter is just that,empty ideas.
I would say the overall problem is materialism in general and not greed.


On spys.Will you be able to use spies to thwart others and what will happen then as far as consequences,degradation in relationship status etc.

Well, I disagree with a lot of what I've read on Brad's site too, but that's no reason to get depressed.

We do share one common view - we think the government should be limited from mucking around in people's lives. The difference is that while Brad obviously focuses on the financial/economic aspect, my priority is the social one. I don't think the government should be telling people what they can and can't do, as long as it's not hurting other people. In the whacked out world of US politics, where only two collective points of view are acknowledged, I suppose that would put me in the camp with the Democrats.

However, I'm not an American, so I don't have to associate myself with either of those two groups of nutjobs.

P.S. Yes, I'm discussing politics on these forums when I said I wouldn't... but Brad started it! *points finger*

I would like to add to the debate that if a Republican or conservative is not spending some of his money or time or both to aid his fellow man,then he has no right to complain about redistribution of wealth.An ideology that doesn't address a problem in a practical matter is just that,empty ideas. I would say the overall problem is materialism in general and not greed.

I agree.