the AI DOES cheat

Bonkku,

When I first played the game, I was missing the absence of any kind of published tech tree. In my first game, I was guessing and fumbling my way through the tree and finding some techs too early and others way too late.

But, as I played on, I realized that I was having a blast figuring out the nuances of this great game. You may be different, but I have no desire to read through tables and graphs of explicit game mechanics. I suppose it's similar to prefering Playboy over Hustler magazine. I enjoy the mystery, and I enjoy figuring out what lies beneath.

For me, figuring out the nuances of the game is a large part of the fun, even if I get smashed in some games. You don't describe how you're faring in the games. You sound somewhat frustrated (I know the feeling), but if you're having problems, do what I did and play at sub-normal difficulty so you can experiment with different strategies and techs. The beauty of lower levels is that they allow you to experiment and screw up without paying too hefty a price.

Peace,
JD

That's kind of a weak argument, bonkku. That would be like me claiming other players in Warcraft III are cheating because they know the difference between "pierce damage" and "normal damage" and the various other barely documented attack/damage modifiers in the game.

As a Warcraft III expert, I know the "cool down" for various units and I know which units are better against flying units just as I knew in Starcraft that a Wraith was counted as a larger ship and took damage differently than other ships that seemed larger on screen.

Not every game mechanic is a game is going to be blatantly spelled out but as you play the game, it becomes pretty apparent what does what.

Your comparison is totally artificial anyway, when should you build something that improves your morale? Probably when your morale is lower than you need it to be. When should you build something that increases your influence? When you have a reason to increase your influence. The two are entirely unrelated. If I build a factory that will increase my production by 25%, that's pretty straight forward.

There are articles in the Encyclopedia that go into the kinds of detail you are looking for. But arguign that the AI is "cheating" because it knows how to play better than you do is a misnomer. That same argument can be made of any game.

~SDC~

Ok, I agree on facts that (a) you keep learning while playing and (b) you know that if your morale is low, better increase it somehow. I also agree that the morale vs influence example is quite stupid.

It may be that I don't need all the details, I wouldn't study all of them anyway. But is it really impossible to publish formulas for
- population growth
- planet stats (income/morale/prod/research/influence)
- game score?

I think that these are rather essential in deciding your strategy: the first moves are the most important, and IMHO it would be A Good Thing to be able to decide whether it is better to first build a manufacturing center or a soil enhancement? The latter if pop. growth is so fast that planet quality places boundaries on growth, former otherwise? Or should it be a banking center instead? Even more, how far is it beneficial to purchase colony ships? One could decide on the basis of expected income from new colonies. And this would be the way to understanding how to make profitable small colonies.

Impossible to know with no information. But I guess that AI has _quite_ carefully considered the initial build order for each strategy. Fair? Not in my reasoning.

Secondly, publishing these would bring them to the public discussion. What's the best way to calculate that game score again? Maybe somebody comes up with A Great Idea?

If the AI doesnt cheat, ill eat my shorts. Ever see the AI explore? Happens very rarely, and yet, it knows exactly where EVERYTHING is, even where all my colonized planets are, even though for sure i know none of their ships had ever came anywhere close to my territory (or anyone elses for that matter).

That's been covered before Nexworks.
The AI has the equivalent of Stellar Cartography.

Presumably because they've been planning for this longer than we have, so once they get the ability to reach those stars, they know where to go.

You could say it is a cheat; it's knowledge we don't have until we get Stellar Cartography.

It's a pain to scout out all the systems in a larger map.

In a smaller one, it doesn't make that much difference. You send your colony ships to clusters and gamble.

Not to say that I wouldn't prefer that the AI doesn't have this advantage and would have to explore just like the rest of us...

"If the AI doesnt cheat, ill eat my shorts. Ever see the AI explore? Happens very rarely, and yet, it knows exactly where EVERYTHING is, even where all my colonized planets are, even though for sure i know none of their ships had ever came anywhere close to my territory (or anyone elses for that matter). "

This is because of the back story. In effect the AI is cheating since it knows the map, while we (human players) have to explore everything and hope that some res are still free. Nevertheless I dont mind AI knowing where is what since that advantage disappears pretty soon (with a bit of effort ofcourse) and sometimes I use it to my own benefit.

People are asking for too much. This ain't an open source game, and the developers have no obligation to disclose all the formulas that are used in the game, only so they can get ripped off by someone else who decides to use them as the basis for another strategy game. Take your incessant whining back to the MOO3 forums please.

No doubt...

I do NOT need to know exactly what is going to benefit me to the n'th degree, soil tech or manufacturing tech. I do something called *gasp*.. playing the game, and I find out. I suppose some # nuts might love all the nuts and bolts about exactly how the computer calculates income, AI, etc.. but for myself, I love to play a GAME. I like to get the soil tech and following techs one game.. see how it turns out. And then the next, I'll take another route to see which way works better.

That is part of the experience that differenciates the good player from the expert player, IMO. For the same reason that Brad once said that they don't clearly lay out which techs and trade goods races will trade for most effectively.. because LEARNING that while playing is part of the gameplay experience. Seeing a chart that says 'sell this tech to race 'A', and this trade good to race 'B'' IMO is a very lame and boring tactic. How incredibly cheesy.

Reminds me of those who use cheat books WHILE they play a game. I guess for some, it is fun. But for me and probably most gamers, it kills any suspense and pleasure of learning what works best.

fleabitfox

idunno, don't people enjoy learning through experience anymore? isn't that an essential part of the game?

why don't you try the following:

1. try building a man. center on one planet and soil enhance on another.
2. observe which does better and adjust strategy accordingly.
3. rejoice in the fact that you've just figured something out on your own rather than having to be "spoon-fed" answers by the developers.

cheers

h

konfuzed667, give me a break. Until your post, this thread was quite civil. I think it's only natural to want to know how the game mechanics work. How else are we supposed to base are strategic decisions? This is the kind of information that with most other games would be included with the manual.

You are joking, right padlock? LOL

No offense, but almost NO game offers what I would consider a good manual any longer. If you want to reference the 4x genre.. Space Empires IV. Cruddy manual, even in the Gold version. MOO3. Horrible manual. Heck, not even their Stategy Guide had the info you are asking for!! Lesse.. let's use other strat games (using ones I have bought, read the manuals adn played). Age of Wonders II. Horrible manual, and certainly doesn't cover what you are asking for.

I agree.. being spoonfed exact forumals SUCKS. What in the world is the point in PLAYING at all if you know the very best route to take in every circumstance? This very much reminds of many CRPGs I have played. Everyone picks the same 'build' for their character, creating 'cookie cutter' types. Why? Everyone wanted the BEST and most effective character. Screw gameplay.. they wanted the best.

I want to enjoy the game.. not wallow in formulas, spreadsheets and #'s until I know the exact techs to build on what turns and what exact tax rate to use on turn 17. Cripes...

fleabitfox

After the terrific response of fleabitfox this thread can be closed

Yeah all docs do pretty much suck these days. Its sad.

Anyway, on a somewhat related topic to this one, I think it would be nice if you could drill down for some of the stats more. Say right click or double clicking on the ledger entries on the economy tab and they show you what is adding up to that entry. Leases for example, clicking that would expand to show you what you were leasing, how much, and when it was expiring. The stats screen could also really benefit from this. It would be nice to see what exactly is making up my 103% weapons rating, for example.

olaf

Oh.. and the AI does not cheat. You may assume it is, but it is not. Perhaps there is a bug or two out there waiting to be found, but the game does NOT cheat as the original poster claims. He and a few others have pulled this opinion from threads by those who make this claim without any solid proof. Go read in the inane 'Brad come clean' thread if you would like proof positive it does not, from Brad himself.

so feh..

fleabitfox

Of course the AI knows the mechanics. And if you need formulas to beat the AI, then you are attempting to suck the fun out of the game for a win. Do you know how I get better? I experiment. Now if that costs me a few games to pure humiliation, then at least I learned how it works. This is not a real war you dont have to get it right the first time! Get your ass whooped and learn from it. It does not take formulas to win.

~SDC~

It would be akin to playing a chess game with someone.. but while he used his own unique plans, ideas and gamestyle, the other guy used a computer chess program sitting by him to pick the best moves possible so he could play well.

Give me learning curve over hold-my-hand any day.


fleabitfox

I would almost think those formulas are somewhat copywritten. Giving that out publicly could have bad effects.

~SDC~

I have a different perspective. I like to play the game, not 'learn the mechanism'.

I play mostly boardgames, such as Twilight Imperium (which I believe Brad has mentioned is one of the sources of insperation for GalCiv), and in those games there are obviously no hidden mechanisms(there can't be).

The fun comes from all oppenents sitting down with a full understanding of the rules and attempting to outwit each other. Perhaps I've been out of the computer 4x games for too long, but I believe that games such as Civ or Moo2 had very clearly defined mechanisms.

Having said all this, I'm still enjoying GalCiv very much, but I think I would be enjoying it even more with clearly documented mechanisms.

BTW, I never build scouts. Don't need anything beyond my survey ship and when I play, I usually out colonize the AI. Most of my challenge is holding off the AI later on.

If the AI is out-colonizing you, it's not because it knows where the yellow stars are (which it does), it's from not using your survey ship to explore effectively.

Interesting. In my latest game (Large) I found I really needed a few scouts to get my eyes out there and plan my constructors and resource grabbing effectively. I figured out which sorts of resources were available to me and I would gather and then set my subsequent strategy on what I got- trying to maximize one or two types rather than anything willy nilly (mostly morale ones, so a tax and spend economy would be sorta OK -shudder-, along with higher populations without infrastructure).

Until I played on a large map I hadn't used scouts either... well, except for the debacle which will go unnamed.

Brad, how can that be? I can understand that in a starting position on the edge; but in the middle I generally find that I need to go in two directions at least. I do end up pushing my colony ships always to the end of range -- frequently choosing range rather than PQ. The most effective use I find at the start for the survey ship is: go for those hunks of rock! Free ships are a big deal in the early game, less so later.

~SDC~

Game mechanics: The only game mechanic which I've found I really have to keep in mind and understand is "How many credits is X worth?". Practically everything you do in the game is somehow related to credits, so the more you have, can generate, the better.

Scouting: I've played on large maps since day 1, and haven't really seen the need to scout. The reason being because I have a crapload of colonizers being churned out. They double up as scout ships. Plus the occasional 'hunks of rock' as aweill put it double up as scouts. Each planet I colonize further increases the number of colonizers I can build, and increases my scouting ability.

Also thanks to the new and improved speed ability, it's possible to see where the AI colonizers are headed, and then to send your ships that way to colonize the yellow stars that are sure to be waiting for you with open arms

'BTW, I never build scouts. Don't need anything beyond my survey ship and when I play, I usually out colonize the AI.'

On a similar note, I usually do my exploration with colony ships. 'Scout Fortune's get sold to the Altarians or the Torians for cash or tech. Bigger Precursor/Fortune ships (and a lot of cash) get traded for Starbases, if any AIs have them.

I rarely have scouts, drones, or mid-size military ships. Go right from Defenders to Overlords or Phoenices.

~SDC~

Padlock, I totally agree with your perspective, a good game (like Civilizations) makes all the mechanics available for players who actually want to immerse deep enough to read them.
That should be the core of all strategy games, not random trial-error-frustration, like I'm having with galciv right now (can you say morale?)
Greetz.