Ryan Clifton Ryan Clifton

The Gal Civ formula (and why it needs to be addressed)

▼

The Gal Civ formula (and why it needs to be addressed)

from Stardock Forums
Preface: I play on intelligent and I've played about 10 - 15 games at this level on huge maps.

I've read a number of threads and talked to some other people who play the game and it appears that a lot of people are coming to the same conclusion: There is a tightly defined formula for winning Gal Civ.

This formula is esentially,
1) expand like crazy
2) research straight to dreadnaught
3) build up military to at least par with the next strongest civ
4) sit back and wait for tech or culture victory

Now of course there's trading, starbases, and economy management in there, but that's basically how everyone seems to be playing. To me, this seems one dimensional. The problem is that even though the game has multiple ways to win (tech, culture, etc), having the strongest military is a pre-requisite to all of the victory conditions.

Additionally, if I can get to dreadnaught without suffering too many losses, my winning is a foregone conclusion. This obviously takes much of the excitement out of the game for me.

There are a few things that I think should be done to fix this:

The computer should request less money, perhaps for longer periods of time, when it's trying to be a bully. Asking me for 1100 bc when I only have 100 is stupid. Doing this would keep all civs (not just humans) out of war more often since they are actually able to pay for peace. This way, if I wanted to play as a peaceful economic power, I could just be paying 100 - 200 bc per turn indefinitely to the dregnin to keep them off my back (obviously they would eventually need to detect that I'm becoming a threat and attack.. but just not as quickly as they currently do).

My second item I believe is being addressed, but it's so bad right now I think it deserves more attention. The computer (all of them) is horrible at starbase management. Computer starbases built off of resources are invariably never upgraded and those built on resources often are only 1/3 to 1/2 upgraded. If the computer was better at managing starbases, perhaps the period after acquiring dreadnaught tech wouldn't be quite so easy (the premise is that while I'm building up SBs all over the galaxy and extending my power, the computer is not).

This last one seems trivial, but it does make a big difference. I ALWAYS have at least one survey ship cruising the universe picking up anomalies. I have never seen a computer do this past the first year or two. Presumably they commit their survey ships to battle at their first opportunity. After a few hundred turns, all of those +1% bonuses add up.
3,274 views 97 replies
Reply #76 from Stardock Forums Top
Having predictible ways to win does not bother me, There are predicatable ways to win any game. In Moo2 I could ALWAYS tell when I was going to loose way in advance if "those techie aliens" got a good head start and there were key technologies that you had to get before you even had a chance.

What is real cool about GalCiv is you can't always predict if you are going to loose!

I have won my share of games by being predictable and by expecting certain behaviors from the AI; BUT I also like to vary my strategy on purpose and find other ways to win

And if winning culture or tech victories is to easy in large or huge maps you can always turn the option off :)
Reply #77 from Stardock Forums Top
The only way I've seen to win without a large military is to have a large-plus map where you are far from the others, and the AI is occupied with fighting with itself.

For me the problem with predictable wins is the lack of replayability. If a given sequence always wins it becomes fairly boring; not being sure if you are going to lose still becomes tedious if its a question of initial placement rather than your choice of strategy. And yes, most other games have the same problem (chess, go, bridge being the only counter examples I can think of), but it seems that the potential for more options is very close to the surface in Galciv. I don't think it would take much to tweak it so that different paths through were equally usable.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #78 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't think it would take much to tweak it so that different paths through were equally usable.
End of quote


In RTS there is only one such game - StarCraft. And Blizzard was just lucky...

~SDC~
Reply #79 from Stardock Forums Top

In GalCiv, there are multiple viable paths to victory - conquest, alliance, technology, and culture.

I think most people would agree that each of these paths is viable.

Reply #80 from Stardock Forums Top
Viable as the trigger to end the game? yes. Viable as the real reason you won? not really. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand, it's quite simple. Here it is one more time in simple terms:

The game places too much value on military might right now. If you don't have a strong military, you can't stay out of war. When a computer is deciding when to go to war, it appears to do something like:

How do I view this race?
Is my military stronger?
Are they helping my economy at all?

In the short term, just take some weight off of the military question. In the long term, I'd believe some of the elements from civ 3 would benefit this game immensely. War weariness (people's morale falls precipitously the longer you are at war) and other races' view of you is determined by your past military actions. If you go to war a lot, other races will be more likely to ally against you. When the computer is taught how to deal with these things, it will (hopefully) take a more pragmatic approach to war.

Currently the computer goes to war even when it doesn't make sense (like taking a net loss of 300 bc / turn).

As part of this too, the whole war flipping issue needs to be fixed. Wars shouldn't start and stop every other month. Again, civ 3 had a simple solution to this, there's a minimum number of turns before you can even try to get a peace treaty.

I'm not trying to turn this game into civ 3, I'm just saying that there are some elements of that game that are done better. If you can't figure out a better way to do them (and my obvious opinion is that they aren't better), borrow them.
Reply #81 from Stardock Forums Top

I'm sorry but I simply don't agree and in fact in many ways you're simply wrong.

For instance, the AI takes trade into account. It takes your morality vs. theirs into account. It takes war weariness into account. It takes diplomacy into account.

 

Reply #82 from Stardock Forums Top
I think if there is any point made it is that the harder levels of the AI are not forcing me to change my strategy, but do my same strategy faster.

I think, however, it is an issue that is being addressed by going through this process of tweaking......adding the necessary depth to make the AI pick up on our cheese tactics. Once there are enough layers on the AI, this will all pan out.

I remember back in Warlords 2 Deluxe, you could set your enemies to have different AI variants to use different types of strategies.....that might be an interesting option for the race screen setup here for people to try different ways of playing the enemy.
Reply #83 from Stardock Forums Top
Just my two cents about "The Formula (tm)".

Saying that expand / research to dread / build military / win is the only way is not true. Expand, yes, but from there on things can go a number of ways.

Try this for a change :
a) Don't research anything : just concentrate on manufacturing and be an armsdealer thats buys everything he needs. It's amazing what a dozen missiles can get you !
b) Concentrate on the wonders : you can buy all the tradegoods, but you can't buy wonders.
c) Go to war yourself, it's amazing what they give for peace when you out-bully them.
d) If you want high scores, micro-manage every planet every turn.

By the way : don't play too long on lower difficulty levels and go asap to masochistic (or at least cripling), else you pick up some bad habits.
Reply #84 from Stardock Forums Top
Ok. Apparently I'm wrong. I still don't understand how, but I'm willing to listen. So I'm upping the difficulty to cripling from painful. I started a game last night like this and so far it appears to be following the formula, just faster. I only played for 1 hour though, so I'll stick to it and see what happens.
Reply #85 from Stardock Forums Top
btw: Frogboy, don't take offense at my opinions. Although I may have come off a bit harsh in my previous statement, I do really enjoy this game. Like everyone else here, I'm just trying to help you guys make it better.. which in the end will sell more copies making you a richer man. :)

The ironic thing is that I'm also a developer and there is also a board for my programs. Enterprise software, so totally different, but I know what it's like to see your software trashed on a board.. :)
Reply #86 from Stardock Forums Top
#78 by Citizen Ellestar - 5/23/2003 2:00:59 PM

In RTS there is only one such game - StarCraft. And Blizzard was just lucky...
End of quote


That is not quite true. Starcraft has been reported to have its own skill-based game balance issues, such as the Zergling rush. This requires every player to make preparations for an early game assault, which can be quite difficult if you've only started to play the game recently. (As an aside, the zergling rush isn't as powerful as rumoured - there are more devistating tactics available.)

Also, Blizzard did not get lucky when they made the game balanced - they put some time into testing and figuring out what works and what doesn't. As a result, Warcraft III is one of the few games that is well-balanced combined with a friendly user interface.

There are also a few other games that allow for different and equally effective paths to victory. While games like Star Trek: Armada do have some flaws, such games allow for a large quantity of tactics to either defeat or repel an opposing force (even if some tactics aren't used as frequently as others.) In addition, these games provide a method to help prevent an early rush that plagues most RTS games.

Just because Starcraft was the only major game that was successful doesn't mean that it was the only game. As always, there is a wide variety of games available in this saturated market.
Reply #87 from Stardock Forums Top
Nothing is perfect. GalCiv is just one of the best. But...
I'm sorry but I simply don't agree and in fact in many ways you're simply wrong.
For instance, the AI takes trade into account. It takes your morality vs. theirs into account. It takes war weariness into account. It takes diplomacy into account.
End of quote


Really, this is not important (because this is a minor issues, and i can tell why if you want to hear). Game balance is such a hard thing that noone really knows what's that. But i posted "Zileas Lecure 8: Game Balance" - there are some tips. (I'll post parts of it here, full lectrue can be found in Suggestions 1.03 tread)

WARNING! LONG POST.

1) Dominant Strategies
A dominant strategy is a case where one choice is always better than the other. This is always bad, because its effectively one choice, with noise -- not a compelling bit of gameplay. In multiplayer games, this manifests itself as times where you always play the same strategy no matter what, or when one player can play a particular sequence of actions and responses that guarantee the other player will be at a disadvantage, no matter what.
End of quote


Anyone agrees that here GalCiv has some problems. Colonization phase, trade, diplomacy, same list of efficient buildings, trade good rushbuying, you must get resources, you must have good military.

2) The true "costs" of actions
Actions in most games have some inherent game-based cost, be it some resource, like gold or minerals, or in the case of many turn based strategy games, a turn, as well as some player time investment. There is also an inherent player time investment that is especially relevant in real time games, and somewhat (though not as) relevant in other games. Actions with low payoff, low game cost, but high player time investment, are generally less useful (and imbalanced-weak) compared to low payoff, mid game cost, low player time investment actions, simply because many players will refuse to "waste" a lot of time, or in the case of a real-time game, cannont afford to use such time in that way.
End of quote


Constructors & Starbases. Wasted resources issue and so additional micro. Gigantic/Tech victory. That's for start.


3) Risks should correlate to Rewards, or Versatality is power
When an action is versatile, its allowing you to in effect make several actions, for the cost of one (or at least the concentration cost of one). It allows you to not use as much time when responding to a variety of things, and allows you respond to indeterminate situations with less risk... This can be a substantial benefit in many cases, and versatile actions that allow an adverse response from the other player (i.e. an attempted counter) should not be especially strong compared to less versatile actions, since versatility is "playing it safe".
End of quote


Just a lack of strategies and counter-strategies to them (or at least efficient ones). It's my IMHO of course.

4) Balance across skill levels
When dealing with a competitive game, you want skill differentiation -- when you have skill differentiation it is important to have balance be constant over skill levels for the most part. In this respect, it is important that as skill increases, that various game components increases in their apparent effectiveness. One potential hazard here is that in extreme situations, the game might just not be fun at all at a particular skill level.
End of quote


Well i saw many posts about it from a number of players.

5) Scenario Imbalances
Sometimes called "map imbalances", these are imbalances stemming from the initial conditions of the game. Sometimes, when you can start with different options individually, the "global" configuration of the game may be slanted towards favoring one particular individual configuration. Similarly, sometimes there may be only one global configuration, but specific starting "positions" or states might be better than others. As the alternative name implies, this is most apparent in situations where you have a map.
End of quote


Tiny and Gigantic are imbalanced IMHO.

6) Dominant Playstyles
Similar to Dominant Strategies. Often, when playtesting your game, you will notice that there are several major playstyles which are at least somewhat feasible. Its important to try to cultivate as many playstyles as you realistically can (don't expect more than a few though), and to get them to the point where they are about equal in potency.
End of quote


We have a lack of playstyles in some moments of the game. Say, at the start, at the dreadnought phase and Tech win.

8) Expected Return of Game Elements
You obviously should balance the power of things largely based on the cost to get them, and the value of the effect they can create. When dealing with something that becomes obsolete (which should be avoided, but has to happen in some types of games), consider the expected return over time, including the period after it grows obsolete. For instance, in a real-time strategy game, a unit that is good for the first 5 or 6 minutes, but that becomes obslete after, can be a bad thing, because normally when your units survive you come out ahead, but if you fight early on with this unit, and have survivors, its as good as dead as the game progresses...
End of quote


Fleets become obsolete. A good number of buildings are just useless. You get lesser score for faster win. Lategame techs just give you nothing for their cost.

------------------

It took just 15 minutes to write this. I'm sure that i can remember more.

~SDC~
Reply #88 from Stardock Forums Top
"In other words, some kind of ordered balance is reached, but not through a spirit of cooperation, but because it just works out that way based on each persons selfish motives, and their understanding of the other competitors selfish motives."

This is entirely sliding into OT territory, of course, but there is a flaw in the very philosophy behind this kind of thinking. The assumption is that altruistic behaviour is impossible, because altruists would always be outcompeted by those who behave selfishly.

At first sight, this seems obviously true, but it stops being obvious the moment you consider between-group competition. Groups with mostly altruistic members will consistently outcompete groups whose members behave selfishly. Therefore altruism becomes an option in a sufficiently authoritarian group that has the means to *enforce* altruistic behaviour (or at least strongly encourage it with carrot-and-stick measures). Far from dying out, such a group will become more competitive.

This has nothing to do, by the way, with Good and Evil in the philosophical sense. Any group, including Evil groups, is better off with altruistic members (altruistic toward the group, that is).

There is an extremely sophisticated discussion of this, and of the role that is played by religion specifically as a facilitator of in-group altruism, in the wonderful book "Darwin´s Cathedral" by Professor D.S.Wilson.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226901343/ref%3Dpd%5Fsim%5Fb%5Fdp/026-5164070-8772446
Reply #89 from Stardock Forums Top
Note - i'm not playing in StarCraft good enough, but i know some players from Russian clan 'Orky' - top players like Asmodey, Ranger, Soul. And my suggestions about StarCraft are for their skill level, not mine, or it's just their suggestions.

To Sigma 7

That is not quite true. Starcraft has been reported to have its own skill-based game balance issues, such as the Zergling rush. This requires every player to make preparations for an early game assault, which can be quite difficult if you've only started to play the game recently. (As an aside, the zergling rush isn't as powerful as rumoured - there are more devistating tactics available.)
End of quote


Skill-based game balance issues isn't essential for the only professional game in the world. You can just play better and it will not be an issue. For non-professional games it's another matter.

Also, Blizzard did not get lucky when they made the game balanced - they put some time into testing and figuring out what works and what doesn't. As a result, Warcraft III is one of the few games that is well-balanced combined with a friendly user interface.
End of quote


But it's still balanced much worse than StarCraft:BroodWar. Blizzard is testing (20.000 beta testers in W3:TFT), trying... No luck for now...

There are also a few other games that allow for different and equally effective paths to victory. While games like Star Trek: Armada do have some flaws, such games allow for a large quantity of tactics to either defeat or repel an opposing force (even if some tactics aren't used as frequently as others.) In addition, these games provide a method to help prevent an early rush that plagues most RTS games.
End of quote


This is your opinion based on your skill, micro etc. But i can say you that Asmodey can win vs. you or vs. me (not imporotant) without any chances (i saw it SOOO many times. A lot of players thought that they are better than (Orky) clan members. Almost noone realized a real skill levels of top gosu players). So, for you, it's seems balanced. I am pretty sure that a player with better skill can find a lot of imbalances.

Just because Starcraft was the only major game that was successful doesn't mean that it was the only game. As always, there is a wide variety of games available in this saturated market.
End of quote


StarCraft is the only professional game for now. Professional games MUST be balanced. Any other RTS isn't balacned that good or isn't balanced at all.

~SDC~
Reply #90 from Stardock Forums Top
Just because Starcraft was the only major game that was successful doesn't mean that it was the only game. As always, there is a wide variety of games available in this saturated market.
End of quote



Bobo say him think one or two games in history of world also successful. Bobo not think Starcraft only game. Bobo think mayne Sigma not say words right and mean only RTS sucsessful?
Bobo go now. Him not put top on "things Bobo find while grooming" jar and wampyre mad.
Reply #91 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't think Starcraft is an apt analogy. For one thing, Starcraft has no AI (it's pure script base -- we know, we did the Retribution add-on for it). It is well balanced for multiplayer but that is a totally differnet kind of balancing than what we are discussing here.

~SDC~
Reply #92 from Stardock Forums Top
If you don't have a strong military, you can't stay out of war.
End of quote


I've gone through entire games with no significant military. That is, in fact, how I used to get most of my starbases: I'd trade xxxx Fortune ships and a couple of the less valuable techs for them. It's harder to stay out of war, but not impossible.

It does make dealing with the Dark Arnor a bit more difficult, though.

~SDC~
Reply #93 from Stardock Forums Top
Okay, from what I've read its possible to stay out of war without having any military; still everyone seems to agree its much harder. That still doesn't sound particularly balanced, and I have to wonder if its possible on all maps or just under certain starting conditions. So far I've never used the ctrl-N feature,
and I've managed to win with the AI on intelligent on all the games. But going for tech and cultural wins I've always ended up in wars...

My experience is that if your military is below 30 they'll always ask for tribute, and if you refuse they'll always attack. Even when they lose fleets attacking starbase heavy systems they'll ask for peace, then start a new cycle of wars within a few turns. How do you keep them from starting wars?

For instance playing good, the Alts declared war on me even though I had 4 trade routes with them. After they lost enough ships that the Drengs attacked them they asked for peace, then a few turns later were at war with me (and still the Dreng's) again. The time to wait before declaring a new war after begging for peace definitely needs to be increased as well; why beg for peace then ask for tribute a few turns later, and on not getting the tribute declare war within a year against a race that you just lost half your fleet attacking? Its seems like they have no memory...


Reply #94 from Stardock Forums Top
In my opinion the only thing that needs be addressed is the fact that the military is in fact too important, and that units scale in power very fast (you can't beat a dread with a frigate, so you need dreadnoughts). I don't know if it is possible to go without a military on smaller maps. Are there reported wins without military on maps of size medium or less at masochistic?
Reply #95 from Stardock Forums Top
Bobo think mayne Sigma not say words right and mean only RTS sucsessful?
End of quote
Okay, allow me to correct myself:
All applications (games or otherwise), in one way or another, have flaws. This included blockbusters like Half-Life, Operation Flashpoint, Total Annihilation, Microsoft Office, Diablo, Master of Orion II, and Galactic Civilizations.

The successful applications, in one way or another, manage to snare a large quantity of users. In case of both Starcraft and Total Annihilation, there were features that were interesting to different sets of the market. This resulted in the polarized TA-SC flamewars that people got into. However, they both have thir benefits and flaws.


[Message Edited]
Reply #96 from Stardock Forums Top
Bobo now understand Sigma. But Bobo also say, bugs and flaws in games Sigma say not matter to Bobo. Mosttimes Bobo not even know bugs there until people say they are. If Bobo play game and not see bugs, or not care, then not big deal. In Bobo head, is no bugs. Bobo think him not only one play games not know bugs there. Bobo also say sometimes games with no bugs big suck. Bobo say, what him care if game perfect but sucking like stinky banana? Bobo not want to say which games so people not get underwears in bunch. Bobo not care what mean "succesful." Him think that mean lots people like it. Lots people drive Taurus too. Means car is poplular. But Bobo never get caught dead in Taurus (Bobo not drive good anyway.) Deer Hunter very poplular at Wal Mart. That successful too. That mean lots people play games Bobo think stinky.
So, Bobo say line at the bottom is...game fun or not fun. Sometimes bugs nothing to do with it.

Wampyre come. Him read Bobo post and say starting not make sense so Bobo go now.


Reply #97 from Stardock Forums Top
#91 by Avatar Frogboy - 5/23/2003 10:00:47 PM
I don't think Starcraft is an apt analogy. For one thing, Starcraft has no AI (it's pure script base -- we know, we did the Retribution add-on for it). It is well balanced for multiplayer but that is a totally differnet kind of balancing than what we are discussing here.
End of quote


Yes, to some extent, but it's good to see why StarCraft can be considered balanced in MP and how to make a game more balanced. Also, Zileas balance suggestions work good for any kind of a game.

Also, i can bet that then there will be more good players playing in GalCiv and AI will be even better than now, most of the game balance issues will be more like multiplayer than singleplayer balance issues (because you are trying to do such kind of a game where AI will be a good opponent to a human).

~SDC~