Gifting / trading of planets

If you watch though, the AI generally abandons these colonies shortly thereafter.

Depends on the intelligence of the AI.

Paul.

~SDC~

You can always gift PQ 14 planet, ehanced with soil improvement (to make it a PQ 15 planet) in a sector where you have an impotant influence: the AI will be happy to have the planet, wil keep it, and you will flip the planet back to you, so you can use it for another AI
I have used this trick with great success
[Message Edited]

Sometimes the AI 'strips' a planet that is about to flip, eg destroys all the improvements, which gives you a planet with a morale of 1.
These planets make the best gifts as you have nothing to lose on them and they are already in a flippable location.

~SDC~

AI abandons everything under 14, doesn't it? I've never seen it keep a 13 or under. This was an early "cheese" tactic that was closed out fairly early on. After all, you have to ship off those colonists and frequently, to keep your morale up (boy, would I like to institusionalize forced contraception on all citizens on my worlds, and then pick a "maintain" people count mode so I wouldn't have to bother!).

In fact, when they first closed out that cheese, it used to cause CTDs when the AI abandoned the world. Quit a nasty little "don't do that again"... even though it DID gain you diplo points for being so nice as to give them a world.

How come when someone finds something that works... its called cheese.... I'm really getting sick and tired of it...

Just a question: is it a reasonnable behavior for an AI to stick with PQ 13 planets that were given to him as gift? If it isn't reasonnable, it shouldn't happen . What would you do if the AI give you as free gift a class 12 planet?


BTW, if you looked at a previous post I have made, I was developping a PQ 14 plent into a PQ 15 in order that the AI kept it.

J.T.... It was pure cheese. Just like gifting the various AI "1 influence point". And it was SUPER MEGA-MAJOR, OMNI-CHROMATIC STINKY CHEESE!

Before the AI got the code to abandon worlds under 14, you could send 2569 Billion down on a PQ1 world, and give it to the AI in the same turn. Mega goodwill, and seriously drag down that AI's money... because they kept those worlds and tried to make the best of it, rather then abandon it. That's why that was "So Cheesy it had to go away".

Now, you can still settle those odd 3792 people down on a PQ1 world, and give it to the AI, but the AI will abandon that world, preventing it from remaining as a permanent drain on their economy.

there will alwys be weaknesses in AI ... just like playing against a newbee player in other games head to head...

ALL i'm saying is that just because someone finds a way to take advandage in weaknesses doesn't mean that its cheese..

just like when the americans droped the atom bomb.. and japan surendered... the USA had the upper hand and used it... it wan't a cheesy tactic...... just look at ALL the culteral conflicts in the world.. how ppl take advantage of each other ... America, Australia, and many many other places that we now call home have been forged on such... wether we like it or not.. its human nature... getting back to games... eg: chess... if a computer player lets you take its queen is that using cheesy tactics.... I don't condone these behavours.. I simply state that thats the way that the software has been written... and don't knock what others have found out to get around problems in order to do well.. imagine if some tactics you use to win gget knocked out... you'd be pissed ... it doesn't always have to come down to a slug fest... I like the way that you can win without killing... Sure a human player would accept these silly trades unless that are trying to make it harder on themselves...

after all the work stardock has done to GalCiv and AP I'm still playing the same way .. and doing the same things... its still the same.. just takes a bit longer to win.. I believe that instead of changing the math of the program the AI should have been beefed up.. this however is not easy to do.. which is why humans will always have the edge.. and unlike trhe moo series GalCiv is still in its infantsy.. and is way superior than moo1 was or any other game that I can care to mention in V1.xx release.. as i've said before if you want a game where the computer can have every thing covered so that you can't take advantage of anything then play a good game of tic-tac-toe.. I for 1 can program it so that it'll never loose and that you'll never win... but then wheres the fun in that.. the fun comes in games where you try to find weaknesses in the AI ... most games that are difficult have cheat codes for those who don't want to do this.. and that just want to have fun blasting the computer.. I myself don't use cheatmodes.. I do however enjoy finding flaws if AI routines and winning on my own merrits.. if I can't find any then of course the computer will win... If no one ever posted wqhat they've found out to do things then you'd be scratching your head asking yourself how are they getting these scores... but as soon as they do then ppl call what they do to win cheesey tactics.. just like magic... it looks impresive till you know how its done then it becomes cheesy and you feel like boo'ing the magician for taking advantage of ppls gullible minds

not picking on anyone in particular or any so called cheesy tactics.. its up to the individual if they wish to become a magician or not...

as for pure cheese... look at the ultimate weapon.. a starbase that can kill planets... what... you don't think thats cheese... crap... same with attacking small ships with bigger ships... of courtse your going to win.. how cheesy is that...

so enough of the cheese thowing please...

Except that the math of the program is the AI, at least as far as this thread is concerned. 1+1 always equals 2. You add enough 1s together and they make a large number, even though with half the things involved here an number of items one at a time over an a long period of time is literally worthless compared to the whole quantity at once.



And incidentally, your comparisons fall apart rather quickly.

A bigger weapon is just a bigger weapon. It can always be overcome by an even bigger weapon, or just as often by alot of little weapons. For the later case, to borrow your own example and run the clock back a few centuries, the US War of Independance is the perfect example. Britan had much better equipped and trained troops, a viable navy, and so on, and by your example should have won easily. The actual outcome is fairly obvious.

On your second example, there are many instances where giving up your queen is very much the right thing to do. Too many people overestimate her importance and tend to get themselves in big trouble because of it. There is only one piece that is indisposable.
~SDC~
[Message Edited]

This is the problem with playing computers in strategy games. The computer is programmed to place "values" on scenarios and then take the path that offers the most value.

To a large degree that is what humans do most of the time. Our value proposition against computers is that we can do things indirectly or even AGAINST logical value. Does the AI in GalCiv try to bribe YOU to go to war with someone else? No, they go directly to war with who they oppose. Will the AI in GalCiv give you a ship next to a starbase owned by someone you are at war with to get you to blow it up so the gifting AI can take it? No.

The value of being human in these games is that we can defy logic to achieve an objective. Computers largely cannot.

This is why it is so easy to find a "recipe" (or many) to win at the highest difficulty. The computer won't analyze his loss and plug that hole the next time you play. The writers of the program may take input and "correct" something in the next release.

Only recently have the BEST minds in computer science begun to approach the ability to adapt after each "bad move". It also takes the best hardware in the world to make these decisions in a reasonable amount of time.

For a strategy game, GalCiv is pretty darn good. It also has had pretty good staying power for a game.

Random thoughts provided by kasualkid

~SDC~

Look J.T.Qwerk, you asked why gifting the AI bad worlds made from your "Morale raising" colony ships was considered "cheese". I explained it. It was so cheesy, that Brad and his people decided it was an outright cheat and closed out the tactic. Just like the 1 Influence gifting. And just like Tech selling (Of course, they restored Tech selling to all levels under Maso after the hue and cry went up).

I consider some things "Cheesy"... those are strategy and tactics that do not add to the enjoyment of my own gaming. Since I only play against myself (no MP in GC), I really don't care if others what tactics others use. We all play GC to have fun. But don't get upset when tactics that SD considered so cheesy (their words for the PQ +15 racial pick always being used) or so cheating (their words about the gifting of bad worlds to the AI) that SD adjusts the game, and then the community call those things "cheese". Star Dock has ruled on those matters.

Have fun!

Star Pilot.. you have miss interperated what i've been saying to some degree.. I for one am not upset that Stardock has improved the game by making it harder and closing off most of the tactics that make the game easier.. I simply don't like being told that I use cheesy tactics when I find something that works and gives me an edge in the game against the AI... If I didn't want stardock to know about them then I and many others wouldn't post our tactics in here and then there would be NO stratagy forum... we share our tactics so that all my benifit from them (if they so desire..). I have never complained about any of the updtares to GC or AP once they have been made.. what would be cheating would be if we kept our tactics to ourselves and not sharing them... there are still many things in GC that make the game easier than it could be.. and i'm sure that over time that these too will disapear just like they have done with most of the tactics that have been used successfully time ans time again to the point where most ppl have at least tried them or heard of them... thus making the game more dificult and also enjoyable..

I never asked why this or any other tactic was called cheese.. I've stated that they are not... that they were in the game and that I used them and suggested to others the successful use of the stratagy.. when stardock updates the game and gets rid of it then I try to find something else... If we never posted our stratagies then they'd never get overused by many ppl.. and stardock would never fix them... as I've said before one of the biggest so called cheeses in the game are the planet breakers.. and many others.... if your after a game without these sort of tactics then play something like tic tac toe... where everything is always even (unless you have your eyes closed)..
I mean to say that just because I beat someone ranked higher than me in chess with a "Fools mate" doesn't mean that I used a cheesy tactic to win... it simply means that they weren't watching.. now days most computer chess programs will never fall for it.. unlike human players.. (BTW: yes I did beat a chess player ranked 2230 with this tactic... others and myseld couldn't believe that he fell for it... it was the first game that I beat him in out of over 50 i'd played) .. so whats this got to do with GC.... its just that the computer can';t see/think of every deception that we can use against it.. and just like the chess game just because a tactic that is used makes the game easier to play doesn't mean its cheesy... and shouldn't be labeled as such... I simply hate being told because I use some tactic over and over again that (to generate a lable) I am a Cheese eater.. and then get looked down upon when I suggest these tactics in the fourm for all to share... How would you like it if every time you said something that it was cheesy..... it takes time and many games to prove thatthe tactics that we use can and do win...

Note: i'm now playing AP huge tight rare masso.. and using the same tactics as I used in my masso gigantic rare tight games and achieving the dame score in about 1/15th of the time... now thats what I call a good tactic... and i'll continue to do so as long as it exists.. I've talked about it.. and no one has really complained that its there except me.... but you watch... when many others start utalizing it then stardock will do something about it and then all those who were using it will be called "Cheese eaters" and we'll all be branded once again for using cheesy tactics...

so until something else comes along this is Cheese eater J.T.Qwerk signing off...

(ps: I hope this finaly gets accross what i'm trying to say in many msgs... "Just because you find and use a tactic that hasn't been thought of.. doesn't make it cheating... and shouldn't be labeled as cheese...nor you be labeled a cheese eater" long live those discover and share their tactics

I will no long talk on this subject.. I just hold all those who call tactics used cheesy with great distain. and feel sorry for them that they they have to resort to persecution of those who found and or use them

Sorry, JT. I had thought you had asked why that tactic was "cheese".

As I've said plenty of times here... I really don't care what other people do in their games. It's all about the fun. As long as you are having fun, who cares what the posters on some game site think of it? You play for your own enjoyment, not theirs. The only smidgen of bearing of how you play may have on their games is if they play the Masoverse. And if the Maso is that important to them, they will always complain. That's just one of those things.

Oh well. It's been one of those weeks for me.

Besides, the biggest cheese in the game is the fact you can make colony ships. I mean, come on! You can go and start new colonies with them! Talk about cheesy!