The AIs like to spite their enemies.
19 Replies
13,160 Views
Starstriker1
0
Posts
14
Replies
10,250
Reputation
The only invincible ships I've had were Precursor rangers that took advantage of the off type defense bug.
90 Replies
43,689 Views
Fair, but I'd personally enjoy more depth to it. A society that preys on itself has a different set of problems than one that preys on others... both can be construed as evil, but it's not the same issue at all. Actually, when I try to think of an example of each of those, I come up with a totalitarian dictatorship, which generally has no problem with sacrifice/oppression of its own people) versus colonial Britain, which treated it's own people fairly well but fairly often did some nasty things
50 Replies
19,010 Views
By the way, those "Super Dominator Corvettes" are the Drengin super ability... they get a whole bunch of them every time they declare war.
10 Replies
8,596 Views
Aye, they need to make sure that in any build order, factories always come first. This goes for upgrades, too... it'd be nice if the game automatically stuck factories at the front of other upgrades in the queue.
10 Replies
8,596 Views
And there is a corresponding hit to your offensive tech and firepower when you go heavy on defense. I haven't found it in any way too powerful... ships still take a substantial amount of abuse in any REAL battle, and the ease at which you can take out lone orbiting ships is less a fault of the game mechanics and more a failing of the AI. They're fantastically useful tools, yes. As they should be. An investment in defenses SHOULD be worthwhile. I don't see any real problem with the curre
90 Replies
43,689 Views
Calm down. It'll be fixed in the next patch, which will hopefully come swiftly. Reverting to an old patch won't help, unfortunately, as the same bug was presumably present... but just never noticed, as the defenses weren't worth the cost.
52 Replies
31,005 Views
If you declare war on somebody you have any kind of treaty with, you suffer the relations penalty with everyone. You also trip whatever alliances (or, in the Altarian's case, their super ability) if you attack. However, tricking the AI into striking first gets you around all of that.
5 Replies
7,713 Views
Aye. Its kinda cheesy for them to suffer penalties for RESPONDING to the fact that their worlds are surrounded by transports, but it's one way to do it.
5 Replies
7,713 Views
Watch out... if the off type defenses degrade defenses more than the on type ones, then the firing order DOES matter, because if the on type ones fire first, they'll be absorbed, whereas if the offtype ones fire first, they'll rip up the defense so that the on type ones don't get deflected. Either one might be the desired effect, but it does need to be considered.
52 Replies
31,005 Views
Reply to
Tell us what you'd like in Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar 1.6!
in GalCiv II News
GalCiv2 Forums
GalCiv2 Forums
The off type defense bug should be a pretty high priority... it totally messes up the weapon type dynamic. Other than that, I'd personally love to see ever more out of the AIs. More ruthless and effective use of transports would be nice (they're kinda slow about taking territory), and so would a few improvements on tactical combat, like letting them attack on the first turn of war and having them move fleets into position prior to a premptive strike or surprise attack (and make such att
437 Replies
247,697 Views
There are way too many techs, it would be impossible to make an AI that knows what each technology does, and their value. It doesn't need to be hardcoded. It has access to the same information the human has, and should be able to tell if there is a +10 soldiering bonus available with the tech...
6 Replies
3,795 Views
Solution: build more miners... If you mean the solution to the problem of miners on automate wanting to cross a map instead of upgrading what's close to them, then your solution will almost always not work. Instead, you'll have two or more miners doing the exact same thing. Trust me, I've tried it. I think one priority with improving mining is to give an option of automation, such as whether you want
21 Replies
11,399 Views
Aye, their trading needs work. One thing that often bothers me is that they get all uppity about taking "worthless preceding techs" when those techs often have valuable spinoffs or ability boosts. The best example is invasion techs... give them Shock Troops, and they'll consider the Advanced Troop Module to be worthless! For that matter, they'll refuse to value the earlier invasion techs like space marines and planetary bombardment despite the substantial soldiering bonus each gives.
6 Replies
3,795 Views
There are other things involved, too. If you attack someone you have a special treaty with (either in your favour or against) all races will start to regard you with suspicion. Additionally, while these treaties don't MANDATE military assistance, the AIs will defend people they have treaties with. This can make things ugly, fast...
2 Replies
4,079 Views
A distinction should be drawn between cruel treatment of other races and cruel treatment of your own. They are two entirely different issues... you can have civilisations that are vicious and xenophobic, yet take very good care of their citizens.
50 Replies
19,010 Views
You can't gift a race to "close" relations, and you haven't been able to for many patches in Dread Lords. You can only bribe them as much as "friendly".
11 Replies
7,839 Views
Easier fix: have the off type defenses degrade by their square root value. Say you're attacking a ship with 26 armour with a beam weapon. You're attacking a square root of 5... if you do two damage to that, the square root value should descend to 3... meaning that the ship only has 9 armour left.
52 Replies
31,005 Views
Solution: build more miners...
21 Replies
11,399 Views
Possible solution, assuming that the AI is indeed using the same rules for all players: more feedback from the AI during trading. For example, if you have a deal they don't want to accept, they shouldn't just give you the old "Yeeeeaaaaah no." routine. They should suggest a counter offer... a trade they'd accept instead, a money value they'd accept (or, if they won't accept any reasonable level of cash), and perhaps more rationale for not liking the trade ("The tech you want to give us doesn't h
27 Replies
12,532 Views
They only give you manufacturing capacity, yes.
21 Replies
11,399 Views
Stardock is really good about supporting GalCiv 2, so don't rush to any judgements unless they tell you otherwise.
52 Replies
31,005 Views
The effectiveness doesn't degenerate linearly. I've gotten some pretty high bonuses at long distances with the more advanced mines, and you'll always get at least one unit.
21 Replies
11,399 Views
It is damn NASTY is what it is. If you use ships that have high speed and high damage (best way to do this is to have the +2 speed racial ability) and some way of keeping your sensor distance high enough (cargo hulls with sensors are a nice, cheap solution with no maintainence), you can cripple an enemy military without ever taking a loss. Just be careful with managing your fleets... if you are fighting an enemy with faster ships, you need to find some way to counter that (using a super isolatio
18 Replies
11,707 Views
Frankly, the whole idea of "good and evil" is bull, but thats an entirely philosophical argument. I made a post about it a while back, but I'll say it again... more depth to the ethical decisions, like the possibility of consequences down the road (positive or negative, or not at all), would be an excellent addition to the game. It'd also be nice if the AIs would participate in the ethical games a bit, with messages being sent your way saying what they're up to.
50 Replies
19,010 Views