[quote] I don't necessarily disagree with your definition, but using it means that virtually every computer game ever made "cheats"; so what's the point of complaining about this particular game's AI "cheating?"[/quote] You're quite right in that virtually every computer game ever made cheats. So why complain about GalCiv? Three reasons: 1. Galciv has somehow gotten a reputation for outstanding AI. But when you found out that some of it might be due to cheats that e
SirBruce
A "cheat" is anything the AI can do functionally that you can't. A production bonus isn't something it's "doing"; it's a static advantage that is assigned to it via the difficulty level. Knowing where yellow stars are, or researching techs without the proper prerequisites, or knowing where anomalies are, or being able to ask for money from someone beyond what their treasury supports... THOSE are "cheats". But being able to calculate moves faster or deeper than the typical human isn't cheating
I'd like to see more movies in the game. (The paradigm seems to be show a movie the first time something happens to you, then .pcx afterwards.) Bruce
Anyone? Bruce
Anyone? Bruce
Frogboy, Well, I see several potential bugs. The first is AreTechParentsKnown() is quite possibly buggy, and you don't show code for that. Since it's pretty obvious we're talking about the problem of researching without the prerequisite techs, it's a little gloss over that part of the code. You claim that this is the same code to display the tech tree, but if it was you'd be using a common function, wouldn't you? So I'm sure you *think* it is the same code, but it quite possibly isn
Getting back to the yellow star issue, I don't think you can honestly say that it isn't a cheat. Sure, it's covered in the backstory, but my understanding is this was done after the fact to rationalize the fact that it was simply easier to program the game with the AI colony ships knowing where to go. This really no longer necessary with today's computing power, and since the human player doesn't get that advantage by default, I have to call it a cheat. I'm not faulting the programmer
I've noticed that AI races sometimes change alingments, although I've only seen it so far on the Chaotic races (Yor and Torian) becoming Neutral. I assume the Pure Evi / Pure Good races always choose Evil or Good options in their events? Do the Neutral races always choose neutral? Do the Chaotic races sometimes chose neutral instead of their core trait? Bruce
The GCTech.TECH file has a line for AI and a number, which I presume is a weight for determining value as well as perhaps research priority. Bruce
I've never seen either one. One is for espionage and other miscellaneous events and another seems to be for found ship events, but only of a specific type (other found ship events only give a graphic). Bruce
[quote] ...and to expand further on what Code Monkey has stated - the AI DOES NOT know individual planet quality - only where yellow stars are at.[/quote] I never stated that it does. I stated it knows where they *are*. I too believed that it only knew where yellow stars are, but someone in another post said it knew habital planets, so I was purposefully general. Seems like yellow stars almost always have one anyway, so it's a minor distinction. [quote] If you feel this i
[quote] For the 10 billionth time: it's explicitly stated in the rules of the game and even the back story that this is so - how then does it become cheating? Cheating is not following the standard rules of the game and this is clearly part of the standard rules. [/quote] For the first time, don't be an idiot. Cheating means many different things in many different contexts. In *this* context... read the previous posts... it's about AI doing things and getting advantages *in gamepla
The AI *does* cheat in some ways. Knowing the location of colonizeable planets is one example. Bruce
That was going to be my next suggestion, actually... perhaps after fixing this bug, it should be made so that you can't trade good techs to evils or neutrals and vice-versa. Then you might even add (for those people who switch alignment back and forth) a way so that you can't have both good and bad techs at the same time... that would be substantially harder, though, since it would require code the "turn off" what a previous tech had turned on. Bruce
I've seen Microsoft's own software fail sometimes as well. My point is, why are you even bothering to check? Simply put up the submit button. If the guy isn't connect his packets won't go anywhere; if he is, they will. Bruce
I like going for tech victory, but you're right... cultural is a lot easier. Too easy, I think. I hope tech victories count more in the Metaverse. :P Bruce
Also, when a new minor is created, they seem to get all the techs everyone else has. Bruce
I agree. Treaties not only should have set minimum durations but there should also be heavy penalties for violating them for all races, much like in Civ. Bruce
After not getting the submit button to show up in my games, I disconnected from my DSL and tried using a dial-up modem conection instead. Bingo, the submit screen came up. So for those of you having trouble, try that workaround if you can. In the meantime, it seems to me Galciv should be patched so it doesn't try to check for a network and let Windows handle it. Bruce
On a hunch, I decided to try using my dial-up modem instead and then ending a game. Bingo, the submit screen for Metaverse came up! See, this is the problem... GalCiv's code is trying to detect if there's a network up and failing miserably. It shouldn't even try; it should just let Windows send the packets as it sees fit. Bruce
Tried that. No dice. Just gives me the menu screen again. Bruce
You know upon further reflection, weighted can still be abused by ping-ponging back and forth. However, at least you have a period of time where you have to be evil and/or good. With the current way it is you can pick an evil choice and still be mega-good, and then pick a good choice next time and you're back to Saintly. I'm starting to think the better solution is to start rewarding people who are already max at either extreme or perfectly neutral for picking a choice that is "consis
I'd really like to play a game where the UP was more involved; i.e. every year rather than once every four years. I know there's an event that makes this happen, but is there any way to set this as the default? It would be nice if this was a game configurable option. Or at the very least, increase the frequency in a future patch. Bruce
We all know that the evil choices in big events provide big bonuses whereas the good ones do not. However, once you reach 100 in good or evil, additional choices don't "help". There's no reason to pick the good choice if you're already Saintly and you get an event... in fact, it makes more sense to take the neutral or evil choice, and then pick good again on the next choice. You'll always stay towards the high end of the spectrum. One solution would be to simply increase the spectrum
Anyone? Has this been fixed? Bruce