tetleytea

tetleytea

Joined Member # 659431
20 Posts 937 Replies 24,936 Reputation

I do think Asteroids need to put out more production, so as to make them a more significant tactical element to the game. It takes too long to develop a mine, Space Mining takes too long to research, and the asteroids don't put out much. They're not much more than eye candy, and they could be so much more. Also it would be awesome if asteroids figured into space combat more. Like give defending ships first strike capability. Third, can you imagine the fun if they brought Te

135 Replies 52,094 Views

What I didn't like about Galciv1 was the immense weight it put on Planet Quality. If you got a low-PQ planet, you were SCREWED. And also how morale was uncontrollable. What I did like about Galciv1 were Terror Stars and the ability to spam Trade starbases, even though I never actually did either of them. I also liked that Maso in Galciv1 was more challenging than Maso in DA.

8 Replies 10,093 Views

Something must be wrong with your strategy. I'm playing Maso and getting only mildly challenged. I'd be interested to know your build order--are you starting the game out by lowering your taxes and getting the 100% approval to grow your pop? Are you rush-buying factories, or colony ships, or neither? How about this one: can you build a military starbase to back you up? Then your pop guns can stand toe-to-toe with their more powerful ships, and yours are much cheaper. Put at lea

21 Replies 7,210 Views

I think it's reasonable simply not to choose battles you don't think you can win. Fleet up and improve your odds first. Doing suicide runs with a _specific_ follow-on attack in mind would be the logical next step in improving the AI. Even then, I don't think you should suicide run if you haven't maxed out your logistical points yet.

19 Replies 13,905 Views

Right, that's what the AI did before, was to sacrifice its ships. I don't think it's too difficult to code an AI not to initiate a battle it doesn't think it can win. Or to go one step further, sacrifice ships only when you have a specific follow-on attack in mind. The previous DL AI just blindly sacrificed ships.

19 Replies 13,905 Views

Yes, in a duel. But what will you do, when there comes after you a third, and fourth, and fifth player, each one with his own spies, and you spent your cheap ones already? If multiple AI's gang up on you, then you're screwed either way, whether you pre-emptive strike one of them or not. You might as well fight the battle on one of the AIs' turf as much as you can. The risk comes in the possibility that maybe the AI you're attacking was never

25 Replies 15,439 Views

Let's separate the two: there are starbase defense modules, and there are ship assist modules. The SB defense modules are not useful except in early game. Definitely. However, it's a prerequisite for the Protection Fields and like 3 other assist modules. The assist modules get multiplied over every ship within the SB's influence. That means if you have 4-5 tinies, you're getting +4-5 fleet weapons/defense for every point of assist, instead of 1 you would get for 1 large ship (which cost

65 Replies 27,160 Views

No, I omitted that one on the basis that military starbases and starbase defenses are complete wastes of time that no experienced player bothers with anyways. I don't buy that generalization for one second.

65 Replies 27,160 Views

One benefit to agents not immediately obvious is that if you place agents on his planets, he has to spend espionage nullifying you, rather than you having to spend espionage nullifying him. You're going to have to counter-espionage anyway--might as well do it on his turf, not yours.

25 Replies 15,439 Views

It sounds like Espionage is a function of the number of agent-turns you have planted in that civilization. Is the number of agent-turns needed for Low/Medium/High espionage dependent on the galaxy size, or is it constant? thanks

38 Replies 22,661 Views

I like the PQ1's. I think it's reasonable for the AI to colonize PQ1's but it depends on his cash flow at the time and the money in the bank, and have that threshold number vary depending on the personality & ethics of the AI. Obviously a neutral AI should colonize a PQ1 post-Xeno-Ethics under any circumstances. Others should colonize it depending on how much short-term impact to their economy it will make, with more aggressive colonizers willing to take a bigger hit to get it.

21 Replies 13,702 Views

Isn't the AI specifically designed to at times behave erratically, like a human player might, making silly mistakes such as unescorted troop ships, etc., though all the while still providing a challenge? Not at Intelligent.

135 Replies 52,094 Views

GC2 has had a *lot* of development time for the AI because the guy who does the AI is also the guy who controls the purse strings. I disagree with this reasoning. You can't have the same guy doing management and also the AI, and expect either to get a good degree of attention.

135 Replies 52,094 Views

Yep, small ships + military starbase is a nice combo, and it's how I win wars where I'm outnumbered & outgunned. Large ships are fine and wonderful when I'm winning the war, but it's the wars I'm losing that really count. Also you can put a starbase on the enemy's turf, so it doesn't HAVE to be entirely defensive. You can slap down a military starbase so it enshrouds the other guy's planets, and use that to take out the orbiters. Then when you invade his planets, you have a military starb

65 Replies 27,160 Views

I think the problem with the AI is two-fold: first, Stardock doesn't have the resources. This needs multiple heads, with experience in Expert Systems and Masters Degree level computer science experience. The second problem is that Galciv2 moves very SLOW as a game. It takes a long time to see if your AI algorithm is going to pan out right. You can't just tweak the build order and get feedback two minutes into the game, like you can with a RTS. So consequently it takes more heads working o

135 Replies 52,094 Views