Unfortunitly, the nature of a startagy game is that no matter how good the aiis, it's still ai

That is probably the key point to be made here. It's the same reason we'll never understand the working of the human brain: if it was simpled enough to understand we would be too simple to understand it.
AI works on the same rules. Artificial remember, not real. A neural net would allow it to learn from it's mistakes, but that just isn't an option. I love this game for the AI, but as I said it really should kill me more than it does, I've clawed a few back thanks to realising one thing or another about it's strategy.

I know how Veblen feels, I used to go through games like that. MMO's last longer, roughly until I hit the final level. I don't like multiplayer myself, because humans are a)often irritating when you beat them b)sometimes gloating when you lose.
Let's face it, this game is getting rave reviews. The AI isn't perfect, nor will it ever be due to the limitations of AI. But it's extremely good.

And as for forums, yes alright they can be slow. Name me one set of gaming forums that a) are always fast and reliable and b)always have the Dev's surfing to look for problems.

I believe the AI in this game is better than the AI that you would see in other games of this nature. However, I do believe that this game is at least 10 times harder for the computer to play than a game like Civ. So far, I believe that Civ III (my old favorite for years) was much harder than this game is now. Aside from the fact that the Civ III AI cheated, I think there are some basic game charactaristics that made a game like civ far easier for the AI than GalCiv.

Without going into great deal, I think one reason is because in GalCiv, all offensive actions are like amphibious assults on Civ III. Let's face it, the huge enemy fleet the computer has in his back pocket isn't worth a whole lot if it can't figure out how to properly coordinate it. It takes a huge amount of planing that a human takes for ganted. Plus, you have the human using cheap tricks like the one lazer ultra-fast cargo hull going around and killing every undefended piece of property the AI owns. BTW, I consider this an exploit and I don't think cargo hulls should be allowed to carry weapons. This is because I think it is too difficult to program the computer to use them in the same mannor. Anyhow, in Civ a neighboring AI just had to do a big bum rush. Didn't take a whole lot of complicated AI, just send in everything you got. Quite simple, but it did pose a chalenge at times. But in Civ, the AI could NEVER coordinate an amphibious assult. Once you had the continent pinned down, you could not be killed militarily.

Transports are the key to this GalCiv. The navy is really nothing more than planet protectors and Transport escorts. Once you get the transports in range, and the orbiting fleet destroyed, it is all over for poor AI. All his nearby ships just stand there stupified. And if they try to chase you, chances are they are on the order of 4 our 5 times slower (I do believe this AI fix is being implemented).

Again, the AI does deserve credit, it has just been given an impossible game for it. I consider its ability to cordinate what would be the equivalant of a Civ III amphibious assult, better than Civ's AI by far. However, so far I haven't seen it be effective consistantly. In fact, it will take a major race eons to even kill a minor sometimes in my experiences. I think getting the AI to value speed more, and be less causious about engauging the enemy will help a bunch. And if they learn to mass their transports and protect them well, then they will actually become threatening.

The other aspect killing the AI is unique ship building. As stated above, the amred transport is too much for the AI. And their combat designs are all over the board. I do give the AI major props for even being able to design a ship to begin with. But I think it just gets so flooded with opponents, that it just loses its mind and shotguns designs. I encounter fleets with any combination of attack and defense. Even single ships with multible forms of defense and attack. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see how multiple defense is a good idea (for a single ship). I look at the same situation the AI sees. Multiple oppenents with every concievable form of attack. My solution is to built the biggest hull available, make it at least three times faster than the enemy and back it with one form of attack. Screw the defense because chances are it isn't going to be used anyhow (33% chance) but my weapons have a 100% chance of being used.

My only true criticism of the AI is it seems very conservative. Maybe I am the exception and not the rule, but I have seen the AI do some stupid things. In my current game, the AI ran circles around an undefended resource starbase before it got the notion to kill it. Also, I was basically able to lead his fleets around like a dog. I had an undefended drone that was faster than his fleet (immagine that) and he just wanted to chase it for some reason. He could have driven into my territory and really caused some damage. His fleets had major hit points, but he just tooled around with them. I would just seek out the weekest fleet and attack. My losses were high, but I could get new fleets to the front line 10 times faster than he could. I ended up wiping out the Yor and the Dregin with one ship design that I kept upgrading.

These are just my experiences while playing on crippling. I find the game very fun even though it is easy. And I do have faith that with enough input, the programers can basically do the AI's learning for them.

Man...you totally sabotaged your reasonable, well written post by ending with that whiny compaint about the forums. "I expect better". Ha. No doubt Stardock feels put in their place.

Anyway, the AI will never compare to a competent human player. This is a fundamental failing with any single player strategy game. Stardock has done a pretty good job. Do I think the military AI could be improved? Sure. Do I think it would be a good use of their time to code algorithms to counter the cargo-hull raider tactic? Not really. I hate "playing with one arm tied behind my back" but I can restrain myself from using a tactic that the AI is so ill equipped to counter. As for the tech-trading, disable minors and resist the temptation to use a race with +50 diplomacy. The tech-whore gig becomes a lot less lucrative.

The stuff like poor planet utilization does kinda irritate me, but Stardock seems to be actively working on the problem and i'm pretty confident that it'll be sorted out in 1.1.

Anyway, just crank the difficulty to suicial. Yeah, you'll probably still win, but it might even be challenging at points.

Cheers

h

When the milk is this sweet why complain about the teat? In other words, the game is fun period. Of course there's going to be some kinks to work out or some rough edges to work around; flaws to live with. But all 'n all, the game satisfies what most strategists hunger for...a fulfilling victory in the end that makes us what to go back and do it all over again!

As for the forums, well, I'm grateful. That's it, I'm simply grateful. No complaints, no flames, no criticisms. Bit of advise, if you want something done right then do it yourself. Seeing that I'm not going to be spending years of my life creating a game that people might enjoy, throwing up a server or two as to where its players can share and relate and be updated on the joys of my creation, then I'm going to just shut my mouth and be grateful.

And if anyone should want to play that, 'Well I paid X-amount of dollars and expect better', card, I can only say how much better did you give your boss today in exchange for that most recent pay check? Oh, and if you don't have a boss, or job, then don't play that card.

Like my uncle once said to me when I was a kid and he was giving me all these quarters to play the arcade and I worried about him spending so much, he asked me, 'did you have fun?'. 'I sure did,' I answered. 'I sure did...'

I'm surprised by the response to my comment about the forums. Haven't you been frustrated by pages timing out, posts not showing up, the site being overloaded? I understand that volume was greater than anticipated, but it's 2006, robust forum code and reliable servers aren't an unknown science.

Not really, considering how much worse the Oblivion (a game and company with a MUCH larger budget) forums are. Quite often unavailable, 4 or 5 script errors on each page (each of which causes a pop-up when I have my browser set to debug code) and search terms limited to words with 5 or more characters (try searching for something like 'pure mage' - unless you put the entire term in quotes, no such luck.

Ok, there's a lot of people saying that the CIv4 AI is bad and the GC2 AI is good and as I long time player of Civ4, I am going to set the record straight:

The AI kicks my butt at Normal. Sorry, your majesty, that you are so great and intelligent that even GalCiv AI can't live up to your lofty expectations. To the guy who said Civ 4's AI is better, that's insane. Even I can beat Civ 4 with lots of players quite a few notches up.

Oh really? A few notches up? Emperor difficulty is extremely hard to win on, there's lot of posts from frustrated people who play tens of games and haven't won on Emperor left. There are two levels higher than Emperor and I think there might be 1-2 people that can win on that level and not nearly all of the time. Contrast that to GC2 where people have been regularly beating Suicidal difficulty within a few days of the games release and never losing a game.

It doesn't allow me to trade very much with it and so restricts what players can do that it takes a cop out.

Yeah, it's called game balance. Civ3 had the same options for trading that GC2 does and it was a disaster just like the trading in GC2 is. I would say the trading in GC2 is worse, trading 50 BC to an AI for 100 BC? Please.

Were the borders put in because they're cool or because they help the computer AI? Does it red-out the techs and other things you can trade for better strategy or because the computer AI is easily exploited?

Actually, red-ing out diplomacy options is one of the best features of diplomacy in Civ4. GC2 is constantly changing the way AI handles trades because it is so broken. GC2 would be a lot more fair if the AI reded-out it's military techs when it first researches them. If you've been at war with someone since the game started, shouldn't they never trade with you? I'm sorry but Civ4 gets the edge here again, being able to trade anything to anyone is not strategy, it is cheese and unbalanced.

NO OTHER game other than GalCiv II has ever had an AI that did the things it does. Messages to player showing that it sees what I'm doing. Flanking my forces. Avoiding some units to get to others. Adapting tactics and strategies.

The 'knows what you are doing' in GC2 isn't very intelligent at all. Every race that is right next to me 'knows what I am doing' eventually. Even though I am not doing anything or just passing through his territory. And if he knows what I am doing, why doesn't he like, stop it? Flanking? Civ4 does that with back door transports and constant raids. I am not sure if the GC2 AI actually flanks at all, it does send a 2 speed fleet with a transport in it to some random part of my empire. But this is 100% of the time completely ineffective, it is not organized at all. GC2 AI never raids, it will hit a freighter if it is in range, that's about it.

And they keep making it better. The game's only been out what? 4 weeks and they keep listening to what we're saying and making it even better! The game already has a trophy room of awards from the original release. That they keep improving it still speaks volumes of the type of people they are.

Awards? Please, you read some reviews from sites that were written when the game was first released. They played what, 1-2 games and can comment on the AI? No, sorry it takes tens of games to get a feel for the AI. "Professional" game reviewers have a deadline, very limited time to play and may not even like the game. They are great at writing summaries and thoughts on the games ideas but not on details like indepth strategy and the AI.

I really like this game, but saying the AI is good or top notch is 'insane'. Only two types of people will claim the AI is good:
1) Those that can't play very well (the AI was great before I started pumping out colony ships fast and grabbing resources and stuff, now the AI stinks to high heaven)
2) Fanboys and people who believe all the 'hype' about the AI in GC2.

And I'm saying this as someone who really, really likes the core game in GC2.

Actually I don't think you can say that the AI is either bad or good. Between the AI's poor ship design, ship movement, fleet creation, troop transport protection, research path, planet improvements, starbases, targeting, etc, etc, etc I can't tell if the underlying AI is actually good or not. But I can say this, the AI in GC2 never tries to win the game (it does it on accident more than anything) or tries to suprise attack and that in itself shows that the AI needs a lot of work.

Sorry I'm not more constructive, but I am waiting my criticism until the next major patch. The original poster covered on a lot of the major flaws in the AI and it's all 100% correct.

Oh and lastly, I always refer people who claim the AI is good to this thread:
https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=346&AID=106940#837265
The only people who say the AI is pretty good admit that they aren't very good at playing the game and some say that the AI suprised them but they still won fairly easily.

Maybe Stardock should put in a difficulty level of 'impossible' where the AI doesn't act so human like and doesn't amke mistake.

Anyway, for the record, I like to say I have no regrets in buying this game. It is one of the most fun game I had in a while and I'm a hardcore gamer playing things from Mario Sunshine, Resident Evil to Halo and Oblivion. Unfortunately, I've been sick of FPS, and wargames and the like.

*shrug* maybe it's just because I'm not very good at this game, at all.

I really like this game, but saying the AI is good or top notch is 'insane'. Only two types of people will claim the AI is good: 1) Those that can't play very well (the AI was great before I started pumping out colony ships fast and grabbing resources and stuff, now the AI stinks to high heaven) 2) Fanboys and people who believe all the 'hype' about the AI in GC2.

What you fail to take into account when comparing GalCiv II's AI to Civ4's AI is that GalCiv's AI doesn't cheat. The only help it gets is more money at higher levels. Now, I don't claim to know very much about Civ4's AI, but I doubt anyone will contend that Civ4's AI doesn't cheat. Of course it will be extremely easy for the AI to beat human players when it gets bonuses that the human player doesn't. You can't confuse game difficulty with the Intelligence of the AI. You can have the dumbest AI win every time just by giving it more money, research bonuses, extra units, more skilled units, or any number of bonuses that the human players don't get. On the other hand, you can have the brilliant, non-cheating AI of GalCiv II lose every time to a skilled player, simply because a human can out-think the computer every time. Given the equality of the resources available to the human and AI, a human can strategize better than any AI you can create today. Your reasoning that Civ4 has better AI because it is harder is very flawed.

Interesting thread.

I just played my first game on suicidal and I won. Before anyone thinks I'm bragging, it was a tiny map head to head against the Torians (random choice). I won a cultural victory in just a little over 1 year.

I had never played a game above Tough and frankly, this was just a quick game that I fully expected to lose. At the end I was ahead in every category except population. I suppose you could say that whatever advantages they have are not used very well. One thing that stands out is their low taxes. Mine averaged over 60% and theirs were just a tad over 40%.

It is all good imo. I am pleased to be able to beat even one opponent at the highest level but I have no doubt that I would probably get my ass handed to me if I went against 3-4. At least I am encouraged to try.

Thanks for the feedback. Some interesting points were brought up. In retrospect, I may have been amiss in casting a dire air to my summary of the game. I do think things will get better in future patches; I agree with the many who commented that the forecast is more hopeful than not, thanks to the ongoing commitment by the developers.

Perhaps I could have better elucidated the essence of what I'm trying to say. I don't think the game is without merit, but it can't quite stand on its own yet, like a house with a few key supports removed. The joy of a strategy game is this constant tension with ones opponents, the land-grab, the maneuvering, the deliberate struggle to gain an advantage and then press it home. This results in a deep and nuanced optimization exercise that is, however, fragile; if the game mechanics or the AI allow for the human to exploit predictable oversights, the careful balancing act can lose its depth and become one dimensional.

I'm a little jealous of those of you who have fought these really challenging, edge-of-your-seat games. In my games, it's become somewhat of a formula. Aggressive tech trading in the beginning and middle to finance rapid expansion; a period of massive constructor build-up, with some raiders and sensor ships; build all attractive wonders, especially eyes of the universe--raiders now have 20-30 movement AND 15 sensor range, yielding a huge permanent advantage in reconnaissance; production, population, treasury, and research ranking at #1 or #2; cut out one of your smellier neighbors from your tech trading club (they rapidly fall behind) while switching all planets from constructors to troop transports and fast attack small or medium hull ships; start killing people. It's like I'm pushing the game at the weakest points and missing the tastiest part of the AI, like this soft, creamy center that you can only get to if you play a little carelessly.

The gameplay gets good, or so I read in many of your comments, when the computer is really pushing back. I haven't had that yet; I think a big part of it is that I'm stealing the lead in the first twenty turns with an aggressive tech trade strategy. So, in a very real way I'm deliberately making the AI less challenging by using what is perhaps a loophole, and then coming here to complain.

I'm aware of that. There's another way of seeing it, though, if you'll humor me. The net complexity of what is required for "accurate" play is an indispensible part of the game experience for me. A few significant problems with the AI, such as I mentioned in the original post, have the same effect as an unwanted hole in a parachute. A few problems bring the whole system crashing down. When the human player is faced with a decision, and one option is consistently and clearly more advantageous than the others, then the other options, these suboptimal branches of the strategy space, don't get explored (at least in "accurate' play). The game becomes more like tic-tac-toe than chess.

That's where I feel GalCiv2 is at right now. It isn't yet comple, but it may be close--and if the holes are skillfully sewn up, it just might be great. I suppose there's nothing to do but wait for the next few patches... and maybe try a game on suicidal without tech trading to pass the time.

I recently completed a game (1.1B, huge map, 9 opponents, tough)

I am wondering: why people are thinking that bigger map means a more challenging experience? A bigger map means more planets to grab, longer trade routes, more minable ressources, greater distance between home world, more chance to reach high technologies before entering war with a normal technology rate.

Why not try a medium map, 9 opponent set at intelligent level with a low settings on habitable planets. If technology is so unbalancing (since it allows to have fast raiders), why not play the game in a setting where technology will grow slower, even at the same technological rate in the starting option?

Haven't you been frustrated by pages timing out, posts not showing up, the site being overloaded? I understand that volume was greater than anticipated, but it's 2006, robust forum code and reliable servers aren't an unknown science.

I've never had a problem with these forums and I check them at least twice a day.

Trying going for a cultural or diplomatic victory. It's much harder. Blowing things up, like in real life, is always much easier.