Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.

Over on the GalCiv III Steam page, I asked players to post their saved games so I could check them out.  And what I've been finding has been amazing and horrifying simultaneously.

image

Players are able to do things that I wouldn't have thought of.  This is why saved games are so valuable.  Many times I get feedback from players who say "The AI needs to do X" and my answer is, "well of course, it already does that!" But there is some other thing that it has decided needs to be done instead and the trick is to find out why.  That's where save games come in.

image

IceMania sent me a genius game where he's kicking the AI's butt.

Looking at the stats, the things I'm noticing is how aggressive (and how powerful) the relics are.  Not over-powered just  that he was good at getting them.

Now, let's look at the AI players...

The biggest difference I see is the # of citizens.  Human players tends to be much more aggressive at acquiring citizens than the AI. In this game, the player has acquired 13 citizens by turn 61.

Here is an AI player on the same turn:

image

Look at that production difference.

Another big area I'm seeing is that top players are extremely good at expanding.  Seeing players with over 10 colonies in 60 turns makes me a bit sad because it means that we still haven't done enough to reward playing tall.

I'll be updating this entry as I go through more saves...


Comments
on Oct 31, 2018

Well what's your point? What diffuculty are talking about?

 

The production doesn't mean anything because at higher difficulties the ai has 4 times the production and tech progress than player. And the ai acts differently based on what difficulty and game settings we're talking about.

 

Yes, the ai is stupid for many reasons and at some point during the game you can just feel that "okay I've won" and playing the rest of the game is very determined.

 

What I have noticed is that the ai doesn't kill starbases or shipyards hardly ever. I can run a constructor in the heart of their home space, build a fortified military ring there and fly my ships around it. It attacks the fleets but not the starbase.

 

 

on Oct 31, 2018

The AI used to attack EVERYTHING it could. Now, it just goes straight for planets and ships.

on Nov 01, 2018

Have you guys considered importing some of the races from your new Star Control game in as DLC civs for Gal Civ III?   You've got the animations for the leaders done, which I'd imagine to be the most expensive bit.   Just slap on a few paragraphs of lore and some custom ships and starbases and you'd have a new faction.

on Nov 02, 2018

Nilfiry

The AI used to attack EVERYTHING it could. Now, it just goes straight for planets and ships.

True, it rarely attacks starbases.  But when it does, an upgraded starbase with a couple generation's worth of tech in front of the AI and the starbase is gone...
I remember at some point, after a patch/DLC, the starbases were near indestructible...  I think a little buff in their durability might be enjoyable. 

 

At equal technological strengh, maybe it would require a lot of ships to destroy a military base, less for mining bases.  Or maybe military bases could get a special ring to upgrade their durability.

on Nov 02, 2018

implodinggoat

Have you guys considered importing some of the races from your new Star Control game in as DLC civs for Gal Civ III?   You've got the animations for the leaders done, which I'd imagine to be the most expensive bit.   Just slap on a few paragraphs of lore and some custom ships and starbases and you'd have a new faction.

DLC has been confirmed for this by one of the devs on discord.

 

on Nov 04, 2018


Over on the GalCiv III Steam page, I asked players to post their saved games so I could check them out.  And what I've been finding has been amazing and horrifying simultaneously.

I don't have save game available to show you something about diplomacy, but I'll try to describe it as best as it can: it's kinda broken.

Imho, an Alliance implies you have open borders and non agression pact.  But right now, if you have good enough relations with a race, you can offer them Alliance + Non Agression Pact + Open Borders + Research treaty + Cultural Alliance , etc  and they will all stack up, giving you a better deal for techs or money.

that is an exploit.

I think that the way it should work is a) you get an Open Border treaty and once relations are good enough and that treaty is expired, you can either renew it or expande to a non agression pact.  Not both.  Non agression pact implies your ships can freely travel through one's border, not just that you'll stay on each side of the border and look at each other with googly eyes.  IRL, it could be a strech, but for the purpose of gaming, I think it's acceptable.


In the same vein, If you are allied, it's implicit that you have open borders and non agression pact. What's the point of being allied if you don't want to use each other's territory and line of sight?  I could envision alliance being harder to achieve to compensate that they give more.

And when we are discussing research/trade/cultural agreements, while having one does not preclude the other, right now, it's way too easy to exchange this for multiple techs from the AI as they all stack.  I think, right now, it could be that the first of these trade you offer gives you a certain benefit, but when you stack others, they give less&less return value.

 

Just making it harder to get something from the AI could create an handicap to diplomacy, but at the same time, leaving it like this is way too easy once you start investing in diplomacy instead of weapons right away.

 

 

on Nov 04, 2018

<SNIP>

Another big area I'm seeing is that top players are extremely good at expanding.  Seeing players with over 10 colonies in 60 turns makes me a bit sad because it means that we still haven't done enough to reward playing tall.
I'll be updating this entry as I go through more saves...

Some possibilities:

Instead of having xenophobic reduce military construction, perhaps you should have it vastly increase the cost of the colony module (maybe even increase it's administrative cost), and possible give it more terraforming techs so that they can grow, you know, taller.   

By not reducing military, you give them a chance to build a large enough fleet to keep the few planets they have from being conquered.

Balance could be a problem if they turn conquistador, you might have to give their troops a defensive bonus and an offensive penalty, possibly even make their transports more expensive.

Another possibility could be to make the research and social bonuses be for only so many planets (adjusted for galaxy size).

 

 

on Nov 05, 2018

I just noticed that Frogboy's version says Intrigue 3.1.  I have the base game with the Intrigue DLC on Steam and the most current release is 3.05.

Are the Dev's holding out on us?  Playing favorites?  Sucking up to the Boss?    

on Nov 05, 2018

scifi1950

I just noticed that Frogboy's version says Intrigue 3.1.  I have the base game with the Intrigue DLC on Steam and the most current release is 3.05.

Are the Dev's holding out on us?  Playing favorites?  Sucking up to the Boss?    

Frogboy is likely using a development version not yet released to the public.

Latest official is 3.05.

on Nov 13, 2018


Another big area I'm seeing is that top players are extremely good at expanding.  Seeing players with over 10 colonies in 60 turns makes me a bit sad because it means that we still haven't done enough to reward playing tall.

As much as playing tall shouldn't automatically be penalised, this is a game where you have ludicrously massive galaxies with literally hundreds of stars, each of which is surrounded by multiple planets (at least in my games where I crank everything up to abundant) and the objective is to create a star empire/potentially conquer the galaxy (which in my games is populated by like 30+ other factions). Most of those planets have juicy bonuses that if I don't get 'em, the AI will!

Plus, it's the second 'X'!

As the gameplay currently stands, it does feel like playing wide gets penalised tho, with administrators and commonwealths and such. Maybe I just need to git gud. ):

on Nov 16, 2018

IMHO, there is enough penalties for playing wide.  Huge map, hundreds of planets to colonize, dozens of races.  Government 4 colonies.  If you play Karyn home world, 3 of your 4 are gone.  Oh research governments you say, great, now I have 12.  How about eliminating home system colonies, hey Mars, from colony limit?  And adjusting government limits by map size.

on Nov 16, 2018

lordduzi

IMHO, there is enough penalties for playing wide.  Huge map, hundreds of planets to colonize, dozens of races.  Government 4 colonies.  If you play Karyn home world, 3 of your 4 are gone.  Oh research governments you say, great, now I have 12.  How about eliminating home system colonies, hey Mars, from colony limit?  And adjusting government limits by map size.

colony limits should be calculated by systems, imho, not individual planets.