A good AI means excellent replayability. A crappy AI means you are dependant on human opponents.

A good AI is one of the main reasons I played GalCiv II. Really and when I talk to others about the game its one of my main selling points. Looks like you are making good progress on it too, looking forward to seeing it in the next few patches!

Rincewind57

reply 15

One worry I have. Can we have an option somewhere to change AI based on map size, or have this implemented automatically? I'm wondering what percentage of players will play (and more importantly finish) an insane 128-player map. I tend to favour small maps and I'm worried that trade-offs will be chosen to suit a small percentage of players on insane maps, where more complex AI would work fine on the smaller maps.

In general map size worries me. I've posted before that the AI still emphasizes range techs on tiny maps, where you need perhaps the first range tech to cover the entire map. This sounds trivial but in a close game having the AI research ten useless techs is a big problem. Also wonders like the Spin Control Center in GalCiv2 were incredibly powerful on small maps but much less so on large maps, with no balance or AI changes accounting for this.

 

TL:DR: I understand the enormous potential size is a selling point for the game. However, what percentage of players are estimated to ever use it to completion? And, if this is large, will it have a significant impact on players that prefer small map sizes?

 

Thanks  

To try and summarize things I have heard:

You don't really want an AI that will be different for different size maps, or different abundancies of resources, opponents, whatever.  You want an AI that has some sort of awareness of map size, abundancies, whatever, what effects those differences have, and the ability to react to those conditions accordingly.  At least that is how the devs seem to be looking at it, and I see their point.  It is part of what they call an "honest AI", one that doesn't have to be told things it shouldn't know, doesn't have to be scripted to given actions. It just plays the game the best it can.  I can't see them putting any throttle or chokes on the AI for map size.  All the devs know that the AI will constantly and greedily eat up cycles.  They just have to get it working and then optimize it later to reduce inefficiencies.  There have already been optimizations, but they also released the insane map sizes, so it can be hard to notice the optimization.  They warn that insane means insane, not just for complexity, but for load. 

So, in many ways, you should be able to look at your smaller maps as the actual norm for the AI, where it has plenty of time to do all its decisions while you take endless microseconds trying to make up your organic mind.  Then the larger maps are just that same AI stretched out a bit, until you get to Insane.  That is just insane, and I wouldn't really expect them to design to it.  Design everything so it works pretty well there, too...  That I think they are actively working on. 

Anyway, that's what I see happening.  If I am way off base, someone will gladly correct me.

Thanks for the update Brad - I have great confidence in you, Paul and the team to pull together a balance of intelligent strategy & performance. On the comment from Larsenex re uncommon planets, I found the same thing when playing a Huge map. So many great planets that I thought I had mistakenly picked Common or Abundant (was not the case). Was pretty cool but was a bit much for the Uncommon setting.

Cheers,

Zoo

I don't really understand what could possibly be interesting about 128 computer players. They can't have unique identities or AIs. My experience with Civ games has been that once you get a machine down that can survive your biggest threat, you can mechanically overcome one, two, twenty civilizations without changing your tactics. 128 players would work if the basic productive unit of your civ was the vassal, not the planet. I guess Europa Universalis has 128 players, but you are not expected to expand over the whole world and they have their own characteristic alliances, storylines, and religions.

This is broadly good news - a few suggestions though:

You mentioned that there is a tradeoff between stable/smooth performance, AI, map size, etc, for a given PC. Let players make that tradeoff...

Allow players to choose if the AI cheats - almost as a performance setting. In a similar way to the way we currently configure graphics settings based on what card we have, allow players to configure the AI based on their PC. Literally just add a new section in the game setup window, like choosing a map size. Choose AI "intelligence" - making it clear to the player that higher AI settings require beefier PC's - and that a high AI setting on a gigantic map is likely to result in big performance issues. You can even make suggestions based on detected PC hardware - ie if the player sets the AI to genius, and has 4GB ram and a basic quad core processor, then when they go to choose a map size you can warn them to choose a small map, in the same way many other games warn you if you set the graphics to ridiculous levels and have a shitty graphics card. 

I mean, while its many people's dream to play 128 players in an immense map, with exceptional AI, any realistic gamer will realise that sacrifices must be made. Personally, I'd rather play against 8 very smart AI that don't cheat on a medium or slightly larger size map, than play 128 cheating AI on an insanely sized map. But im sure many people will disagree, so let them make that choice.

----

Sorry, to be clear:

"building (roughly) 50% factories + 50% research/wealth buildings on basically any planet over class 12 and then building research/wealth project"

I guess I just find it stupid that the "jack of all trades master of none" strategy is the best at each point in the game. 

Its best early, because early on factories are essential to expansion and building other tiles quickly, so you need them anyways. So you fill up roughly half the tiles with those. By this point every other building is 1 per turn. So maybe 5-10 turns later, you have a "complete" planet. Build farms to keep pop less than max pop. 

Midgame, its still the best, because by this point your 50%/50% planets will actually produce more research/wealth than a 100% focused planet. And you'll reach midgame faster since you started researching - rather than producing, much earlier. 2-3 tech planets will get you at 1 turn techs permanently, with 2 researching and 1 upgrading at any given time. 1-2 wealth planets will keep your funds in order.

By lategame, one high-class planet doing 50/50 will produce all the tech you need to hit 1 turn techs at the top end of the tree. At this point you'll probably want to start replacing more of these with farms, but typically you are a LONG way ahead by this point.

The equations need to be adjusted - no planetary building strategy should be flat out superior across each point of time within the game. 

One last thing - as it stands right now resources are pretty insane - particularly the value the AI places on them.

AI will trade a resource for a low-level tech, which is crazy. I usually just go and trade away half my early-game tech with the AI just to bag all the earlygame resources, which leave you with huge bonuses across the board. At the very least, the AI needs to value resources far more. That said...

The resource trading probably needs to be implemented civ-5 style - ie not a 1-off trade, but more of an ongoing trading relationship. Ie cash for resource, resource for resource, etc. Declaring war should probably negate all existing deals. Would be cool if you had to send freighters between the 2 planets (buyer/seller) to keep the trade going. I realise this is more the role played by Thulium, Durantium, etc - but right now the 1 off trade feels a little odd. 

I love how you are rewarding acquisition of space-based resources though with prototype parts and more support options. Great idea.

Maybe consider super-buildings/wonders based on resources too? Ie a super-factory that requires durantium, the antimatter power plant requiring... antimatter. Etc

Anyways, me done for the night. Really enjoying Beta5 patch 2!

I want AI may execute sneak attack from fog of war onto human players . Maybe I want too much   And please report the campaign story of the game on the near future as GalCiv is the only tbs space game has a campaign I know   I really wonder what will be  the story . Take Earth back! (Maybe I played so much Mass Effect)

they mentioned some of the campaign in the most recent dev stream 4/10/15 i believe

- For the range tech I think the number of squares covered should proportional to the map size.    This way if a Ion engine can cover 1% of a large map, it should cover 1% of a tiny map so that the feel of the game would be the same.  Crossing from one corner to the other would take several moves.

- With the A.I as it is now, if I have a planet that is about to rebel and join another civilization and I am unable to reverse this with approval/influence modules, I find I can sell this planet for a huge weekly sum to a civilization. I usually pick the most powerful one to crash their economy.

When a planet is about to rebel to join a civilization, then that civilization should be aware they are about to get it for free.  (Not the other civilizations), so I should still be able to sell them that rebel world.

- On a large map, sometimes when I click on a starbase, the "to build" list will not display what I have selected right away. It takes quite a while to display.

Its just Windows 7, Steam and GC3, nothing else is running that is using notable memory.

I think I may have missed something I was really interested in, this chat about the AI, but I'll ask my questions anyway.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of the game is war itself, designing your own ships and making changes to the weapons and defensive tech placed on your ships can make the difference between dominating the enemy or a long drawn out sluggfest, I prefer to counter the AI payload with as an example point defense on my ships if the enemy is using Missle attacks, and the use of Beam weapons to counter that tech.

What I miss is your ability to actually "See" the enemy when he's in your territory, I can have my area of effect completely covered with Starbases, yet they can sit right next to you and not be seen until they move, makes me nuts at times, you should be able to set up a surveillance net and see what's going on, the AI can certainly see everything.

The big issue I have is the frustration of not being able to set an offensive or defensive mode for my ships, the AI certainly has that capability, but ships are USELESS unless I give a direct order to attack, and god forbid that you have to complete a turn....you order attack.....the enemy moves one space and your ships sit there deaf dumb and blind....there is NO PLAYER AI for your ships, trying to War at this point is an excercise in frustration, your ships should be able to see the enemy and attack or defend thier territory, adding the weight of sensors to your ships is pointless other than from a "Moves available" point, they can see an enemy fleet but have no ability to do anything with the information, I have been so frustrated at times that I have thrown away a great game that I have 40 hours in because the ability to manage a war was useless.....that just turned enjoyable to throw this away and start over, not much of an incentive to keep playing a game if only half the game works.

That's my biggest gripe at this point, I keep asking myself why I keep starting games, I personally hate Online Gaming, I gave it up years ago because of the nonsense that starts after a while, unless I'm playing against a friend I know, I just don't do it anymore, I have better things to do with my time, it usually boils down to who can rush the quickest, I can't think of anything in gaming that's less enjoyable anymore....been there and done that, pointless and not what I find fun anymore.

A game with a good AI that "Thinks" is a lot more fun than a human with one pointless objective, end the game.

I've been building my own custom gaming systems since 1992, so I'm no dummy when it comes to gaming, I'm personally good at making battle maps that use AI and have won awards from gaming companies in the past, 1st place from EA games for the Command and Conquer Generals series, Zero Hour.

Just before Stormregion the developer was bought, I got to be good friends with the producer and we swapped ideas, I would turn out maps that were made for the Code Name Panzers Series I and II games, the producer enjoyed my mission maps because of the complexity of the scripts I wrote for the AI and the detail I put into the terrain and locations in my maps, I was offered a job by them to work on the Code Name Panzers III game that was just starting development at the time, then they were sold and the new developer destroyed the game by releasing their "own" version.....a total and complete flop, they broke the magic of the original game....turned out a total loser....a mistake I have seen repeated over and over by gaming companies, they break what works.

If it wasn't for the reputation you guy's have for "Sticking with it", I would never have purchased this version of the game, so far I love it, amazing in a lot of ways...but the main reason for buying the game is BROKEN right now....in fact it's not broken...it's missing.

PLEASE give me a battle AI....I'm pleading with you.

I'm sure you'll enrich the other aspects of the game, so I'm not worried about that part, that part of the game is working well enough for now, but that's where my fun stops.

I have yet to complete a game that I have over 100 hours invested in, all because I just stop playing after a while, it stops being fun to play past the Ascension Phase of the game, and that's where it should be cranking up the fun for the time I have invested.

Please give me a reason to keep playing, Galactic Civ 1 and II are still a blast, so far Civ III is amazing, but it's turning into a "Why Play" this game for me, a time burner that brings no satisfaction for the time invested....I'm past the point of this is fun now.

Please save it for me if you can, without a Battle AI for my ships...there's no point in playing anymore.

Thanks for what will be an amazing game, I hope.

Gonzoguns

"The analytics on strategy games show that most people don’t really appreciate good AI..."

- oh ffs!!  Most people don't REALLY appreciate anything other than 'junk that mess you up'.  Focus on what ought to be made, and do not go by what most people say.  I feel sometimes that civilization has been barely held together through all of history by a few determined people going particularly and exactly AGAINST the current generated by the people at large. [And that's what makes analytics useless to civilization.]

But basically an insightful post, mr Frogboy

The only ai worth having in a game is absolutely hardcore and powerful one. Which will play without mercy to humans. If someone can't stand the heat then they should go and play japanese date sims. Or choose a smaller difficulty in GC3