do agree though that if you can consistently win at sucidal medium 9 opponents, you probably are doing something cheesy....

>>>

To put it bluntly, bull. I am doing nothing cheesy. I even avoid some thing such as Xeno Ethics and Neutrality centers because that makes it too easy. I have a plan, and act on it. Most of the time it works, sometimes it doesn't. Tech trading off would probably make the early game a bit easier, because I avoid the Translater Tech until after the first war is over. That way no demands are made on me, and less chance of them starting a war instead of me starting it. The mid game would be harder, because I often sell techs for cash. Rarely, do I actually trade for techs. Most of them are gotten by invading and winning. Sometimes I use harsh invasion tactics (eg mass drivers, gas warfare) but that is well within the scope and spirit of the game.

Nine opponents on a medium map actually is easier than say six. The reason is that with nine each AI only gets 3 to 5 planets. An AI with 8 or more is difficult to digest, 4 or less makes it very easy. They don't have time to pull in allies, and their huge fleets turn to dust when the last planet falls.

The deal about AI knowing about planets is that I see them turn around when a planet that they have not seen is colonized. I am 90% this is true. The reason they sometimes avoid planets is kind of another bug with each colony ship assigned one planet, and it is not always the closest ship that takes the nicest planet.

A human player can use auto-attack to eliminate some of the fog of war. Risky, because you don't know what kind of ship, fleet or base you will attack, but it will find the enemy for you. I am 90% sure that the AI has a similar function to automatically find empty habitable planets. It is similar to the auto-survey that I use all the time, but it is auto find planets. If they want to add that button for human players I would be fine with it.

Too many colony ships early is stupid. No one can convince me otherwise, when every AI ends up with a pile of extra colony ships at turn 30 (on the highest level). There is a balance here. Ten empty planets doesn't mean every AI should build 10 colony ships (which is the current situation).

I agree with Tiger8 about the AI doing things which seem to make no sense. It's my only complaint about the game (which I love!). It just doesn't make sense to have, for example, multiple anomolies still around enemy homeworlds after a couple game years have passed...or planets without a factory, etc. It's hard to be competitive if your economy and production is based on planets without factories and economic capitals without a stock market.

There is no doubt the game improves constantly with the patches, and I've especially noticed that the Drengin AI has dramatically improved in the area of protecting its own starbases and planets (probably the others have too). But I do hope we will see some improvements in the areas mentioned, it would make the AI's game MUCH more effective and also help to quiet the people who think it's "too easy".

One more thing: an AI with a mid-game military rating of 0 is the equivalent of being a cold beer on Super Bowl Sunday and expecting to make it 'til Monday.

To put it bluntly, bull. I am doing nothing cheesy.

followed by:

I avoid the Translater Tech until after the first war is over. That way no demands are made on me, and less chance of them starting a war instead of me starting it.

Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm - but that is a nailed on exploit!

Hi!

(AI) exploit of knowing where the habitable planets are before their scouts arrive

In my recent masochistic game I saw a Yor colonizer flying past a class 13 and 11 planets (and some smaller ones), and heading to a system 2 sectors further, in the very corner. OFC I checked what's going on. Guess what was in that system? A purple star with a class 26 planet. I had at that time very good scan on that corner and its surrounding, and there was no other ship of Yor present. There were no other yor's colonizers heading to those smaller planets, just two early colonizers that hit that class 26 planet and another small planet nearby.

Explanation? None. Well, an improbable one: Yor's Explorer got a wormhole to the edge, another one out of the edge.
Educated guess: some AIs (Arceans were the first neighbour and didn't try to take that planet, Yor were ~2 sectors further away) "cheats" on maso even more.

BR, Iztok

??
How is avoiding getting demands an exploit. That is a valid tactic and a clever one I've never thought to use. I'm curious as to how broad your definition of 'exploit' is. Seems there is some grand order of gameplay you are required to follow, otherwise it's an exploit.

How is avoiding getting demands an exploit.

You get demands, you either have to stump up cash or tech, or you refuse and make relations worse. Avoiding one of the most basic things on the tech tree to get away without paying...sounds like an exploit to me.

Too many colony ships early is stupid. No one can convince me otherwise

Depends on the map. The reason I get nowhere on suicidal, gigantic, no tech trading is because I get utterly destroyed in the colony rush by the AI production and economy bonuses. In any case, colony ships cost less than 150BC. That's absolute peanuts in the long run compared to the benefit you get from colonising even a low class planet.

How is avoiding getting demands an exploit. That is a valid tactic and a clever one I've never thought to use. I'm curious as to how broad your definition of 'exploit' is. Seems there is some grand order of gameplay you are required to follow, otherwise it's an exploit.

It's an exploit of a flawed game mechanic. If a race such as the Drengin discover a weak neighbour, their programmed behaviour means they should make demands and relations will decrease followed by attack if they are not met. By you not researching Universal Translator, the game mechanic prevents the AI from following their normal behaviour, and allows you to build up unmolested.

"Oh, sorry Mr. Drengin, we can't understand what you are demanding from us"

"Err, OK then, we'll come back in a couple of years when you've had a chance to build a nice big fleet or two"

It is probably one of the cheesiest exploits going (and was in GC1 aswell).

I have had civs declare war before I get the translator tech. The only hole in the picture is that the AIs don't demand anything. So mea culpa, if that is an exploit. So how early or late is getting the tech not an exploit? Someone clearly draw the line. Turn one? Turn 20? Like I said, I usually get it after the first war is over, or about turn 35 or so. It is extremely useful for seeing how many planets and what techs the AI has. Is this use an exploit? Or is it in the spirit of the game?

Is getting the first propulsion tech and making a four move colony ship on turn two another exploit? Or is that just intelligent play? Is researching the techs to make a four move, 1 attack tiny ship an exploit? I think not, but to my mind is no more or less so than a slight delay in getting translator tech. Is building lots of tiny military ships early an exploit? It sure makes the AI respect you a lot more.

I tried a game with tech trading off. I think this game was a lot EASIER than with trading on. The poor AI was fighting with attack level 6 in mid game, when they usually have 20+ attack ratings, and defense to boot. My 1 atk tiny ships were still useful in fleet battles--never happened with tech trading on. Maybe turning tech trading off is another exploit, because it sure makes suicidal easier (at least for one game).

Also, like I said having five opponents makes the game quite a bit harder than having nine on a medium map. Is having nine opponents an exploit or just a preference for style of play? I would say it makes the AI a lot less competitive on a medium and even most large maps at the highest levels.

Let me add that the delay in getting translator tech comes with a cost. The biggest cost is that a player can not get the first morale tech without the translator tech. To me that is a trade off, more so than an exploit. The second big cost is the inability to speak with the other players, to see how many planets they have (very valuable intelligence for my style of play), and see what techs they have (again very valuable). A person could could argue this is more of a trade off than an exploit. No morale tech available (worth a lot), no intelligence gathering (worth a lot), in exchange for no demands (also worth a lot). Again, draw the line, what turn do I have to get the tech to avoid being labeled an exploiter?

Now if a player goes the entire game without getting the tech and waits until they capture a higher tech to move up the tech tree, I would certainly rate that as an exploit.

Depends on the map. The reason I get nowhere on suicidal, gigantic, no tech trading is because I get utterly destroyed in the colony rush by the AI production and economy bonuses. In any case, colony ships cost less than 150BC. That's absolute peanuts in the long run compared to the benefit you get from colonising even a low class planet.

>>>

What game are you playing? It cost 900+ credits to rush a colony ship. Again, what I am looking for is some semblance of balance. The current algorithm seems to have every AI build colony ships as long as there are empty planets. 50 empty planets? On the highest level that means every AI builds about 40 colony ships (and they can too!).

A more reasonable algorithm would divide the number of AIs by the number of planets maybe multiply by 1.5 to 2.0, and maybe have each of the nine AIs build 8 to 12 colony ships or about 100 total for the fifty empty slots, instead of 360 ships being built for 50 available planets (the current situation on suicidal).

They will almost as quickly fill every available planet, but won't have the idiocy of 30 extra colony ships per AI. Once in a great while one or two of the AIs will cede one or two planets to another player (usually another computer player). This is tiny compared with the waste of having dozens of extra colony ships.

Hi,

This is an interesting discussion. To say of not researching the universal translator, "It's an exploit of a flawed game mechanic", is surprising. It makes me wonder, how many other techs does the human have to get that the AI doesn't, in order for the human not be exploiting? Surely if the Drengin need to extort credts or tech from me that badly, it's their job to research their own Universal Translator? My having to provide it for them so that they can threaten me seems like too much to ask somehow.

That's the thing though. If they have it and you don't, you still can't talk to them.

Quixotecoyote, are you sure? When I have the universal translator, and another race doesn't, I'm able to talk to them. I can tell when this happens, because I'm able to sell them the tech. If the Drengin have it but cannot use it, I think that would be a serious bug that would have been fixed long ago.

I agree with Tiger8 about the AI doing things which seem to make no sense. It's my only complaint about the game (which I love!). It just doesn't make sense to have, for example, multiple anomolies still around enemy homeworlds after a couple game years have passed...or planets without a fac

I have the impression the developers won't care if there are 'weird things happening , if you are playing at extreme difficulty levels , because they don't play test at that level. Supposedly some of the things that work gets distorted once the AI gets crazy bonuses, though why this happens is beyond me.

Some of the things you guys are reporting, I have never seen happen at tough.. Like excessive 30+ colony ships that are useless.

Similarly, your complains about Ai will ignored if you play below tough.

They will run out of excuses though if you tell them you play at Tough, medium map 9 opponents.

An old trick in Civ II was to build up a huge industrial city, let the squares around it become horribly polluted, but use stacks of engineers to continually "fix" the polluted tiles so it never became a problem, and churn out high-cost military units every turn (compare this to one planet churning out a Dreadnought every single turn).

This is not an exploit. This is having specialist planets. When I first read the Blurb about GC2 a long time ago, The idea behind having a set number of tiles/spaces on each planet was to encourage us to create production / research / financial worlds rather than having a broad range of worlds that are mediocre in everything.

I believe that a smarter AI is not something that the majority of players want. I think it would actually turn off 20% of potential customers and only gain maybe 5%.

I'm not sure I agree with your stats Tiger8. I beleive the majority of people who play this sort of game are intellectual or consider themselves to be so. The idea of such people retreating from a 'challenge' is pretty slim. If you swap the percentages over, I might be inclined to agree with you.

They claimed that the AI without cheating at 'tough' would be unwinnable for all but the top 5 percentile of gamers!

.
This was merely conjecture and this has not changed. Just because a statement is made by someone we respect, does not make it a fact. I beleive the figure to be a lot higher due to the type of people attracted to turn based strategy, closet meglomaniacs included. If asked I'd say over a third of the players can beat tough, but this is conjecture too so take it with a pinch of salt.

plus their exploit of knowing where the habitable planets are before their scouts arrive

I agree with meglobob, In too many games Ive manged to land better planets that the AI while going for the same star system, because I'd investigated the area before the AI.

And finally: Do I think the game is easy? Yes, but for the wrong reasons. Poor AI planet management allows me to remain playing on the highest levels. I've started my first suicidal game - Large , abundant, nine opponents. I've a tiny tiny portion of the galaxy, but I'm not worried. I think I'll win it. Is playing with less opponents harder? If so, i'll give it a go. As for the use of cheesy exploits? Nope, wouldn't use them as it would kill off the FUN factor

AI planet management: Would it be possible to turn this particular Algorithm off (Until you have a decent one??) and give it a set build list for 60% of the tiles on all non capital worlds? If this was done then I think I might have a serious problem playing on Masochistic and above due to the 200% bonus.

What game are you playing? It cost 900+ credits to rush a colony ship. Again, what I am looking for is some semblance of balance. The current algorithm seems to have every AI build colony ships as long as there are empty planets. 50 empty planets? On the highest level that means every AI builds about 40 colony ships (and they can too!).

Who says they're rush buying colony ships? Even with 100% economy bonus they couldn't turn out colony ships as fast as they do without building most of them.

I tried a game with tech trading off. I think this game was a lot EASIER than with trading on. The poor AI was fighting with attack level 6 in mid game, when they usually have 20+ attack ratings, and defense to boot. My 1 atk tiny ships were still useful in fleet battles--never happened with tech trading on. Maybe turning tech trading off is another exploit, because it sure makes suicidal easier (at least for one game).

LOL! So...the AI has more planets than you, a 100% research bonus AND a 100% economy bonus to pay for it and yet not one of them outresearched you? You are either extremely lucky or so incredibly good at the game the AI will never, ever be able to touch you.

Snip. Double post.

Quixotecoyote, are you sure? When I have the universal translator, and another race doesn't, I'm able to talk to them. I can tell when this happens, because I'm able to sell them the tech. If the Drengin have it but cannot use it, I think that would be a serious bug that would have been fixed long ago.

That is the problem - and why it is an exploit. It does not work the other way round - simplest solution is just to remove it completely from the tech tree, as the back story to the game clearly indicates that inter-species communication has already been happening for some time.

Poor AI planet management allows me to remain playing on the highest levels

I agree with this, if the AI started really using its planets to near capacity, then suicidal level may become impossible.

Is playing with less opponents harder?

Yes it is. The only game I have lost out of 20 or so was 1 vs 1 on a medium size map with everything abundant, I was the Yor vs Altarians, suicdal, 1.11 version, tech trading off. The Altarian AI got a cultural conquest victory against me. Did not flip one of my planets (I had 22, it had 55) and the highest cultural pressure it exerted on any one of my planets was 2.55 x. It must of reached the 75% threshold! To be fair GC 2 did try to warn me by playing a cut scene movie I had never seen before but with none of my planets flipping or pessure not near the 4x mark I did not realise until the galaxy exploded in defeat

LOL! So...the AI has more planets than you, a 100% research bonus AND a 100% economy bonus to pay for it and yet not one of them outresearched you? You are either extremely lucky or so incredibly good at the game the AI will never, ever be able to touch you.

>>>

Um, no my ships had atk 2, when they had atk 6. However, usually by this time in the game, I have to upgrade the fleets and research new tech in order to continue to fight. Tech trading off, meant the pacifist AIs never did develop much in the way of weapons.

An update: I tried a game researching translator on first contact. It was different and harder. The Yor demanded money from me. They did not demand from the minor race, or the Thalans, both which were militarily weaker than me and closer neighbors than me. So if the AI players use this "exploit" is it still an exploit? Or is it a strategic decision like I've outlined. I've been in games where the Thalans are to turn 50 without translator tech.

Here's a better solution to the translator "problem." I have already suggested it in other threads. Have certain races have a chance to go to war no matter what. Instead of asking for tribute, just attack and then let the chips fall. Tribute is more a Korx thing. The Drengin, the Yor would be much more likely just to attack. Don't have them do it every game, but say have a 50% chance that they get a game timer in turns dependant on map size/difficulty level, and when the timer goes off they attack the weakest neighbor, no questions, no warning, just attack and then declare war. The unpredictability would add a lot to the game. It also fits these races. They would often attack a computer race and the early war would make the game much more unpredictable, much more interesting.

Have some other races prefer fast ships, some prefer to go after resources in combo with planets (say build one early constructor for every early colony ship). Again, not every game, but have these traits associated with some races, and a 50/50 chance that the flag is flipped on. This kind of stuff would add a lot to the game.

I've already made a very strong argument that a delay in getting translator tech is a strategic decision not an exploit. The AI players do it. The tech opens up gateways to morale tech, improved governments, and more intelligence gathering. Choosing against the tech, would almost certainly mean defeat for an AI player because of these limitations.

>>They claimed that the AI without cheating at 'tough' would be unwinnable for all but the top 5 percentile of gamers

>This was merely conjecture and this has not changed. Just because a statement is made by someone we respect, does not make it a fact.

Let's get real here. It's was not just a statement made by merely "someone we respect" .It was a claim made by one of the developers with the intent of getting people to buy their product and/or to defend the need against MP. If a cars saleperson claimed that a certain car could achieve a certain acceleration speed, and it doesn't ....

I agree with this, if the AI started really using its planets to near capacity, then suicidal level may become impossible.

If Ai started to use its planet to capacity any level above tough may become impossible.

With 1.2 they will close off the first strike route, many human players are using, so what's left is planet colony management, diplomacy and tech trading tricks.

The human player can refrain from the later, but the former is all up to the AI....

If Ai started to use its planet to capacity any level above tough may become impossible.

With 1.2 they will close off the first strike route, many human players are using, so what's left is planet colony management, diplomacy and tech trading tricks.

The human player can refrain from the later, but the former is all up to the AI....

>>>

I disagree. There are players good enough. Maybe not me, but in other games I have played, I have found players much better than I am, and I am beating suicidal a good 50% to 60% of the time on purposefully more difficult map settings and with some self imposed restrictions. (eg: No military starbases, no neutrality learning centers, fewer opponents to make them tougher to conquer.)

I don't think I am anywhere near close to optimal.

I don't think a player can win every start, but there will be some players good enough to find a way.

One thing that doesn't sound like it is going to change is the way population works. If a human player can leverage his/her population properly they will still have an edge over the computer in that area. If the human can get on the ground on enough planets, and keep population growth high, it often becomes a war of troop attrition and the AI can not replace their ground troops fast enough.

That is the problem - and why it is an exploit. It does not work the other way round

Magnumaniac is correct, for not researching the Translator tech to prevent anyone messing with your mojo in the early game you are exploiting a loophole in the game design.

simplest solution is just to remove it completely from the tech tree,

Its the easiest solution, but i don't think its the right one - Like Tiger8 i'd prefer the AI was able to wage war on me without telling me way in advance, if at all. I'd want the first sign of war to be a lost fleet / planet / system. Its how we wage war, its only fair to let the AI have a go.

If a cars saleperson claimed that a certain car could achieve a certain acceleration speed, and it doesn't ....

Fortunately I do not equate Frogboy with a car salesman, . For me to buy a game I look at 'independent' sources such as Gamespot and IGN for evaluations. To be fair if GC2 got a 6/10, i'd still have bought it because the original game had sold me on the concept. I beleive he was looking at the general gameplaying demographic and did not consider who would be plaing this type of game - its this whole conjecture thing again...

One thing that doesn't sound like it is going to change is the way population works. If a human player can leverage his/her population properly they will still have an edge over the computer in that area. If the human can get on the ground on enough planets, and keep population growth high, it often becomes a war of troop attrition and the AI can not replace their ground troops fast enough.

In my last few games, masochistic - suicidal . Both the torians and the Arceans have managed to stay equal to me in the population race. But the other races have just been rubbish, most planets with just the basic 5k. Even the ones with plenty farms have less than 10k. By leverage do you mean aphrodisiac?