GalCiv vs AC

[Ray K]

Starting with more colony ships is a major advantage in GalCiv, since it allows the AI to bogart more stars----- which is basically the entirety of early game strategy. In addition the AI apparently knows where all the good stars are, which greatly contributes to its bogarting ability.

The AI knows where yellow stars are at, but it does not start with extra colony ships.

Click that 'purchase' button on Turn 1 and you'll figure out how they do it.

[Vanguard]

Actually that is a distinctly sub-optimal way to do it. When you do it the optimal way you can have twenty colony ships produced in the first 15 turns or so.

But this brings up the other problem with GalCiv strategy: the game is usually either won or lost in the first 200 turns. After that you can still lose of course, if you get careless. But with sufficient protection the game becomes merely an endurance contest.

[Pyrkaige]

Originally posted by Vanguard
But this brings up the other problem with GalCiv strategy: the game is usually either won or lost in the first 200 turns. After that you can still lose of course, if you get careless. But with sufficient protection the game becomes merely an endurance contest.

Ah yes, those horribly simple games that are won or lost in the first 200 moves... chess, anyone?

If a) you really know how to play the game, and b) play it at the higher difficulty levels, most of your points (including the one made above) are significantly negated or plain false; the reasons why have been listed in many posts in this thread already. If you think that GalCiv is just horrid compared to the wonders of SMAC, that's quite alright. But posting such nonsense is silly unless you actually have facts to back it up with, and know what you're actually comparing.

[Vanguard]

Chess only has 200 moves. In GalCiv 200 moves is just the mid game. Actually victory is probably decided in the first 50 moves, but I wanted to leave some room for wonder building. Even allowing for that, I am probably grossly overestimating it.

And, yeah, I can defeat this game on hard settings. It is just a matter of exploiting the rather ridiculous economic system, which allows you to freely manipulate government spending so that non-money expenditures have grossly more value than paying cash for production. Just eliminate all expenditures except military and ramp up government expenditure to max and you can crank out ten times as many colony ships as you would if you paid for them.

Idiotic. But in all fairness to Galciv it is a staple dynamic of 4X games. SMAC is almost the same, iirc, although in SMAC there is at least the excuse that the governments are small factions trying to survive on a hostile planet.

And in SMAC there are other interesting things to do after you rabbit all over the map. In GalCiv, grabbing star systems early is the entire game. The entire power of your civilization flows from that. The only other important "strategy" comes before the game even begins, when you choose the populations bonus. But I assumed that that went without saying.

[Felch]

It's not won or lost in the first 200 turns. Allies can turn on each other, a disaterous war can bring you down enough to give somebody else the upper hand, or any number of things, including random events can shake the game down and flip it over.

I think that once they allow the AI to win through research, then it'll be even less in the can.

[Jamski]

Well said - I was miles ahead after 200-300 turns last night, and I still lost, as my allies were conquered by a single AI, which quicky grew to domination. I was left in a corner of the map, with out a chance, despite doing very well in the initial land-grab.

Any yes, I thought the game was in the bag after I grabbed the majority of the yellow stars early on.

-Jam

[bonscott]

Vanguard,

The AI does *NOT* get any bonus colony ships to start. I can out-produce and out-colonize the AI almost everytime I've played so far.

In the bag in the first 200 turns? Yea right. My game before this one I thought I was doing awesome. Was in the center of a huge galaxy, had over 25 colonies and quite a large number of sectors under my control. I was quickly ramping up my influence and going for a tech victory. However, I kept choosing those dang PQ bonuses and ended up being evil (demonic some might say). Well, for the first time in many games, all the goody-goody AI's decided to form an alliance and wipe out my evil bad self (even in previous evil games they hadn't done that). Let's just say after being #1 in just about everything by mid-game and even having both the Yor and Drengn help me by giving me ships all the time and coming to my aid, the Goody Two-Shoes Crusade pounded me into the ground. It was a humbling first. And here I thought I had it "in the bag".

My current game is quite different. Again in the center of the galaxy on Large map. I got a good number of colonies but not a huge amount. Torians and Arceans very close to the right, Alterians way to the south, Drengin and Yor in the upper left. I somehow maintained great relations with everyone and have kept my trade routes open. Kinda funny being best buddies with both the Yor and the Torians at the same time. I pushed hard toward range and speed techs and made resources my priority. The only open systems were on the Alterian border but I somehow beat them to many of those good systems.

Drengin got a Draginol event and my adviser said we should wipe them out (I'm almost good in this game too). The Torians and Arceans contacted me a few turns later saying that we should all band together and wipe out the Drengin before they get too powerful. Pretty cool. I said sure and got some tech for my troubles (that was the last time I was behind in tech). I had the highest production so I pumped out transports and frigates and started heading the long way to the Drengin systems. By the time I got there my destabalization efforts paid off. I was totally suprised when just before I attached the Dregin gave up and gave me all their worlds. Wow, interesting.

In the meantime the Alterians were giving me crap so I turned around all transports and headed toward their systems. It took me a while but I pounded them into the ground. Now I'm back on top in tech and military. I have the highest culture but the Arceans are now making inroads in that department. Gotta keep an eye on them. So I'll ring their area with sensor drones and fortify the systems between us with starbases in case they get cranky (and yes, you *can* funnel their fleet into a killing zone if you perform hit and run tactics just right) and I'll run for beyond human. But, if some new random event gives them a ton of rangers or something, back to a military victory it will be.

Even though I am in total control, I *know* I can still lose due to a random event or something I just wasn't counting on. Unlike Civ 3 or SMAC where there was no way you couldn't lose once you got a tech lead and controlled half the world. Now I love Civ 3 and SMAC, but GalCiv isn't even close to the same game as those.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Vanguard, how about you post a few scores on the Metaverse showing us all how you can beat it on the higher levels? Might add defense to your....erm... credibility issue.... at the moment.

Colony ships: The AI beats itself over the head with a large stick early on, leasing colony ships.

20 colony ships in the first 15 turns is the optimal method, eh? Show me how you have 20 good colony ships in 15 turns, and I will bow down to you. They also have to have enough colonists on them to be worth flying out, too. (Oh, and destroying your economy for the next 50 turns to do it isn't allowed.) Good luck!

People who exaggerate wildly and talk smack without any proof should stick to the off-topic board. Not that anyone here is doing that, of course.

[Draginol]

Vanguard:

The game is not won in the first 200 moves. Not in my experience. Long term strategies from the AI often take many hundreds of turns to bear fruition.

And players often come from behind to win or blow a large lead because of changing circumstances in the game. Trade in GalCiv is so powerful and can dramatically alter the balance.

The Drengin may seem to have a given game won, for instance, only to lose because the Arceans and Torians, who were their major trading partners, killed off their trade routes and send them to someone else.

[Boris Godunov]

I, for one, was never that enamoured with AC. I think I played through one complete game and then felt I'd pretty much been there, done that and off the hard drive it went.

GalCiv is, IMO, far more intriguing a game, and certainly caters to a much wider variety of strategies for winning. None of my games have been the same!

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Ellestar
It's good enouth that GalCiv is compared with such a great game as SMAC. MOO3 mostly compared with sh*t.

LOL!!!

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The real problem with graphics is that they often take a disproportionate amount of the development budget, because the average (i.e. low level) gamer is perceived to be more interested in glitz than in things like strong AI and long-term replayability.

Yah, but graphics are very important. Why do you think there is so much hype about DOOM III, because of the intellectual stimulation it's gonna provide? Granted, graphics are probably more important in games like DOOM than Civ games but still they are a factor. I'm sure everyone wishes the developers of MOO3 would have spend a little more cash on the "glitz". And I don't think that's just the "low level" gamers thinking that.

[Vanguard]

People who exaggerate wildly and talk smack without any proof should stick to the off-topic board. Not that anyone here is doing that, of course.

I'll post here if I want to. If you don't friggin mind. Are you a moderator or something? No. I didn't think so.

If you don't like my posts then all you have to do is stop reading them. In fact, If you are such a sensitive fellow that you can't stand to hear people voice opinions that aren't your own then I suggest you stop reading now, because I am about to voice some.


First of all, I will admit that the AI does not start with more stuff than the player------ I read this on-line as something attributed to the dev and assumed it was authoritative. But apparently it was simply someone saying something that wasn't so. I apologize for repeating this misinformation. This does not mean, however, that I admit GalCiv is a great game or that its AI is good. In my opinion, neither is true.

Secondly, if you like the game I am happy for you. Enjoy. For me it is already "shelfware", to use the term employed here. I think it is simplistic and dull. Opinions differ of course, and you are entitled to yours. But I, for one, have no more desire to bash dreadnought after dreadnought for hour after hour.

As for whether the AI is especially good or not, I will say again that I have yet to see the AI do anything especially clever in movement or combat. And nothing I have seen here or in these forums leads me to believe that my experience is unusual.

The AI's main strategy consists of building dreadnoughts early and sending them into your territory. This does a very nice job on your defenses and leaves you open to invasion. But it only works because dreadnoughts are ludicrously overpowered compared to anything else in the early game except a fully built starbase or another dreadnought.

The AI does know that dreadnoughts are overpowered and it does build them quickly. Call this "great AI" if you like. I call it "making dreadnoughts ludicrously overpowered and teaching the AI to build them quickly".

Since there is really no way for the player to counter this strategy early, it, in fact, tends to work regardless of the AI's rather weak fleet tactics (spread out all over the map).

This sort of trick is not good AI. What it is is building a Golden Road into the game system for the AI and then telling them to follow it. It works, but only because the game system doesn't provide any method for you to counter it.

Like Civ3, GalCiv is not a strategy game. It is an anti-strategy game. The designer knows he can't design an AI that provides a good match for good human players----- it's impossible. So he designs the game so that the human player can't use his superior intelligence and learning ability in truly strategic ways. Strategic play is basically limited to the build queues, which is something the designer can anticipate and design the AI to handle. The rest of the game for the human player basically consists of tediously doing the same thing over and over again, something computers are basically better at than humans.

Draginol:

I beg to differ. I don't mean to be too hard on your game, which was fairly enjoyable all in all, for a while.

But in my experience early control of star systems is overly critical to success in this game. Each system you take is one more for you and one less for them. In addition it frequently allows you to box one or more civilizations into a corner, which marginalizes them and turns them from a potential enemy into a likely ally. Huge expansion also makes it much easier to exploit resources, to grab uber worlds and gives you more chances to "improve your luck" in the random colonial pop-ups and better control over alignment. All in all, huge early expansion greatly reduces the random factor in the game and gives you much more control over every aspect of later play.

Sure, random events can certainly play a major role in the game. But so what? They're random. And their effect is almost never better if you are smaller, unless you are the absolute smallest and then their effect is nowhere near enough.

It may be true that the AI has strategies that won't come to fruition for hundreds of years. But again, so what? The only real strategy you have to worry about is the one where they send dreadnoughts through your star systems with transports behind them. You can't do anything about any of their other strategies, so how does it figure into the strategy of the game? I mean, about the best you could do to counter any strategy on their part is to launch a massive invasion to knock out a key planet. But in my experience this is simply unrealistic at painful or above, and not worthwhile below that.

Trade warfare is, I admit, worthwhile and interesting. But frankly it is a hell of a lot of work and, as in the previous point, is hardly likely to cripple him at the harder levels and is basically unnecessary at the easier ones.

[yin26]

Play the game some more. Use the latest updates. Play with all AIs on Genius. Post back in two weeks. If your opinion is still the same, I'll grant that your taste simply differs. From what I've seen above, however, seems more like you haven't played the game enough on higher levels.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Simpleton


Yah, but graphics are very important. Why do you think there is so much hype about DOOM III, because of the intellectual stimulation it's gonna provide? Granted, graphics are probably more important in games like DOOM than Civ games but still they are a factor. I'm sure everyone wishes the developers of MOO3 would have spend a little more cash on the "glitz". And I don't think that's just the "low level" gamers thinking that.

Doom III is about as relevant to a 4x TBS discussion as is playing chess at Starbucks.

The question is, would the MoO3 gamers prefer more glitz and the same AI, or more challenging AI and the same glitz?

Stars! was positively early 90's VB in it's graphic envioronment, but it developed a very devoted following nonetheless, because the replayability rocked and the AI was solid.