Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

List of mistakes the AI makes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • List of mistakes the AI makes

    This thread is mainly meant as a help to Brad when it comes to improving the AI. I can say the AI is bad as many times as I want, that won't improve it. Hopefully this is more constructive. It may also help to make you understand some of my critizisms. Finally, it could help you become better at this game, atleats until these flaws are corrected.

    1. Transports should be protected better. They mustn't always be protected, but if several of it's transports have been gunned down they should start taking precautions. I've also noticed that even though they have fleets one or two parsecs away they won't use them to cover their transports.

    2. They need to utilize speed more. For instance, unprotected transports. Higher speed means fewer turns to intercept it. It also means that it can attack from further away, making it harder to spot it before it's too late. Why use the standard transports when their technology would allow them to add several engines for only a little extra cost? They should also have atleast some fast fleets to catch any of the opponents fast ships that strike at their freighters, defenseless starbases and transports. If atleats a few of the AI's could do this as well it would be nice (Korx seems like a good choice, for instance).

    3. They seem to ignore planet square bonuses. I've conquered planets where they've build farms on squares that provide bonus to manufacturing and factories that provides bonus to food production. They seem to ignore these entirely.

    4. If they see an unprotected transport approaching their planets, they should send out ships that are defending the planets to destroy it if they have the chance. Sometimes the AI could simply pop out, destroy my transport then go right back to orbit in one turn. Yet it does not.

    5. They need to send enough troops to conquer a planet. They know how many people that lives on it. They know what range the advantages will be in. It can easily calculate the odds of success and should base the amount of soldiers sent on that. Different races could have different criteria. Altarians might not send any attack that isn't 100% guaranteed to succeed (don't waste people's life for nothing). Drengin might send troops as long as they'll kill more than dies. Having four civilizations weaken my planet so the fifth can take it with minimal losses is just dumb.

    6. Minor races tends to spam influence starbases in areas where they have no influence. I don't know the purpose of this at all.

    7. The AI should really care about the planet quality of the planets they colonize. Right now they colonize the closest planet regardless of quality. This lets me get the nicest planets before the AI since their first colony ship often goes to a planet of low quality they encounter on the way instead. It would also be good if they tried to colonize the planets furthest away first and work their way in, but that might be harder to do. Atleast the more peaceful civs should do this, warlike civs would probably prefer a more compact empire.

    8. They need to research different techs. Right now they all ignore the same techs, meaning that the player can just research one of those and trade them with every single other civ in the game, including minor races. This lets the player keep up with the others with minimal effort.

    9. They almost never build farms. This means it's very easy to conquer their planets and their economy suffers.

    10. They are slow to eliminate minor races. Since the minor races don't colonize, they can produce other ships instead. Usually these are constructors, meaning they often control a significant amount of resources. They are very bad at protecting these however, meaning that the first civ to attack them will get these. This is generally me, so I love it every time a minor race nabs a resource. They're holding it until I'm ready to go get it.

    These are the ones I could think of up front. I will add more later, hopefully you will do the same.

  • #2
    Oh yeah, just remembered. In one of my games I was at war with four civilizations. It was pretty much a stalemate since I spread out my forces to fight each one. I later decided to take them on one at a time and did so. As I began this I all of the sudden received three starbases from the Altarians (I was Drath, warring against Yor, Arceans, Korx and Iconian Refuge). They were all fully upgraded. I can understand giving me the military starbase in the hopes that I would better stand up against what they probably perceived as a threat. But they also gave me two influence starbases, which caused my sphere of influence to take a leap (while theirs shrunk considerably). After beating the Yor and Arceans and getting a peace with Korx and Iconians I quickly reached "critical mass" and started culturally conquering all my neighbours. Without the two influence starbases this would not have been possible. In effect I was given the victory by the Altarians. I don't see how giving me influence starbases would help them any.

    Comment


    • #3
      Some of those aren't weaknesses in the AI but put in on purpose to give players opportunities to advance. The minors in particular are like this.

      I do see the AIs using planet bonuses, but it seems to occur that they only use bonuses for what they want to build anyway. If a planet has bonuses of types they don't want to build, then they'll build other things there and ignore the bonus. ... That's not all bad. Too much homage to bonuses could hurt worse than not enough.


      - Sirian

      Comment


      • #4
        Especially if they have a 700% manufacturing bonus on their capital... I always build that factory right away, but man does it throw off the economy for a while.

        I have also had the AI gift me starbases to help in a war I'm fighting in such a way that it only hurts them. Econ starbases that are giving their core worlds large industry bonuses, influence starbases next to their own planets and ages from mine. Once the Drath gave me an Economic Resource starbase that was one sector from their homeworld and the opposite corner of the map for mine. Why? To help against he Drengin....

        I've brought it up a few times on the GalCiv forums and nobody has responded to it, so it's nice to see I'm not alone.

        Comment


        • #5
          What bothers me is when they have both farms and embassies, but the embassy is on the special food tile and the farm on the special influence tile. I can understand ignoring a bonus tile you don't feel a need for it though, but that's not what I meant.

          As for some of these issues being put in on purpose is understandable at lower difficulties, but shouldn't be there on the higher. The AI is the one needing opportunities at those levels, not the player.

          Comment


          • #6
            The AI does not choose its targets well. In my last game The Drengin killed all the ships defending one of my planets. The Arceans, who I was also at war with, happened to be sending a transport fleet past this same planet. They could have invaded that turn and taken the planet, but instead they continued on their way.

            It's as if the AI ignores targets of opportunity. My damaged ships are often ignored by large enemy fleets just passing through.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think this is because the AI doesn't update very often. When it gives an order that fleet will complete that order, then consider what to do next. Making the AI make decisions more often would improve the AI quite I bit, but I'm unsure what consequences it would have on performance.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hmm - you have as much as said that you have quit GalCiv II because it lacks (in your oppinion) potential, and has a bad AI.

                But yet you keep posting here. Why? Reading your posts is frankly getting tedious. So I'd feel much better if you packed your bags and left, yielding the floor to the rest of us, that all seem to enjoy this game.

                Just an advice, mate :-)

                Asmodean
                Im not sure what Baruk Khazad is , but if they speak Judeo-Dwarvish, that would be "blessed are the dwarves" - lord of the mark

                Comment


                • #9
                  But yet you keep posting here. Why?
                  Because its a good thing when gamers tell the developers what's wrong with their game?

                  If everyone did what you'd like - not post if they don't like something - we'd see GC2's forum on Apolyton experience the same thing that GC1's forum on Apolyton experienced - evacuation.

                  Given the fact that many of GC's faults have been continued in GC2, not posting problems / criticisms will only doom the next game to repeat those flaws again.
                  It's a CB.
                  --
                  SteamID: rampant_scumbag

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This thread had a title that should have made it obvious what it's purpose was. If you were not interested in reading that, why did you?

                    I post here for three reasons. One is to improve this game or future versions of it. The second is to help people with whatever they may need. The third is because I enjoy discussing game mechanics. The fact that I don't enjoy playing the game as much as I would wish doesn't make discussing it any less interesting. It would be more valid to ask why you're posting here if playing the game is so much fun, but that would be just as stupid.

                    Have you considering thinking before you post? I mean, why on earth would I try to improve the AI of a game I've previously said had a bad AI. That's ludicrous!

                    I'm sorry for the tone, but your post pissed me off! I know I'm a cold and critical person which makes my posts feel alien to most, but you seem to indicate that you only wish to see posts from fanboys who hail everything about the game. Asking someone to leave the forum because he doesn't have the same opinion as you is quite despicable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Very nice and constructive post indeed Gufnork. It will help improve the game, as Brad said yesterday that the next galciv2 version will have lots and lots of AI improvement.
                      I copy/pasted your 10 points about the AI in the official forums, i hope you wont mind (i mention your name, of course).
                      I also linked to this thread.


                      People should have no problem with that type of thread, it's highly informative and can only do good to a game backed with such reactive developers.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gufnork
                        This thread had a title that should have made it obvious what it's purpose was. If you were not interested in reading that, why did you?

                        I post here for three reasons. One is to improve this game or future versions of it. The second is to help people with whatever they may need. The third is because I enjoy discussing game mechanics. The fact that I don't enjoy playing the game as much as I would wish doesn't make discussing it any less interesting. It would be more valid to ask why you're posting here if playing the game is so much fun, but that would be just as stupid.

                        Have you considering thinking before you post? I mean, why on earth would I try to improve the AI of a game I've previously said had a bad AI. That's ludicrous!

                        I'm sorry for the tone, but your post pissed me off! I know I'm a cold and critical person which makes my posts feel alien to most, but you seem to indicate that you only wish to see posts from fanboys who hail everything about the game. Asking someone to leave the forum because he doesn't have the same opinion as you is quite despicable.
                        You totally missed my point m8 :-) I was merely trying to point out that for a person who has indicated time and time again that you have lost interest in the game, you do spend an awful lot of time critizising it.

                        You raise some good and valid points in your posts, but always end with an "This game no longer keeps me interested" or "MoO3 was way better". You showed honesty in your post, so I'll show honesty in mine. I truly get the feeling that you couldn't care less what happened to this game - and that you post to show off your strategy gaming skills, and to generally piss everyone off. That's what made me post the way I did.

                        If I have misread you, then please accept my apologies. But honestly I don't think I have.

                        Oh...about the fanboy bit. No - that's not what I'm after at all. I would just like to see conctructive critizism, that's all.

                        Asmodean
                        Im not sure what Baruk Khazad is , but if they speak Judeo-Dwarvish, that would be "blessed are the dwarves" - lord of the mark

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Asmodean
                          but always end with an "This game no longer keeps me interested" or "MoO3 was way better".
                          ...
                          I would just like to see conctructive critizism, that's all.
                          I was just reading up on GCII and saw this thread... Gufnork must have had some pretty bad posts at some point, bad enough to make you completely unable to read this one!

                          He said absolutely nothing about being no longer interested, or about MOO3. Maybe in other posts, but nothing whatsoever here.

                          His post is 10% fluff and 90% full of 10 very constructive criticisms.

                          Maybe elsewhere Gufnork is an ass, I don't know, this is all I've read, but even if he is, you know what doesn't help? Yelling at him when he's not. And he isn't, at all, in this thread.

                          Brad can't fix problems with the AI unless he knows about them. Every legitimate criticism of the AI is something that if I were a dev on GCII, I would want to hear.

                          Unless somehow you think these criticisms aren't constructive? If that's the case, well, there's nothing we can do. If you expect every note of an AI failure to be accompanied by a fix in the codebase, you're expecting just a wee bit much.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I too would like to point out that I never heard Gufnork say what Asmodean claims he's said.
                            It's a CB.
                            --
                            SteamID: rampant_scumbag

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X