Best 4 X Game To Date

Baron Munchausen · #1 July 11th, 2002, 11:58 PM

You haven't been reading very long if you didn't realize that the AI was lame. It's the #1 complaint and the #1 topic of discussion among modders.

The Beastmaster · #2 July 12th, 2002, 01:07 AM

You are right, I have not spent much time reading on this board... I have visted it from time to time, but never looked too closely at it. My mistake obviously. I still have hopes that it is a good game, but I really thought the A.I. would have surpassed that of Deadlock 2. From what I'm reading now, it appears that the A.I. may be able to put up a better fight, but man, why not just remove the non-functioning diplomacy options from vs. AI games? Or is that not possible?

Atrocities · #3 July 12th, 2002, 01:11 AM

Quote:

I've sat on the fence for about a year and finally ordered this game early this morning, and now I find out that the diplomacy options in the AI (such as not respecting boarders via colonization of your own planets) don't work??

It called AI Diarria. Look at it this way, you can use their colonies as target practice.

Suicide Junkie · #4 July 12th, 2002, 01:23 AM

"why not just remove the non-functioning diplomacy options from vs. AI games?"

What about multiple humans vs AIs?
What if a human sets their empire to full AI control for a while?

What if it really was a human player reading your Messages, and ignoring you in the same way?

Baron Munchausen · #5 July 12th, 2002, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Beastmaster:
You are right, I have not spent much time reading on this board... I have visted it from time to time, but never looked too closely at it. My mistake obviously. I still have hopes that it is a good game, but I really thought the A.I. would have surpassed that of Deadlock 2. From what I'm reading now, it appears that the A.I. may be able to put up a better fight, but man, why not just remove the non-functioning diplomacy options from vs. AI games? Or is that not possible?

The AI is not good at diplomacy, but if you play in a medium or small map with lots of enemies you'll get into conflict quickly and get a hell of a fight. In large-scale games the AI seems to get confused and becomes really lame. Ah, well. There's always PBW...

The Beastmaster · #6 July 12th, 2002, 05:16 AM

Cool Baron, thanks for the tip.
I will have to try my first games on a small map... probably for the best any ways due to the learning curve that I am anticipating for this game.

Barnacle Bill · #7 July 12th, 2002, 05:11 PM

I don't have the time for playing against humans. I have two kids & a wife who is NOT supportive of this hobby, so I get in a turn or two whenever the coast is clear. For me, AI opponents are the only kind there are.

It is not necessarily that "the AI is bad at diplomacy". It is that the AI does not respect agreements and the rules of the game do not enforce it. What I mean by the later is, remember in Civ2 if you tried to move a combat unit into the city radius of another civ with which you were at peace and it would prompt you that doing so would break the treaty & start a war? That right there would solve the problem.

A more detailed resolution would look like:

1) If you are at war or in that first contact "no treaty" status with another race, any proposed deal that includes a treaty must address any conflicting system claims. The possibilities for that would be: (a) mine, (b) yours, (c) share [colonization/remote mining of any remaining unused body being "first come, first served"], (d) mine but you can pass through, (e) yours but I can pass through. Under Non-Intercourse, only (a) & (b) would be allowed. AI should never agree to a deal that leaves one or more of its systems cut off from the rest (i.e. with no path through systems it is allowed to enter).

2) "Giving" a system automatically transfers ownership of all colonies and anything else in the system except ships with at least one functional engine. Ships in a system which is "given" do not change ownership but automatically set movement orders to the nearest system retained (or shared) by their owner. Such orders cannot be changed until complete.

3) Once a treaty is in place between two races, if either attempts to claim a system already claimed by the other, it gets prompted with a message "Are you sure? This will break the treaty and declare war!". The AI would do this only if it really wanted to attack the other side.

4) Once the treaty is in place, if one party even enters a system belonging totally to the other, or attempts to colonize/remote mine in a system belonging to the other but through which it has right of passage, it gets prompted with a message "Are you sure? This will break the treaty and declare war!". The AI would do this only if it really wanted to attack the other side.

5) Individual deals to alter the status of a particular system would be allowed later.

6) Two levels of military alliance. "Mutual Defense Pact" (the lower level) obligates the two parties to go to war against any third party which attacks the other (if your ally is the aggressor, there is no obligation). "Military Alliance" (the higher level) grants each party right of passage and refueling rights in all the systems of the other, even while at peace.

7) Under Protectorate or Subjugation, the dominant partner automatically has right of passage in all of the weaker race's systems. Under Subjugation, the stonger additionally automatically gets refueling rights at the refueling depots of the weaker. Under both, the weaker is automatically at war with any third party that the stronger is at war with (no matter who is the aggressor), and any declaration of war against the weaker by a third party is automatically a declaration of war against the stronger (AI third parties should take this into account).