For the rest of us, who enjoyed alot of AI dependant games (including RTW, Starcraft, WC3, HL2, blah blah, even computer chess, which somehow manages to beat everyone I know on the higher settings), I think the claims of "AI cant do it" is a bunch of baloney. I agree these are all great games, but the one we should really focus on here is RTW.
Big F'en deal. When I see "stats" such as these someone obviously feels the need to justify himself. Did Frogboy post his own stats?? Or is Tandis really Frogboy??? Creepy
No matter how you look at it, race extermination doesn't happen overnight. The stupidest thing about how platet invasion works is that in one turn, billions are killed. So the Yor don't surrender, big F'n deal. Then they will fight over the course of years. How do we propose to kill the population overnight? I suppose we vaporise the atmosphear so they can't breath. But, I'm sure some would be prepared for that. Or we could introduce some horrible disease. Some would definately survive.
It isn't about what fighters can do. We really shouldn't use modern day naval warfare to justify the way battles in GC II are fought. This is my understanding as someone who unfortunately found out about this game too late for the beta. There are five base hull sizes (if this is wrong it doesn't matter, the argument is the same). So fighter, is just the smallest base hull size. It will be the cheapest, and subsequently the least powerful, and easiest to destroy. And then the sizes go up.
I can't help but think that the way the ship combat algorithm works is great. I haven't played, but by reading posts from people like Peace Phoenix, I can see how to take advantage of such a system. I was also very sceptical when I first got wind of the system. It seemed fighters were the obvious choice. But now that I understand how it really works, there is no point in worrying about excess damage etc. Take this for example. If excess damage was to be carried over to the next t
It is generally easier to build a tactical AI then a strategy AI. I don't think this is true. It seems to me that tactics are far more complex than the grand strategy. We can mention RTW again. Tactical battles like in RTW (and what some people are pushing for in GC II) are easy for the human. The human has all the information in front of h
This has been discused a little in past posts. The ideas you have are nice I think. I personaly think that they should just make units for attack and defence of planes. That way you don't have to worry about all the percentages and stuff. A certain amount of population would be killed in an invasion, but no where near 100%. I think they should imitate how Civ III did city capture, but just transate the city to a planet. After an invasion, you could do things like kill the population slowly
Hope you enjoy space empires.
Thank you for your information Peace Phoenix. These results are promising. I wonder if the most powerful target is targeted first, or how they decide. Just for my info, how many tests did you do?
From reading another post, I have one question that I would like cleared up. There is some confusion about fighters I think. Or I guess any ship for that matter. It seems that the battle sequence involves all ships firing at one opponent every turn. If that one is destroyed, then next turn they do another, and so on. What I am confused about, is that I have heard all ships in a fleet will fire at one lone fighter. Of course it will die, but what a waste. And if there are tones of fighters
Numbers are not that important. Because population will always be greater than the army trying to occupy them. Occupations are very difficult.
I would like to see the Russians transport a a million solderis into Los Angeles and see how well they do.
I hope this gets corrected. Otherwise why build anything but lots and lots of fighters?
RTW AI WAS, I repeat WAS lousy. I don't care what level you play on, it sucked. If it was so good, then why did it suck so bad? This level of play should be kept out for sure. The designers have obviously poored a great deal of effort into making the computer smart on the map. Why throw that in the trash because the AI cant deal with the tactical level. And I am sure it wouldn't be able to. I just have no faith that any AI possible today would be able to provide a chalenge on a tactical l
I wasn't trying to argue against situations where all people join in the glory of combat or whatever it is. If your read the simpe statement I posted, I was suggesting it was stupid that everyone on the planet should die. I also made reference that it is inconcievable to kill billions of beings in such a short period of time without destroying the planet. As far as alternatives, I think simply units used for planetary invasion and defence would be great. It eliminates the wiping out the enti
Having a whole bunch of battleships target one fighter would really affect the game in a negative way. I hope this isn't the case. As far as I understand, one of the defensive options is point defence in order to counter missiles. Maybe fighters should be interpreted more like missiles in the sense that they don't become a primary target for everyone. Maybe they should be fired on only by the ship that is being attacked by them. But I am otherwise happy to hear about the AI. Ther
I was going to mention Rome Total War also. Keep it out.
I like the Idea, but I think it would be more valuable to have space marines or whatever used for a better system of planet invasion and defence. The game already is quite detailed as far as ship to ship is concerned. The creation of three different forms of attack and defense already expand on the previous version of space combat tenfold. However, the planetary invasion system is still the same old boring and unrealistic system.
What planet are you talking about Star Pilot? There are numerous instances in history where people have been invaded by demonical conqerers. Take for example the Japanese invasion of China, or even the US's systematic destruction of the native americans. Never once, did every last able body die fighting. It just doesn't happen. And if it did, it would take years. But in one month, billions and billions (as Carl Sagan would say) die in the defense of their planet. Sorry, but unless the pla
Separation of Church and State. I thought that was something important about the constitution or something like that. Try to immagine a US president who didn't at least pretend to be somewhat religious. Yet we point fingers at those arab "fundamentalists". Oh well, so long as we know there is only one god, and one way to think. For such miniscule beings, we sure do seem to have a firm grip on "the creators plans".
The tax payer thing really makes no sence. Even during a draft a relitively miniscule amout of able bodied men get forced into the service. Not the entire friggin population. How are the infants gong to use their AK-47s? The current system is lacking, that is all there is too it. You can try to justify it all you want with tax payers and stargates etc. But it is just kinda cheesy if you take your blinders off.
IMHO If GCII is anything like the first, planitary invasion will be the most lacking aspect of the game. It doesn't seem like it would be to difficult to just come up with something besides deleting a huge number. Perhaps take 10% of the defending population, consider them the defence of the planet and give them the same effectiveness and the entire population in the current system. When the 10% are killed, the rest of the population exists. And it can be taken even further . Like in Civ II
I havve desugned ships that show up in future games but never become available even when the tech is attained. This means that ships he has designed show up, but are unable to be built even when the tech is attained. True? This is different than designing ships before a tech becomes available. And if it is the case, why would they show up, but not be able to be built?
Anyone notice that the Torian Confederation Ambassador looks... well like a giant penis? In keeping with the gender equality theme of this thread... perhaps one of other ambassadors can look more like a vagina? That said, perhaps the human race is the only race that has male and female species? For all I know, the Drengin are unisex beings that mate by rubbing each others
Hysterical! And I hope all the feminists are happy that the Thalans are female. Oh man! this is comedy.
Stardock Forums
GalCiv2 Forums