AI doesn't seem to care when you help its enemies

from Stardock Forums
One of the issues I've had with GalCiv 2 from the beginning is that pouring everything into diplomacy seems to make the game too easy. If I have enough then between tech trading at an advantage and the relations bonuses it's hard to be overcome unless the AI severely outproduces me.

Something I realized that contributes a lot is that the AI never seems to care when I give stuff to its enemies (particularly ships). Normally war might be a threat to a diplomacy player even when not involved (for example because a closely matched race could grow to levels where it would have a significant advantage), but if I can drag it out enough by giving ships and resources to the weaker race and rely on my extensive diplomacy ratings to compensate for the lower military rating, I can hurt both races' military enough that neither will be able to compete any time soon. Additionally, as starbases are destroyed by the war, I can move in with my own constructors and steal all the resources.

The AI seems pretty oblivious to this strategy. It doesn't seem to care at all that its war would likely be over if not for my interference, nor that I'm stealing its hard earned spoils out from under it. I think it would make diplomacy/alliance victories a lot more interesting and challenging if I had to balance trying to keep the other races from getting an advantage with them getting angry by interfering with their potential success.
14,756 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
While I agree that the ability to "steal" starbase resources is a bit unbalanced in favor of a nation not at war, in reality they don't jump on the resources because they'll just immediately get blown up. So, it makes sense that the AI doesn't prioritize it while still at war. I believe the AI is also more interested in killing you when you have starbases in their sectors. I think.

As far as the rest of the trading and proxy wars, it makes sense. I too prefer to play from a diplomatic point of view and so I give away/trade a lot of my research and it does feel somewhat like an exploit, but the point of trading those techs is so that you yourself won't have to fight a war. In the real world, we don't disclose how many weapons we are giving to the enemy of our enemies. That just doesn't make sense.

But yes, more depth could be added, so here's to hoping Gal Civ II has expanded relations and diplomacy.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree that when you concentrate on the diplomatic aspect of the game, the exploits are very powerful.

As such, I began playing games with tech-trading and tech-stealing turned off. This makes the game immensely more difficult for those of us who got good at trading. Not only does it require you to spend a great deal of your resources on technology research, it further prevents several easy ways of getting others to fight, appeasing early threats, and making money. The necessity to formulate new strategies in several areas of the game becomes paramount when the massive leverage allowed with tech trading/stealing is removed from the game.

Not to mention the great color added to the game due to Thalans having only Thalan techs and bldgs, Drengin only Drengin Techs and bldgs, etc.

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
While I agree that the ability to "steal" starbase resources is a bit unbalanced in favor of a nation not at war, in reality they don't jump on the resources because they'll just immediately get blown up. So, it makes sense that the AI doesn't prioritize it while still at war.


It makes sense that the AI doesn't try to immediately capture the resources. But it doesn't make sense that it would be happy about me taking them instead. I know how I react when another race grabs a resource I "liberated" but before I could secure the area. I think "is there any way I can get away with blowing that up?" ;)


In the real world, we don't disclose how many weapons we are giving to the enemy of our enemies. That just doesn't make sense.


True, but in GalCiv II it's pretty obvious when races have given ships to each other. Maybe the other gift options could go undetected (although even starbases you usually know who controls what) but when I give a reasonable chunk of my fleet to another race to keep a war going, it seems like somebody should notice.


As such, I began playing games with tech-trading and tech-stealing turned off. This makes the game immensely more difficult for those of us who got good at trading. Not only does it require you to spend a great deal of your resources on technology research, it further prevents several easy ways of getting others to fight, appeasing early threats, and making money. The necessity to formulate new strategies in several areas of the game becomes paramount when the massive leverage allowed with tech trading/stealing is removed from the game.


No doubt. I'm certainly planning on going without any starting Diplomacy bonuses next time to see if that makes it interesting enough. Still, I don't find the game quite as fun when I have to limit myself to get an interesting game, hence the post - never know when the devs might see and agree :)
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
...when I give a reasonable chunk of my fleet to another race to keep a war going, it seems like somebody should notice.


Indeed. :LOL: 

The difficulty in getting this in the game is probably what would constitute helping an enemy of an enemy. That is to say, what would cause the "- Helped their enemies" to enter into the report on that races relations screen? Perhaps when a war between the Drengin and the Altarians for example breaks out, the Altarians could offer a + to their relations if we did not communicate with the Drengins at all for that time. Still adding a "-" would be difficult for most players to accept without being vocally upset about it.

Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
True, but in GalCiv II it's pretty obvious when races have given ships to each other. Maybe the other gift options could go undetected (although even starbases you usually know who controls what) but when I give a reasonable chunk of my fleet to another race to keep a war going, it seems like somebody should notice.


I have to agree this is pretty silly... I was being helped by two races against the Thalen, and the ship designs were obviously not mine. If I were the Thalen, I'd be thinking it was about time to declare war on them for giving me help.

The AI should be able to recognize this, issue ultimatums and eventually reach the point of "enough is enough... you want to help them, then as far as I'm concerned you're on their side and fighting with them. Therefore, you are now also the enemy and I declare war..." Although they'd probably say it without the "therefore" cuz it makes them sound stuffy.

T
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
I have to agree this is pretty silly... I was being helped by two races against the Thalen, and the ship designs were obviously not mine. If I were the Thalen, I'd be thinking it was about time to declare war on them for giving me help.


Yes but who's to say when those races gave you their ships? How does the Thalan Empire know that you got them during the war against them? I know that its easy to force the AI to know this, I am talking more about trying to accurately create the fantasy experience of a game like this. The Thalans (if they were not an AI with access to all events during the game) would not necessarily know when those ships were given to you. Also, if two other races are already giving you arms in the war against the Thalans, then declaring war on the helping nations could be a bad idea for the Thalans. Fighting a three-front war is generally unwise. (see Napolean and Hitler for how bad a two-front war was) So while the Thalans could be very upset, they most likely would just have to deal with it.

All that being said, I love any expansion to the diplomacy of the game. By this I mean more options and tougher exploitation of this area of the game. A savy human player can play these races like puppets throughout the game even on the higher difficulties. If the devs could figure out a way to make all this work - no easy task - then I would applaud them.



Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
I start with 8 minor races and 9 major races so I think I need to disable tech trading also. It is just too powerful for the player and the AI's are fairly inept at it. Also it is a very time intensive effort on my part. Diplomacy factors need to be toned down.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The AI should be able to recognize this, issue ultimatums and eventually reach the point of "enough is enough. you want to help them, then as far as I'm concerned you're on their side and fighting with them. Therefore, you are now also the enemy and I declare war..." Although they'd probably say it without the "therefore" cuz it makes them sound stuffy.


Sounds good in theory, but wonder if this would really work in practice? Just imagine if that happened in the 'real world' right now, with the various arm dealers of the world supplying various other (sometimes slightly/highly dubious) countries or dictatorships with arms! Half the world would be constantly at war.

Actually, in saying that, I guess we already are. :p

Example: Oz purchases aircraft from USA, and Indonesia is currently upgrading their airforce with Russian fighters. If East Timor horrifically flash-pointed and Oz/Indonesia were suddenly engaged, that would mean Oz would declare war on Russia, and Indonesia on USA? Hypothetical to the extreme I know, but trying to think of a reason why not included as a game mechanic. Where do you draw the line between purchase or active logistic foreign supply of equipment in a war scenario?

But, yah, if it helps out with the gameplay and closing out an exploitation, then possibly worthwhile considering.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sounds good in theory, but wonder if this would really work in practice? Just imagine if that happened in the 'real world' right now, with the various arm dealers of the world supplying various other (sometimes slightly/highly dubious) countries or dictatorships with arms! Half the world would be constantly at war.Actually, in saying that, I guess we already are. Example: Oz purchases aircraft from USA, and Indonesia is currently upgrading their airforce with Russian fighters. If East Timor horrifically flash-pointed and Oz/Indonesia were suddenly engaged, that would mean Oz would declare war on Russia, and Indonesia on USA? Hypothetical to the extreme I know, but trying to think of a reason why not included as a game mechanic. Where do you draw the line between purchase or active logistic foreign supply of equipment in a war scenario?But, yah, if it helps out with the gameplay and closing out an exploitation, then possibly worthwhile considering.


I does happen now in the real world... albeit in a smaller scale due in part to being all tied together. One planet brings with it an inherent "we can't just nuke them, we need this place as much as they do..." mentality. I would imagine in space with completely differing species in different parts of the galaxy it would be different. "They're not OUR planets, after all..." "Yes sire, but they COULD be..."

In addition, you would probably have a much better chance of getting DoW'd by an evil or military race for helping their enemies than a friendly happy go lucky one.

The real question is this: Do you get ticked when someone helps your enemies? I mean really helps them now, not a few trinkets. If in doing so they thwarted your plans, would you not want to go and smack them? I do... especially if they are a race that hands over stuff and then looks at me and holds their hands open and says "what? what did we do?"

The AI should be able to see this and react. Some wouldn't care, some would. Some would just blow you out of the sky and thank you for the reason.

As an aside, because the diplomacy isn't at the forefront, there isn't really a big penalty for going to war. If there is some sort of Bad Boy counter it isn't well advertised. This all plays into that part of diplomacy... even into ethical alignments. There's alot left untapped in this area yet to be discovered.

T

Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One planet brings with it an inherent "we can't just nuke them, we need this place as much as they do..." mentality.


I dunno. Seems to be a few entities out there who appear quite keen on firing off a few of those suckers regardless of the over-arching consequences, if they could manage to get their hands on them!

In addition, you would probably have a much better chance of getting DoW'd by an evil or military race for helping their enemies than a friendly happy go lucky one.


DoW'd? What's that stand for? (Doesn't sound like a bunch of flowers and chocolates for some reason).

The real question is this: Do you get ticked when someone helps your enemies? I mean really helps them now, not a few trinkets. If in doing so they thwarted your plans, would you not want to go and smack them? I do... especially if they are a race that hands over stuff and then looks at me and holds their hands open and says "what? what did we do?"


Yup, agree completely. Has happened historically where another country throws their lot in and creates an alliance, boots and all. Or the faction-at-war includes your name on the hit-list because of your dealings and support. There's also other examples of countries supplying the hardware, but not getting involved or dragged in to the thick of it at all. There's a multitude differing factors which affect this (size, distance, military capacity, critical and perceived threat/s, multiple political relations, other trade deals and arrangements, remote handling, double crossing, historic relations, etc.) and I'm just wondering how you define those triggers and code into the game, without creating a mammoth amount of work and tweaking for the developers; yet keeping it balanced for the players so it's not too simple to manipulate, and at the same time not evolve into a complete vortex of negotiations and 'behind the scene AI' tactics and dealings that overwhelm the player?

I reckon you'd have to go through a large amount of parameters, refinement and testing before achieving a workable, challenging yet entertaining system along this line for the game, on top of all the other parameters already included!

There's alot left untapped in this area yet to be discovered.


Certainly. I'm guessing there's already some of this 'behind the scence' processing within the AI, but there's always room for improvement, as Stardock seems to readily attest and actively respond to. On the wish-list for GalCiv 3 perhaps?
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I dunno. Seems to be a few entities out there who appear quite keen on firing off a few of those suckers regardless of the over-arching consequences, if they could manage to get their hands on them!


I wasn't going to go that far, but I do feel that way. There are factions in this world that don't seem to worry about mankind growing extra limbs with each generation.

DoW'd? What's that stand for? (Doesn't sound like a bunch of flowers and chocolates for some reason).


DoW = "Declaration of War" Too many trips to the EU3 forum I reckon. You only get the flowers and chocolates as a parting gift if you lose.

Yup, agree completely. Has happened historically where another country throws their lot in and creates an alliance, boots and all. Or the faction-at-war includes your name on the hit-list because of your dealings and support. There's also other examples of countries supplying the hardware, but not getting involved or dragged in to the thick of it at all. There's a multitude differing factors which affect this (size, distance, military capacity, critical and perceived threat/s, multiple political relations, other trade deals and arrangements, remote handling, double crossing, historic relations, etc.) and I'm just wondering how you define those triggers and code into the game, without creating a mammoth amount of work and tweaking for the developers; yet keeping it balanced for the players so it's not too simple to manipulate, and at the same time not evolve into a complete vortex of negotiations and 'behind the scene AI' tactics and dealings that overwhelm the player?I reckon you'd have to go through a large amount of parameters, refinement and testing before achieving a workable, challenging yet entertaining system along this line for the game, on top of all the other parameters already included!


I think you could simplify this quite a bit, and make it so it wouldn't be too mammoth an undertaking. The AI already know what's going on, they just need a line that says "Player x just gave my enemy stuff..." From there it's just a weighted random depending on whether the AI is evil and militaristic vs passive and peaceful.

Each time someone gives something to another player, there's a chance of getting dragged in. The more that is given, the more chances. Could even do it like the event where you go visit the capitol and your guy goes loony and kills their leader.

Certainly. I'm guessing there's already some of this 'behind the scene' processing within the AI, but there's always room for improvement, as Stardock seems to readily attest and actively respond to. On the wish-list for GalCiv 3 perhaps?


A more complex diplomacy would certainly be on my wish list for 3... For now I'd settle for the possibility of a DoW, just to make you think twice about helping a neighbor.

T

Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think you could simplify this quite a bit, and make it so it wouldn't be too mammoth an undertaking. The AI already know what's going on, they just need a line that says "Player x just gave my enemy stuff..." From there it's just a weighted random depending on whether the AI is evil and militaristic vs passive and peaceful.


Ockham's razor: Could work I guess. Keep it as simple as possible and let the mechanics introduce the complexity.

I'll tell you what just pushed my 'weighted random' over the edge, though!

First time I've had the pirate mega-event occur, and I sat back in mild astonishment as the pirates swiftly yet systematically wiped out all orbiting starships and moved onto the starbases. Not being the quickest with the old grey matter sometimes, it took me a few turns to realise:

'Geez, I wonder if these guys ... awwwwwwww no, not the FREIGHTERS! ARGH!!!'

Playing as the Korx, it was like waving a red flag at a bull in a china shop, with a truckload of firecrackers chucked in for good measure.

As a rabbit in a cartoon once said; "Of course, you realise, 'dis means war!" :LOL:
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That happened the first time I dealt with them, but never again. I keep a wary eye for anything to do with pirates and prison planets...

I also play with the mega events off now. Some are neat, but others are just cruel. I dunno, maybe I'm gettin' soft as I "age". At least with the DoW I can rationalize it. I mean I DID give their enemies ships and cash and techs... Reminds me of a song... "send lawyers guns and money... the sh** has hit the fan". Has to be 10 years plus since I've heard Mr. Zavon.

He has one for your pirate predicament too, IIRC... "If I had a rocket launcher..."

Happy Hunting!

T
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This definitely happens in the real world. In WWII, the U.S. had a Lend Lease going with the U.K. and Russia. We were basically giving them equipment with the understanding they would pay us after the war. Hitler was fully aware it was going on and was PO'd but didn't want to go to war with the U.S. directly. Pearl Harbor and his alliance with Japan changed all that.
Recreating this type of situation in GalCiv would be nice. It gets difficult to judge as all that can be known at this time is "My enemy has some ships they did not build." You don't know if they were given to them or if they paid a pretty penny for them.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Even a simple "non-agression pact" treaty option would be very welcome. Pretty much any other decent 4x strategy game has this option. I wonder why GC2 never has.

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...