Galactic Civilization

Create account
Login
Downloads
NewsGroup
Community
Purchase
Galactic Forum
Strategies
Mods
Empires
Do you still think GalCiv 1 is fun even with GalCiv II out?
758 votes
1- Yes
2- No


Realms Beyond
  Search:   
Go to Bottom         Go to Bottom
#175  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/22/2004 8:49:26 PM

Smegged--I appreciate the offer to use the map, but I think I'd like you to be on the crew of the first AW succession game. That means rolling a new map.

                      
#176  by Citizen Exar Kuun - 2/22/2004 8:53:35 PM

having 7 incredible AIs has been easier for some.


Much much easier, almost like playing at crippling on 1.13

                      
#177  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/22/2004 9:07:55 PM

Much much easier, almost like playing at crippling on 1.13


That is not good news. Makes sense, though. My toughest games have always been when there was a runaway AI, or when the Alterians and Torians run away (especially if I have chosen the demonic path ).

                      
#178  by Citizen Exar Kuun - 2/22/2004 9:17:54 PM

My toughest games have always been when there was a runaway AI,


The toughest games I ever play are one on one but I don't submit these as they don't score very well and would probably take my score down

Plus in AP the AI can't handle the new starbase costs very well so you can keep them poor fairly easily

                      
#179  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/22/2004 10:03:59 PM

Add to that the apparent bug (talking basic Galciv v1.2) that AIs are building double starbases...

I don't think it is a huge impact--since there is no longer any maintenance costs. I'll have to see with more playtesting.

                      
#180  by Citizen Smegged - 2/22/2004 10:32:54 PM

Hmmm, I think I'd actually be up for an AW SG. I haven't yet participated in an SG, but I think I'd be up for hosting one. Especially one as historic as this .

Proposal for AW rules:

United planets must be left on the first turn

When Universal Translators is researched, war must be declared on all known major civs by gifting a minor with the declarations of war. If a minor is not known at this stage, at the first reasonable opportunity the player must attack the major.

No diplomacy may be used with the major AIs, except for the purposes of spying on their available techs. No trades, sales, purchases of any kind are allowed with the major civs. No bribing the AI to war is permitted (not even minor AI civs). All AI initiated trades must be turned down.

No tech/trade good sales to minors, although you may purchase a trade good/tech from a minor (cash only, no bct trades).

No freighters may be built. Ever.

Map settings.

Large/Occasional/Tight
All Bright AIs with default allignment settings

Only players who have played and won 3 Masochistic games may sign up, with preferences going to RB members, particularly Zed, Bam Bam, Jaxom, Sirian, Isit and myself (all players who have either expressed interest, or who are very experienced, or both).

-Smegged

                    
#181  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/22/2004 10:36:16 PM

Folks--have posted my proposal for the next RB succession game. http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=237344&messageid=1077507217 Link



                      
#182  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/22/2004 10:39:18 PM

Heh. Smegged--you and I crossed posts in the night. Take a look at what I put togehter--I have not started the game (other than the playtest). The significant differences I see are:

I would allow diplomatic (read tech trading with no cash involved) ralations with the minors, and I bumped the habitability and difficulty up a notch.

                      
#183  by Veteran Evil Roy - 2/22/2004 11:32:14 PM

Much much easier, almost like playing at crippling on 1.13


he iz only sayin dis cos e az Jaws' crankin' bible



                      
#184  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/23/2004 12:04:32 AM

az long az he don step on it...

                      
#185  by Citizen Exar Kuun - 2/23/2004 1:31:59 AM

he iz only sayin dis cos e az Jaws' crankin' bible


I only ever used it about three times mate, the rest of 'em haz all been me own ard work

                      
#186  by Veteran Primipilus Alexus - 2/23/2004 1:32:05 AM

Jaws' crankin' bible


????



                           Posted via Stardock Central
#187  by Citizen Isit - 2/23/2004 2:07:19 AM

That looks like a fairly good setup Bam-Bam, a good way to test the waters on the concept. We should also consider disallowing the use of some bugs like the "faster ship lure" we found out about in our last SG.

I think allowing tech trades with the minors will give us a bit easier early game but in my experience the minors don’t keep up well on research later on. I think we will have quite a fight in store for us.

                      
#188  by Citizen Zed F - 2/23/2004 8:36:36 AM

Well, we won't deliberately play puppet strings with the AI, but we will almost certainly have to play guerilla war for a good chunk of the game, which will likely result in some amount of unavoidable luring.

                  
#189  by Citizen Smegged - 2/23/2004 8:36:43 AM

Take the difficulty down to where I had it. Trust me, the game will be hard enough as it is. Looking back on my trial game, I had at one stage 59% of the galaxy under my direct control. That included two high PQ planets that the Torians had surrendered to me. I did make some mistakes in that game which I do not intend to make again, however, the starting conditions were skewed so badly in my favour that I almost thought I was cheating. Controling over half the galaxy after initial expansion was not enough to sustain me. Don't get too ambitious with the difficulty just yet. Remember that Maso players started playing SGs on lower difficulty levels.

The real reason that AW in Galciv is so hard is the double hit on income. The major hit on income is the loss of trade. The second major hit on income is the lack of population that comes from both pop lost to transports, and due to the fact that you will not get all the trade goods/moral buildings that you normally get. Trading with minors may help a tiny bit, but to keep up militarily you will have to research the ship techs and power-up techs anyway, which gives you less tech trade options. The higher the difficulty, the deeper and faster the downward spiral goes. I kept up and did OK until the AI got their first Death Knights. Once they got them into my ranks, I had no hope. There are no lucky rolls in Galciv.

Xposted to the RB forums.

                    
#190  by Citizen Smegged - 2/23/2004 8:42:14 AM

Another thing that I forgot about was destabilisation.

In the AW game I played I was hit hard by destabilisation (I assume by more than one AI). When this happens it's almost impossible to get out of, since the only way to raise happiness is to lower taxes/build buildings (which costs a lot of time). If you lose control of the Senate, it's game over. Hitpoints go down on all your ships, and you usually lose stats in another vital area (especially painful if you lose it to the populists).

                    
#191  by Citizen damoose - 2/23/2004 4:01:01 PM

New version 1.20.86

1.2.086 February 23, 2004
+ Two new achievements for logistis (one after battle ship tech another after avatar)

Just in case.

                      
#192  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/23/2004 9:54:07 PM

RBGC SG4: (almost) ALWAYS WAR! is up over at Civfanatics. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79691 Link

Signups are still open. You can sign up at this thread. http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?BID=GF&id=141922 Link

So far, Zed-F, Isit, myself, and Smegged are in. Who else wants to join the battle?

                      
#193  by Citizen CypherPax - 2/24/2004 10:16:56 AM

I just caught the thread about the Always War game - I used to play that style exclusively until maso. I have a number of Medium, Abundant, Painful games that I would rank as the most challenging I played -- and my rules were more lax:
1. Have to invade all planets, no influence star bases, terror star strikes, or influence resource development allowed.
2. Have to play with cultural victory on -- and still need to win militarily. (Turning this on in ordinary maso games makes them much more challenging as you have to attack militarily stronger AIs in the endgame to keep the game going. The reason the AI is vulnerable to culture bombing is that if you play with this condition on, you'll win prior to being able to culture bomb).
3. No building freighters (can accept foreign trade)
4. Can only trade with minors and when making peace with majors-- part of the benefit of attacking someone should be spoils of war. It's not as easy to exploit as it sounds -- the AIs begin to dislike you when you continually attack them -- and by the time you can really get a good deal you don't need it. When you wipe them out they stop playing... If you don't wipe them out and they're bankrupt, they surrender to someone else.
5. Can alpha strike. I'd be very impressed if you anyone could win this without taking out an AI or two early.
6. Play Evil - this actually seems to hurt relations with everyone... Brad's even claimed it's harder to play evil on a number of occassions.
Note: Starting toward a corner is not bad in this style of game as all the AIs are so close that being in the middle is sort of suicidal.

I'd be interested in SG but I can only play for sure on Wednesdays (my wife's night out)... and I might screw up your schedule.

By the way, I lost playing this rules about 40% of the time and I found moving up to maso and not playing aggressively much, much easier. I was never able to pull it off on crippling - so I'll acknowledge that anyone who does is a better player than I am!

Cheers,
Cypher


[Message Edited]
                         Posted via Stardock Central
#194  by Citizen Zed F - 2/25/2004 10:25:44 AM

I'd be interested in SG but I can only play for sure on Wednesdays (my wife's night out)... and I might screw up your schedule.

I'm not sure whether this means that you can only play on Wednesday, but I don't think that's what you're trying to say. I think you're saying you might be able to play other days, but aren't sure. If so, welcome to the club!

Our usual schedule is when your turn comes up, you have 24 hrs to post got it (or skip me), and 48 from your "got it" post to play. If you don't post got it within 24 hours, you get skipped, though often you may get a bit of extra time. For AW games, once the ship count starts to get up there and turns start to take longer, we often either (a) shorten the amount of months you play on your turn, or (b) give you extra RL time to finish your turn.

Normally one can finish a turn in one night unless unit count starts making turns drag too much. Do you think that you could usually finish a turn given 48 hours to do so, and if not post a skip me message? If so, that's sufficient for participation. You don't *have* to be able to play when your turn comes up.



                  
#195  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/25/2004 10:41:36 AM

Cypher--if Zed is correct, we would be glad to have you on the roster.

So far with GalCiv games, we have not cracked the whip too bad on the 24/48 rules. Now if Lee starts running games, that's a different story.

                      
#196  by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/26/2004 9:31:12 AM

RBers (and honored guests),

I have opened up a thread for succession game discussion over at the RB forum. http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=237344&messageid=1077805525 Link
Take a look--there are three ideas already in planning.

                      
#197  by Citizen Zed F - 2/26/2004 2:34:10 PM

Hmm...

                  
#198  by Citizen Zed F - 2/26/2004 2:34:17 PM

better

                  
#199  by Citizen Zed F - 2/26/2004 2:34:24 PM

make sure

                  
<<   <-   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (8) 9 10   ->   >> 
   Page 8 of 12   

Go to Top    Go Back to Message Board    Go to Top
To be able to post something you have to become a member
Click here!



Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.