The Daily Update at the Com

[TB666]

Hi guys,

We have stopped the "Backstabber" and "Dishonouring Treaties" diplomatic factors being applied when joining an ally in war. We have also checked in the first pass of diplomacy improvements. This consists of updating some of the diplomacy calculations to use new functionality that has been added to the AI since release and tweaking some of the factors. In addition, we have made changes to increase AI counter offers.

Thanks,

Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)

[Fisherking]

WOW!

I hope this is the end of the Black Knight suicide factions!

Maybe we won’t be at war for the whole game and some factions may even except peace!

[Slaists]

WOW!

I hope this is the end of the Black Knight suicide factions!

Maybe we won’t be at war for the whole game and some factions may even except peace!

Well, I think in TW series being at war is the point. The problem was that many of the wars were meaningless and random.

[Hooahguy]

finally!

[FactionHeir]

Let's not get too hasty with these exclamations, for all you know it might not work with player-AI diplomacy but only with AI-AI diplomacy. Nothing said about the AI still prioritizing and going out of its way annoying the player above all else.

[Husar]

They also increased the amount of counter offers for one of the previous patches but I'm not really getting any in 1.3.
I'm curious nd waiting for the patch to arrive before I'm going to celebrate anything though I must say I really hope they're going to work this out and make it fun.

[Zenicetus]

Well, I think in TW series being at war is the point. The problem was that many of the wars were meaningless and random.

Right, the game is based on territorial expansion through warfare, but the player should get the chance to work the diplomatic angle while scheming for expansion, and make his/her own declaration of war once in a while... instead of being constantly on the defensive, or goaded into steamrolling the map. It's supposed to be a strategy game, not a Zombie survivalist game.

SenseiTW's post sound promising as an improvement to alliances (right now I'm just avoiding all alliances due to the problems they generate). But there are deeper issues involving a factions ability to back up a declaration of war with an actual threat. I hope they're looking into that too. No faction should declare war unless it's serious about it, and can back it up with a strong enough economy and military. This is one reason the warfare in a game like GalCiv2 never seems illogical.... there is a threshold of military power (judged against the power of all other factions) required before a faction decides it can pursue military conquest.

P.S. I'm wondering if part of the problem isn't the fairly short time span in the game, compared to the last two TW games. Are we getting so many illogical and badly-supported DOW's simply because the clock is ticking, and all the factions only have 100 years or so to achieve their programmed goals? In a game like GalCiv, there is no time limit and games can run for a very long time on the largest maps. Without time pressure, the ebb and flow of warfare seems much more natural. If this is part of the problem, then maybe each faction could be told, essentially, "look... you only get to initiate a major war 3 times during this campaign, so you'd better be serious!"

[Slaists]

P.S. I'm wondering if part of the problem isn't the fairly short time span in the game, compared to the last two TW games. Are we getting so many illogical and badly-supported DOW's simply because the clock is ticking, and all the factions only have 100 years or so to achieve their programmed goals? In a game like GalCiv, there is no time limit and games can run for a very long time on the largest maps. Without time pressure, the ebb and flow of warfare seems much more natural. If this is part of the problem, then maybe each faction could be told, essentially, "look... you only get to initiate a major war 3 times during this campaign, so you'd better be serious!"

I agree with that notion. 4 turns per year probably would be much better with all research/build times adjusted accordingly.

[Quickening]

P.S. I'm wondering if part of the problem isn't the fairly short time span in the game, compared to the last two TW games. Are we getting so many illogical and badly-supported DOW's simply because the clock is ticking, and all the factions only have 100 years or so to achieve their programmed goals? In a game like GalCiv, there is no time limit and games can run for a very long time on the largest maps. Without time pressure, the ebb and flow of warfare seems much more natural. If this is part of the problem, then maybe each faction could be told, essentially, "look... you only get to initiate a major war 3 times during this campaign, so you'd better be serious!"

That is exactly the problem. The time limit on Medieval 2 was also ridiculous. They made it two years per turn (despite Generals still aging only six months) because they didn't think most people would play as long as it would take to get to gunpowder and the New World. While this may be true, it's also stupid. If the issue is that they want to appeal to casual gamers who won't want a truly epic game, then why not simply let the player choose whether to start in different eras of the Medieval period like they did in the first Medieval? Then the casual gamers could have their gunpowder spectacles as soon as possible and the rest of us can have our truly epic nine hundred turn games. I won't play Medieval 2 on anything other than a 0.5 timescale now. Nothing else makes sense. The point is, I understand that CA want to appeal to more than just the hardcore, but customisation is the answer. Let us choose the kind of experience we want to have whether it's in terms of victory conditions or possible game length.

[Durallan]

personal customisation for many different tastes, IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ordinary game AND A GREAT GAME!

Civ 4 gives you sooo many options before starting a game it makes you drool, Gal Civ 2 lets you design your own ships, random events that shake up the universe of the game, choices choices and choices and default choices for those that don't want to choose makes the difference, what raises the bar, the definition of an EPIC GAME.

[antisocialmunky]

GalCiv2 for me was jus another expandorama focussed 4X. If you truly want an fun 4x not much beats the good old MOO2.

Civ4 also has endless replayability and distinct AI personalities(which really made that game stand out. *Mansa Musa you friggin tech whore, oh how many times I've stomped on your Spaceship building butt with modern armor*).

[Prodigal]

new functionality that has been added to the AI since release

Hands up if anyone thinks the new functionality may be the ability for factions to sign peace treaties

[Durallan]

*hand goes up* hehehe, and yes that is too many acronyms for one sentence, please explain!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

*hand goes up* hehehe, and yes that is too many acronyms for one sentence, please explain!

Master of Orion, Masters of Magic and Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.
If you haven't played at least two of these, you are not a strategy game player. Also a must try: Dominions.

[Quickening]

Master of Orion, Masters of Magic and Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.
If you haven't played at least two of these, you are not a strategy game player. Also a must try: Dominions.

I haven't played any

[antisocialmunky]

Master of Orion, Masters of Magic and Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri.
If you haven't played at least two of these, you are not a strategy game player. Also a must try: Dominions.

Your forgot HoMM3, noob.

[peacemaker]

please tell me that in the next update they are going to fix some of the diplomacy values. I remember they were going to tweak it a little, but I had a revolution as spain to go to a republic, and guess what? -140 relations with EVERY nation. Even France, my good buddy ever since the start of the campaign 5 years prior, hates my guts. Even new spain hates me. I have had my first game-breaking moment and have quit in disgust.