No, he's talking about something different that I have never heard of. I think it is some sort of comedic mod, but I really have no idea.

UPDATE (NEW IDEA): You know how the AI will tell you to move transports out of their treeitory and stop culture-bombing or face a relations penalty? You should be able to do the same thing from the diplo screen. (I know you can demand stuff, but I always saw that as a "please help out the other guy" polite request rather than an ultimatum.)

Here is how it would work:

The diplo screen would have two buttons on top. "Request" would not penalise your relations that much unless you do it a LOT in quick succession, and the willingness of the AI to agree to something would increase the friendlier you are with them. Of course, the AI would not agree to a request if you had relations of hostile or below. "Demand" would really hurt your relations, maybe even give you a persistent - on the relations screen if you did it enough to get a reputation, but you would have no required relation. Instead, the AI would weigh your comarative military mights. You could not demand things from allies w/o breaking the alliance.

You would also have several new options on the sides of the screen.

• Tribute: Tribute is BC the giver pays the reciever every turn. You could only demand it.
• Remove: This would open a window to select a race, including yourself. This would open another window showing the other party's ships. Select the ships you wish to have them remove from the selected race's territory.
• Break Alliance: This is exactly what it sounds like. You can try to get the other race to break an alliance they have formed.
• Embargo: This asks (politely or not) the other side to stop trading with a select race.
• Break Treaty: Asks the race to cancel their research/econ treaties with other races (I KNOW treaties cannot be cancelled! That also needs to be changed.)
• Destroy: Asks them to totally destroy a ship, starbase, or colony.
• Threat: This would only be available if you clicked "demand". It would open a window containing the options. "war", "embargo", and "Break treaty" These would be what you would do to the other guy if (s)he didn't comply with your demand.

   One for this, one for your "culture metrics" idea as a whole.

EDIT: Sorry, Scout, but it seems I can't give you more than +1 karma at a time, and ginvig someone karma five times for the same reason seemed a little silly.

On the diplo screen, I actually want to see real threats and all kinds of stuff like that.

If you don't know what I mean by threats:

I mean stuff like: "Your mom was a Space Worm's Sleez Bag, now why don't you give me X amount of money, and I won't make you mine!!!"

You should be able to actually compose your requests, demand, whatever. So from a few drop down lists, you would select pieces of text which will then be put into order to form an actual sentance. After the sentance is formed you will then be able to request the amount of stuff that you want from that race.

Or instead of asking for stuff, you could just go on insulting or kissing up to another race until they have had enough (if you are insulting, they might eventually start a war with you, if you are kissing up to them, they will be flatered for a time, but after that, they'll start getting pissed at you).

And the list of possibilities goes on.........

I'm not referring to your idea, the fact that Stardock tends to through space humor into the game, and the GC1 Space Shark Space Monster was an aspect of that humor. The different names of space monsters I found to be interestingly amusing in a good way. Don't take it personal. You know, as discussed before, Space Sharks chasing Ships with catnip modules around, etc, etc. If you don't find that visulization even a tad bit on the humurous side... then, well,  <shrug> who the hell knows??

I think it's a great idea they should expand on (other than taking it out like GC2 did). Civ4 had wildlife. Star Trek has had space dwelling life forms: Protozoa creatures in Voyager. It's one of those things that when they first pop up in a game, it's like "What in the world is that!??". Adds a unique element to the game.

Someone mentioned this a couple screens back, and I like it more generally than he actually has it -

You should be able to have a starbase module that allows for ship construction - industrial input would only be from asteroid colonies, exactly as if it were a planet.

On the one hand, the gives another 'strategic resource', especially around 5-6 deepspace asteroid belts with no other bonuses, but also no loss because the Starbase is of course, right there, on the other, it doesn't have *any* of the advantages of a planetary resource, no bonuses above the civ wide ones, maybe require upgrading the starbase for larger hulled ships, maybe even allow a starbase getting industrial capacity from asteroids to upgrade itself without constructors being built.

That seems to me to be realistic useful, and add options without unbalancing anything

Pug

My point is that if the AI knew how to actually play, you would never be able to beat it on Suicidal. It wouldn't be a challenge; it would be a flat-out mathematical impossibility.

No, I did not. You originally argued that the GC2 combat mechanic was good, only the AI wasn't smart enough to use it correctly. I argued that the combat mechanic isn't good even if the AI could use it correctly, because it merely exacerbates an already existing economic disparity. That is, if someone's already winning the econ race, they'll still beat you if you switch techs.

At no point were any value judgements rendered on whether having good AI in a game is a good idea.

Furthermore, AI is not a game mechanic at all. Making AI into a game mechanic was one of GC2's biggest failings: Diplomacy. Being able to game the AI just because you had a higher score in some stat was incredibly silly, even moreso when it could not do the same to you.

Well, the only way to fix that is to introduce a corruption model of some type, no other way around it. That would keep all civ's regardless of how many worlds they own more on a even level (to an extent). Civ 3's toughest difficulty level is 'theoretically possible to beat' but I don't believe anyone ever has. But still it's there if people want to try, I still would prefer the AI to play the game correctly, then each player can simply find what difficulty level they prefer best.

Also, it is highly unlikely Stardock will drastically change the combat model anyway, since they state they don't want combat to be too much of the game, since it is a civilizaton game and the focus is on empire building. So we're probably all stuck with it... first time I've actually hoped for a corruption model into a game.

Guys, I think I have a solution: Do not have a highest level. Difficulty is primerily based on the AI's tax revenue, correct? Well, tax revenue seems to me like it could be increased indefinately. So, have a level after Suicidal where you can set the % increase as high as you want. This will make the game essentially have no upper limit to its difficulty (I realise that there is an eventual limit simply because you can only enter a finite number of digits, but that is so rediculously high I do not think it will matter.)

Also, improving my Diplomacy idea:

Be able to trade spies like techs and trade goods. You would get them forever, but could not sell them to a third civ. Also, have "remove" appky to spies, and create a "no esbionage" treaty that would prevent either side from spying on the other.

EDIT: By "have 'remove' apply to spies", I mean be able to tell a race to remove spies from a certain improvement.

Drastic change from GC1 to GC2? If you assume drastic to mean they added 3 weapon types and 3 defense types from GC1's 1 weapon type and 1 defense type, then sure... but in reality combat essentially stayed similar. GC1 had a weapon roll from 0 to max, and defense roll from 0 to max and the difference was the damage. Similar method applies to GC2 for damage (although more complex). They should bring this GC1 mechanic back into GC3:

"Ships with a defense value that is greater than their attack value get a special bonus – when attacked, half their defense counts as an attack.  A Battle Axe with 3 attack and 6 defense actually gets to roll up to a 6 for its attack roll when it is attacked."
I don't believe GC2 does this, but could be wrong... this is an excellent way to help defenses all-around without overdoing it. Add in the bonus ships get for being in orbit, and it would make defense much more viable, without creating the stalemates / trench warfare that was discussed on earlier pages.

Therefore, it's highly likely that combat will go along a similar path with GC3. They will add the 'Option' of tactical combat, and do some tweaks, make a relevant change or two, and probably leave it at that. Stardock said themselves they are not going to make this a combat game by implementing too much emphasis on combat. I guess they prefer to keep it simple and emphasize on empire building. Why not? I agree with you, they should... but it's doubtful it will be 'drastic' (which means a massive change).

Perhpas, but apparently Brad, who is in charge of the AI, wasn't able to accomplish this task to where he wanted it to be, so there is obviously some difficulty involved. Perhaps they gave the AI too much freedom to choose what to research... or more likely the tech tree branches WAY too much and would HAVE to be slimmed down without so many choices available, so AI would only have to choose between 5-6 techs at most. It's the only way to make the AI seem intelligent (unless they dump loads of cash into AI development, which no software company will ever do, since they will see no return on their investment).

Most companies give the AI very limited number of decisions it can make, while making the game appear to the player to have a vast number of options and decisions.. it is an illusion, and only those who truly know that game, realize it.
Stardock went off this path, and that's why they have had these AI problems pop up.

The original statement I made was in reference to combat not being as bad if AI could change it's research priorties more often if it needs something, and if it doesn't build ships as well as a newborn baby could. But even if they fixed the economic problem, without fixing the ones mentioned before, the AI is still weak because it wouldn't know how to fight the player.

But regardless, with no corruption model, all the other mechanics are still on a level playing field and rich will still get richer no matter what you do... because the same ideas apply to all civ's. The rich will just get richer very slightly more slowly. <-- of course same applies to corruption model, but it is more apparent immediately as you expand... a slight amount of corruption wouldn't be that bad, say if a planet on the other side of the galaxy takes a 10% hit (that's not that bad, and wouldn't effect the game too much).

You threw some good ideas out there, but to keep runaway games... for techs:
1. Techs would have to become cheaper for civ's that don't have them yet, and they would be most expensive when few / no civ's have them.
2. Economy - there is no 'positive way' to reduce economic power from a leading civ.. taking or lowering their income would be a negative penalty any way you look at it.
3. Production - same as economy, only negative ways to go about it. If you lower it in any way because you are a powerful civ, that in essence is the same idea of a corruption model... and if you don't, it becomes a runaway game.

I see what you're saying, positive things that may be costly, but are worth it in the end. The cost would HAVE to be relative to the civilization though. So a superpower would have to put out ALOT more than a smaller civ for the same change to government. If the cost was the same, that would make 'richer get richer' even more so than now, since small civ's could not afford to do so.

I do hope resources come into the game... but then again, if it comes down to placing a constructor on a resource, superpowers will still just take it from weaker civs. Planetary resources would be best, since it would take more effort to do so, imo. Perhaps resources on planets would not be able to be seen through espinoage, so big civs can't just take 1 weak civ's planet solely for the resource.

True, it makes me wonder if they will program the AI this time around to actually protect their starbases and transports. (they do occasionally with escorts, but those are laser fodder). That would work quite well.

Here's my guess, Stardock will add a 4th weapon and 4th defense, have optional tactical battles, and do some tweaks to make AI fight better (engine will probably do a good job of this from what I've read).. and that is my guess for GC3 combat. Can't wait to see if I am right in 2 years!

Well as far as GC2 is concerned, Diplomacy is the easiest way to win a Suicidal game, since you can be the tech leader the majority of game (except in beginning), and be an economic superpower solely by trading crappy influence points. If they fixed that, Suicidal would be much tougher, and then the all-factory and all-research strategies would 'most likely' have to be used to keep up, although not necessarily.

They need to take influence points out of trading period, and just leave it at that.

Just out of curiousity.. what strategies do you all usually use on Suicidal games? Diplomacy? or all-x builds? or something else? or all?

They should have UP votes more often... 52 turns usually seems way too long... perhaps twice a year would make things more interesting. I wonder if the other civ's votes are purely random or based off something? Since the civ's can't really 'understand the question' and make a 'decision based on their best interests'. Such as small weak civ's voting to have a galactic speed increase (or w/e that UP vote is, can't remember) seems ludicrous, they would be the ones who should be against it at all costs.

Some civ's will go to war with anyone for as little as a few hundred influence points... Civ's that have economic/research treaties though, makes it very tough to get them to go to war without giving them 20+ techs.

I've seen it... but it can't be a field that makes them vote a preset way (or I hope not), although I haven't looked into it at all other than seeing it there.