Galactic Civilizations III v3.02 (Released 5/21)

Bump.

This isn't fixed very well.  I started a new game without mods in an immense galaxy using the races that come with the game.  I started on the edge, so I didn't have to restart the game.  I then opened the console and used the fowtrans, god and soak commands so I could watch what happened in an automated game.  The AI that took over my race build freighters and sent them to planets they couldn't possibly know about that were beyond their range.  The only improvement was that, instead of sending them to planets on the far side of the galaxy, they sent them to planets that were between half way and two-thirds of the way across the galaxy.  All the freighters built by the other AI were also sent to planets beyond the range that showed when I clicked on them.  These planets were also closer than the far side of the galaxy.

I opened the console again and used the soak command to end the automation.  When I selected my freighters and tried to send them to the planets they were already going to, I got the message that the destination was out of range.  I didn't run the game long enough to see if my freighters would actually go beyond the range, but I saw several freighters from the other AI do it and create a trade route.

I really like this.  I rarely think to trade with a race as soon as I meet them, then I usually don't until they initiate a trade later in the game.  I tried one game, not the one mentioned in my previous reply, where I used this every time I met someone.  It was a good way to immediately find out what they had that I might want.

Was trying to build "Paxton's Emporium" and got a message that an AI had built it. It was removed from my build que but still appears in the list of things to build and I am now attempting to build it again.

EDIT: Edited to say that this is a new game, no mods, 93 AI from Steam workshop and within the game itself. Playing my own custom AI.

EDIT #2: Upon playing some more, one turn in I got the same message and it again disappeared from my que and is no longer available... very odd. I'll call this one some sort of galactic glitch.

Sigh... Well there goes the glimmer of hope for playing GC3 again that I dared entertain over the last couple days.

@Stardock: At least one person has said that it isn't just AI Freighters that ignore range limits, but ALL AI ships. What is so hard about adding simple range checks in the code? *exasperated*

Unfortunately, AI development has fallen far short of the Devs goals, so to compensate AI controlled players are given perks like exemption from Range Rules, No Fog of War (they know where the planets are at start and all of your ships), and most annoyingly, every time someone beats the game the data is sent to Stardock where they nerf the most common strategies to give a veneer of increased AI difficulty.

 

Would be a far better game if they would just go ahead and script most of it and use AI afterward.

Updates (5/10)

• Fixed an issue where Uncommon nebulas in map setup produced to many nebulas
• Fixed an issue keeping the Quantum Power Plant from being build-able
• Fixed an issue blocking the Embassy if you built another Diplomatic Building
• Fixed an issue blocking the bank if you built another financial building 
• Fixed an issue blocking the Labor Mission if you built another labor building
• Fixed an issue causing the Tourist Haven to block other tourism improvements

I see. That explains a lot; thank you for the info.

I guess there was something wrong with Freighter range specifically afterall then, since they apparently fixed something and it did at least have some sort of effect, according to Old-Spider.

Or possibly there was no bug per se, and they just reduced the range exemption rule for AI Freighters to calm people down. The pessimist in me votes for this interpretation lol, and sadly I don't trust these devs at all at this point, but whatever. I'm glad we're still getting bugfix patches.

I don't agree that the AI is exempt from range rules or ignores fog of war. There is a lot of work that goes into making the AI fun, challenging and fair. I will say that providing a fun opponent to beat is the primary objective of AI, and the AI gets handicapped in a lot of cases where it would be more competitive, just because it would make the game less fun (handicapping expansion, allowing diplomacy where war would be better for the AI player, etc).

But PalaceGuardian is right that we do review winning strategies and balance accordingly. The primary goal of that isn't to make the AI seem more challenging, but to make sure that the game is in balance with itself. Otherwise the game becomes a one trick pony where money and research doesn't matter, only building one particular influence improvement. Or carefully optimizing your fleets don't matter because there is one missile launcher that is hands down better than everything else.

With a game as big as GC3, that balancing goes on forever. You would be amazed at the difference a +1 to much can make in the wrong place.

Thank you all for your feedback.

Lol... Based on what proof? Sorry, but I trust a forum poster with evidence (tests, screenshots) about a million times more than I trust a dev with a simple one-line denial.

This should be entirely based on the personality of each race's leader, when played by the AI. There is extensive XML to define leader personalities in Civilization 4 for example, with biases toward war or peace, how often and aggressively they attempt to build Wonders, etc. I would have done it exactly the same way here without a second thought, personally. The build priorities lists in GC3's leader XML are admittedly somewhat similar, but much less detailed and they don't cover warmongering at all.

I like this a lot, and totally agree with it. I do feel I have plenty to complain about when it comes to this game sadly, but this is not part of it.

This depends entirely on who is doing it, imo. Balancing is a skill, requiring a combination of, in order of importance: excellent intuition, extensive game knowledge and experience, dogged persistence with data/testing/spreadsheets, and a bit of cleverness. As someone who has worked on Civ4 for 11+ years and feels he's pretty darn good with all of the above, I feel like you're exaggerating and over-generalizing with that statement, however with average developers I suppose I must concede it's probably spot-on.

I know the AI uses range rules and doesn't ignore fog of war because I've fixed code in those areas, including the fix for these out of range freighters. And I know fog of war exists because we had a bug where we where saving the AI's fog of war in save games so the AI was unable to find planets it had uncovered before saving because it lost all knowledge of them. I'm not saying there aren't bugs in these parts of the code, I'm saying its not fair to say that the AI ignores them. There is a lot of work that went into making the AI play fair in these areas, it would have been super easy to just not write that code and let the AI ignore those mechanics, that's not what we did.

But I certainly don't mean to argue the point with you, just offering my experience.

I like how Civ4 and Civ5's leader behavior (I haven't looked at how it is managed in Civ6) is handled. We didn't do it that way because we want to fully support faction and leader customization in a way that a casual player can have fun with. So instead of specific variables for each leader there are a range of personality traits that can be applied and each trait has different effect in the code.

For example, having the Expansionist personality trait makes the leader more likely to sign an open borders agreement, more bothered by having your starbase in his ZoC and sharing borders, more likely to build colony ships, prefer speed upgrades for its ships, and administrators for its citizens (as well as other things).

But it is more complex when you want to get a specific picture of how one leader will react since there are a combination of personality traits that come into play.

New bug?

By using the "Build" button in the planet screen you are able to go into negative numbers for resources when recruiting or training citizens. The trick is that you can only do this if you start with enough of the resource required to build at least one initially.

Didn't test all types of citizens but was able to do it for Scientists, Spy's, Celebrity and Diplomats.

Cheers

Bakka