• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

DC_Clockwork

Second Lieutenant
49 Badges
Apr 11, 2010
133
8
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Sword of the Stars
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Darkest Hour
How's it doing? I keep checking back in every 6 months or so to see how things are going. Last time I looked, there seemed to be some progress with the Devs saying that it was now in the originally intended release state, which was promising - although I also heard that the AI still left a lot to be desired. Have things improved on that front?
 
The game in general has come a long way over 6 months. My memory for how it was only goes back around 3 months however so I will focus on that. Performance has come a LONG way (both for myself and others). The AI has gotten at *least* a couple of quite notable passes. I've noticed new tactical AI behaviors and AI is using more of the strategic system from what I can tell. Diplomacy with the AI can be a bit confounding still as there are various aspects of diplomacy that do appear to function (ie limitation/consequences) but the AI doesn't react to. If you focus more on war things should be good, experience over the life of prime (first game) seems to help. The AI generally doesn't self destruct on it's own anymore however if you do multiple strikes and tear apart their infrastructure they can still die from the resulting bankruptcies and morale issues which would cause any empire, even a human controlled one, to collapse. This tends to result in a much more interesting game against the AI. It's still fairly easy to get a huge advantage over the AI, particularly if you are good at games like this. If you are such a player don't forget there are ways of giving the AI some handicaps. Besides starting savings, techs, and systems, there is difficulty. Difficulty doesn't run different AI logic but rather it's another type of handicap, rather like setting economic efficiency higher but only for one faction.

There is also currently a beta which should be available to all as an update *within* a couple of weeks, if all goes well, which further addresses a lingering big performance issue, some other ones too, as well as further enhancing several factions under AI control.

I found the game to be quite enjoyable in the most recent release update with the odd restart required due to performance issues. I made a couple of missteps in my previous game and the AI was really punishing me for it. Were it not for my experience as the faction I was playing and experience playing the enemy faction I may well have lost (and might still when I pick that back up). I've seen people talking about being destroyed by the AI even if they have most of the game mechanics down :) .



A note about the AI: Sots2 is a complex game and the goal (iirc) is that the AI is capable of beating a competent player without cheating... much like the sots prime AI. That took about 6 years (post release) to happen in the first game and sots2 is 'somewhat' :p more complex. Assuming Sots2 continues development the AI will get better as it's something that almost always gets tweaks with each update even if not explicitly mentioned in the update notes.

re: performance issues. I generally restarted (save, close game, open game, continue) about every 20-50 turns depending on what happened in those turns. My system is on the low end of what the game supports. A 7 year old desktop with 3ghz dual core intel, nvidia 275 gtx, 4 gigs ram, mechanical hard drives. Notably I tried to pick some parts that were somewhat more workstation oriented (so, for example, my motherboard wasn't cheap and doesn't have a lot of fancy features). The beta addresses the biggest performance issue I had with the current update and has revealed a new issue that may well be due to my low amount of ram. There are still some outliers who have unusually poor performance but on paper have a good system. Generally this seems to be due to something along the line of restricted memory bandwidth (common in 15 inch and smaller laptops as well as budget gaming machines) or relatively low individual core processing power (seems more common in older AMD CPUs or large core count AMD CPUs, sweet spot in general seems to be 4 core with high clock speed). Sots2 stresses machines in a different way from your clone of shooter (or other console ported) games. Most pre-built rigs (ie dell, gateway, etc...) cut corners to keep profit margins up and if you aren't careful (or simply a bit unlucky) a self built rig can suffer similarly. The only way to find out if you've got uncommonly poor performance is to try the game and then compare notes if something feels off. Sotsverse generally remains a map for the patient or those with very good systems (not just by the numbers) but there are quite a few other maps.
 
Long story short, there does not seem to be invasion tactical AI at all. This means when your system gets attacked, invaders drive with their warships towards nearest colony ignoring defenders. Considering strategically AI can put together pretty decent invasions with multiple fleets, you get big turkeyshoots.

In my opinion when that is fixed the game is quite good for single player. It's fun as it is and the AI does pretty good job with economy, ship design and fleet actions. You're just playing on "easy" mode before kerberos gets around to overhauling combat AI.
 
That particular problem comes up when the relative engine speeds put the AI at a numerical (top speed) disadvantage were you to engage in stand off fighting. When engine speeds (tactical) are a better match or they have an advantage I tend to see a wider variety of behavior. If you tend to play the same faction and/or the same enemy factions the tactical AI could seem utterly borked to you.

I have been seeing the AI splitting it's fleet into components greater than 2 and engaging my ships/defenses with one component while the other major component moves off to a target of interest, usually a mining station or a lone defense platform in a sector deeper in but the colony could be it too. I've also seen the AI use overthrust to try and break contact with my ships, or to make contact even, mostly if I don't have a lot of missiles and my drones/battle riders have been depleted. Yes I still see the AI make a bee line for a colony with basically the whole fleet too.

Right now I find the AI to generally be fun if a bit over predictable. AI seems to be getting dangerous if you goof up or have a sufficiently bad start.
 
That particular problem comes up when the relative engine speeds put the AI at a numerical (top speed) disadvantage were you to engage in stand off fighting. When engine speeds (tactical) are a better match or they have an advantage I tend to see a wider variety of behavior. If you tend to play the same faction and/or the same enemy factions the tactical AI could seem utterly borked to you.

Nice theory. You can check out the lemming train thread in Kerberos forum. I collected starting ship info and uploaded the chart into wiki. As far as I know tactical speed was never collected anywhere before. I then started a game with humans that have slow tactical speeds. I didn't observe any change going against Tarka who should have faster or equal speed depending on tech. Based on unhelpful mocking by Mecron I'm not sure this proposed relationship really exists. It might be that only slower speed is OK or there is possibly faction vs faction check without considering actual ships used in battle.

If you know certain combinations that work properly, I don't mind trying. I'd like the game to give proper challenge even if a workaround is needed. Theoretically Liir should be the safest bet since they have slowest ships in game.
 
I have indeed read the thread you mentioned (a while ago).

The theory is basically what was put forward by more knowledgeable people than myself (and I haven't seen a good reason to toss it out,) so maybe instead of here, it could be more productive to take it up with them on the Kerberos boards? It's worth keeping in mind that the sots games are more than the sum of their numbers and even simple behavior can come from a highly complex source. It's also worth noting that there is a good bit built into the games which responds to play style (and it can be VERY hard to change that when seeking an answer through play testing).

Aside (re mockery): I, myself, see snark in response to a dead horse further beaten... But then I think that's something to take up in further detail elsewhere.

I am providing my observations below, if you want to debate them in any detail you know which board to do so on as you've already got an active thread there on that topic. I won't have anything further to add on this topic in this thread on this board (as IMO this is the wrong place).


I've seen that Hiver vs Liir, specifically, have produced some very interesting outcomes, particularly once Liir attained AM and then top end AM engines while my (Hiver) engines were more limited (Fusion).
A specific example that seems to fairly consistently produce the undesirable tactical AI behavior you've referred to is Hiver (me) vs Sol Force (AI). However I haven't done that particular combination in any of the more recent updates/beta (so that data is quite dated).
Outside of those particular examples I hadn't been actively keeping track of which factions were more lemming train as you put it and which weren't, I just know that I didn't always experience that particular problem as some people (ie not just you) apparently did/do. (ie the issue isn't any less real imo, just less global/all encompassing and based on the thread referenced no easy solutions available.)

More generally:
I *think* at least one of the more recent updates did some tweaking on the tactical AI as I don't remember seeing fleet components splitting into more than 1 attack and 1 fleet support.

I have seen the AI split it's attack component into two and go after 2 different targets.
Split or not, their targets have sometimes been planets (ie the lemming train), sometimes assets like stations (within a sector usually width or 2 in depth), sometimes platforms (quite nearby usually), and yes, sometimes even my ships. (The order there is not meant to confer any particular weight, best consider them fairly equal.)
In some cases it was less than obvious what their target was, in others it was pretty clear it was my ships or something other than a planet.
In some cases they wanted to get to a certain engagement range which was outside of where I wanted to be (the ships would turn back once my ships had moved far enough away).
I've seen some unusual behavior if I had little in the way of stand off weapons (which isn't common) as well... I've seen them run at my ships (over thrust to get in range) as well as overthrust to break away (both no obvious target and obvious target).
I've even (rarely) seen an attack component change targets... for example if one component managed to put me on the ropes so to speak (damaged ships, lost sections). I usually lost ships shortly after.
(That was all observations while defending against an AI attack. Unless otherwise noted these weren't one off or exceedingly rare events.)

As far as 3rd party observations (ie global chat)... I've seen people talking about their empires being utterly shredded by the AI. Tidbits about how the AI was wiping out their fleet before moving onto the planet/stations. Granted that was mostly from new players of the game or people that took an extended break (as little as 4 or so months) and coming back just recently. I've seen some older hands (besides myself) seeming to have some rough games more recently. I know mine have gotten more interesting though I still know what to poke on the AI to kill it right quick.


Overall I stand by my original shorter observation:
Right now I find the AI to generally be fun if a bit over predictable. AI seems to be getting dangerous if you goof up or have a sufficiently bad start.
 
Aside (re mockery): I, myself, see snark in response to a dead horse further beaten... But then I think that's something to take up in further detail elsewhere.

Mecron has adapted this style of communication, it is what it is and no need to rationalize it. I like how ddub communicates. Short, effective and no nonsense. A few times I have got nonsense from mecron followed by just the facts from ddub.

I am providing my observations below, if you want to debate them in any detail you know which board to do so on as you've already got an active thread there on that topic. I won't have anything further to add on this topic in this thread on this board (as IMO this is the wrong place).

In general, there seems to be odd tendency to "debate" bugs, missing features and odd design decisions in some niche game communities. Bug is a bug and placeholder AI is a placeholder AI, there's nothing to 'debate' about it. Figuring out a workaround to produce more enjoyable experience is on the other hand very much worth discussing. I made honest attempt to find one but failed. Unless new facts are available I have to put SOTS2 aside for the time being until the placeholder AI is replaced by a more robust version. It is in the pipeline apparently but as there's no expansion, who knows when they get around to it on their "spare time".

Kerberos is by no means bad example, the forum people want to discuss if it's really a problem etc but it does not seem to affect decisionmaking. A bad example would be battlefront.com which has smaller and more fervent fan-base. Most constructive criticism is immediately attacked with the devs apparently happy with consistent if small unconditional positive feedback. Details are not perhaps pertinent here.
 
Mecron has adapted this style of communication, it is what it is and no need to rationalize it. I like how ddub communicates. Short, effective and no nonsense. A few times I have got nonsense from mecron followed by just the facts from ddub.

He is probably the only "professional" developer trolling his consumers though... His attitude is one of the big problem with the game.
 
I realized a valid workaround to the missing tactical AI problem actually exists, kind of. If you play with one of the "normal" FTL factions, you can intercept hostiles in deep space. This way the AI won't throw it's ships away futilely but actually fights you.

This limits you to playing tarka/liir/morrigi and you can't play against zuul or humans. Hiver is a bit mixed bag, if you fail to repel the initial gateship, they become a total pushover, which is not quite working as designed but there you go.

Using this method you won't get planetary missile barrage support either that further levels the playing field for AI.
 
It has not been corrected but now Ddub has confirmed he's seen the issue and he's fixing it for next beta and/or patch.

As far as I'm concerned that's the last really fundamental bug in the game. There are issues like the "reaction movement" is broken (and due for a fix in next patch) but that's small fry. The game is about painstackinly building infra to support interstellar navy and then pitting it against another navy and enjoying the fireworks. That last part just has to work. Being able to intercept targets away in other stars is nice but not fundamental.
 
Current stte

That helps some. I would actually like to see the races have different tactics based upon their strengths, and or the strength of the fleet being brought in. When you can take on 3 enemy fleets a round with one defense fleet and not lose a ship when you don't have superior tech, that is a problem. I found the rest of the game play is working good besides combat now, but I still see turn length problems when running games with more than 6 races. I am not sure why it is when you get over that mark the turns take so much longer, but if I play a 5 man game the turns go by fast even 500 turns in.

Also is espionage ever going to be added? You can see the hooks there in your budget screen. I just have never been able to add money into the espionage budget. But you have to admit it would be pretty sweet to do something like blow up an enemies Military station before your invasion fleet shows up.

The one other problem I am seeing is still showing up at systems and the computer will have multiple defense fleets not a full strength, when it should clearly merge them and fight at full strength. Still happening. Still making the computer easy to roll over.
 
Last edited: