• 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.
Yep, i think it might even work as intended if the player chooses this kind of setup as a challenge.
Not sure if what you mean is that this is the way it should function, even as a challenge. If so, the experience really sucks. You have to take maximum precautions at all times, just to avoid being hit by the big hacks, and using the the system yourself is completely out of your reach. I think that the better option is to allow these operations, balanced for situations like this, and let it actually become a part of the game again. There is literally nothing you can do now, and that isn't a great feeling.

And this isn't really a challenge, it's a tax. The computer still sucks, and does exactly what you predict. So for instance, the way that I play against them now is that I make a sacrificial city and put it between me and the computer. I put some hack-proof forts between me and the city, and expect them to conquer it 10 times before I am ready to roll them. You build it so that it can be accessed from the back, not the front. Then allow the computer to take it over, then you pound them with your army. But that is just an abuse based on the way the computer functions. That really isn't strategy like chess.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Not sure if what you mean is that this is the way it should function, even as a challenge. If so, the experience really sucks. You have to take maximum precautions at all times, just to avoid being hit by the big hacks, and using the the system yourself is completely out of your reach. I think that the better option is to allow these operations, balanced for situations like this, and let it actually become a part of the game again. There is literally nothing you can do now, and that isn't a great feeling.

And this isn't really a challenge, it's a tax. The computer still sucks, and does exactly what you predict. So for instance, the way that I play against them now is that I make a sacrificial city and put it between me and the computer. I put some hack-proof forts between me and the city, and expect them to conquer it 10 times before I am ready to roll them. You build it so that it can be accessed from the back, not the front. Then allow the computer to take it over, then you pound them with your army. But that is just an abuse based on the way the computer functions. That really isn't strategy like chess.
If the AI wasnt getting this strong on all teamed up and highest difficulty, they would be quite weak. Dont team them up or lower their difficulty. And what you describe further is just using AI limitations to beat the game, i dont get your point on that. So youre mad you cant do that with them being so strong?
 
I think the point we want to be able to separate challenges. Fight vs large army is one thing, being unable to use strategic map spells is another, putting all energy into queued units to avoid energy leaks is annoying too. We have "no colonizers" mode, "no diplomacy/casus beli" mode, "no challenge" (training planet) mode, it would be great to add "no covert operations" mode also.
 
Makes no sense. The one option I see is to limit/change the team operational bonus.

However, if you think about this, it's silly as well. If you play against a team - if ONE player of the team isn't successful with an operation, it makes sense that the next one tries. So when you play against a team of, say, six, it's clear that EVERYone will use strategic operations against YOU.

Why would that be any different? It's what you bargain for when you build the team.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I think the point we want to be able to separate challenges. Fight vs large army is one thing, being unable to use strategic map spells is another, putting all energy into queued units to avoid energy leaks is annoying too. We have "no colonizers" mode, "no diplomacy/casus beli" mode, "no challenge" (training planet) mode, it would be great to add "no covert operations" mode also.
That would have to go for both the AI and the player then too or the player is at an advantage.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Makes no sense. The one option I see is to limit/change the team operational bonus.

However, if you think about this, it's silly as well. If you play against a team - if ONE player of the team isn't successful with an operation, it makes sense that the next one tries. So when you play against a team of, say, six, it's clear that EVERYone will use strategic operations against YOU.

Why would that be any different? It's what you bargain for when you build the team.
You’re right in one sense, that the higher the risk, the better the game, and this raises risk. But, it is only because the AI is so terrible at everything. Obviously the real answer is that the AI gets better so that it doesn’t have to cheat x100 to be at par. That said, If you play ‘no saves,’ and go at ten insane AIs, that is a ton of units you are about to fight. You may find yourself overwhelmed. As it is though, the games are a hopeless slog, and everything drags on and on. The option would be absolutely huge.

And just so that you know, you are heading there yourself. you will soon find that the AI is so bad that the only way you can enjoy it is to go against 10 at once. It is everyone’s fate eventually.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
You’re right in one sense, that the higher the risk, the better the game, and this raises risk. But, it is only because the AI is so terrible at everything. Obviously the real answer is that the AI gets better so that it doesn’t have to cheat x100 to be at par. That said, If you play ‘no saves,’ and go at ten insane AIs, that is a ton of units you are about to fight. You may find yourself overwhelmed. As it is though, the games are a hopeless slog, and everything drags on and on. The option would be absolutely huge.

And just so that you know, you are heading there yourself. you will soon find that the AI is so bad that the only way you can enjoy it is to go against 10 at once. It is everyone’s fate eventually.
Fight other players, thats what you do after the AI is no challenge anymore. AI doesnt cheat, it needs major advantages to be any kind of challenge for players. AI cant replace a actual player, thats why PvP and PvE are so different.
 
You’re right in one sense, that the higher the risk, the better the game, and this raises risk. But, it is only because the AI is so terrible at everything.
I don't think so. It's dependent on what game parameters you use. If you want a hard game, play a SMALL map and make sure you have enough players to make it cramped. Say, a small map with 6 players.
 
I don't think so. It's dependent on what game parameters you use. If you want a hard game, play a SMALL map and make sure you have enough players to make it cramped. Say, a small map with 6 players.
I think OP should give PvP a try. Complaining about AI is never a good idea unless the AI is so bad that it poses no challenge which i dont really see here.
 
PvP has other "pitfalls". And pvp or not, these games should deliver single player as well, and I think they do.

In my experience, with all these games there is a simple rule; with a big map on highest possible difficulty, you have to survive a certain point; from then on you can't lose because the AI can't handle the material everyone have - it's like a headless giant stumbling along, waiting for someone to hit it.

The small maps are more challenging. The sooner there is contact the more difficult it is, because in the early stage everything counts and every turn is important and meaningful.

Sure, that's somewhat like the opposite of "epic". But the AI can't deliver "epic". If you want a challenging game against the AI you must cater to it's strengths, not to its weaknesses.

This takes some experimenting with the settings.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
A toggle for Covert operations (and/or Intelligence Sharing) would be welcomed (as options often are). It's one thing to face ten AI who will have ten times as many Operation points to cast and cancel spells against you. It's another when you cannot maintain or prevent strategic spells because your offense/defense values are not (and cannot be) high enough to give you a non-zero chance of success.
 
I would suggest simply implementing a cap on intelligence sharing: no bonuses after the first treaty.

After all, in normal gameplay getting more than one treaty of this kind is pretty rare, and more than 2 or 3 nigh impossible. So it will only have a big effect on odd team games like this, or the new conquered world scenario.

And for team games like that the balance will be better. Especially the Conquered World scenario that FORCES you to have a whole bunch of players teamed up against one.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Of course. I don't use any covert operations usually. I just don't like the feature and would like to turn it off like I do with most victory conditions. It is not really related to playing vs a team of multiple AIs.
Yea, i like them, theyre kinda fun but if there was an option to turn them off it would be really cool. Sometimes i just want to explore, do diplomacy and fight with units rather than operations.
 
The computer still sucks, and does exactly what you predict.
You’re right in one sense, that the higher the risk, the better the game, and this raises risk. But, it is only because the AI is so terrible at everything. Obviously the real answer is that the AI gets better so that it doesn’t have to cheat x100 to be at par. That said, If you play ‘no saves,’ and go at ten insane AIs, that is a ton of units you are about to fight. You may find yourself overwhelmed. As it is though, the games are a hopeless slog, and everything drags on and on. The option would be absolutely huge.
You know it's the way a computer works. There's no way around it. We haven't built CORE yet.
 
You know it's the way a computer works. There's no way around it. We haven't built CORE yet.
Imagine if AI was more advanced, they wouldnt play with us anymore because we are beneath them and too predictable. I prefer the AI the way it is, beatable and still somewhat a challenge. PvP is what a better AI in PvE would be like. Thats fact. AI can only operate in what its programmed to do, humans can act on impulse and on the spot.
 
Imagine if AI was more advanced, they wouldnt play with us anymore because we are beneath them and too predictable. I prefer the AI the way it is, beatable and still somewhat a challenge. PvP is what a better AI in PvE would be like. Thats fact. AI can only operate in what its programmed to do, humans can act on impulse and on the spot.
Actually you're exactly right: players wouldn't like a really capable AI, because ultimately you want to win and have a good time. Competitive play is not for everyone.

The gap from casual AI to competitive human oponent though is very large, which is unfortunate. What would actually be required would be an AI that plays easy to the player so he has a challenge tuned to what he likes. But this is a level higher than an competitive AI, which we don't have yet anyway.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Wow this thread really lighted up,
To give an option on the initial request:
It is quite frustrating to have to go full anti covert ops to not get siphoned out every turn. Making the defense operation more accessible would help with that I think.
Having another option of personally modifing the gameplay sounds nice no matter the reason.
Well AI is generally in every game known to cheat at higher difficulty, but with the way the Defense or Attack of operations are gain it just isnt worth it to go on thoose operations.
So I normally just ignore them till the end or maybe get some to use against the neutral enemies scattered around the map. Maybe having the AI leaving there Territory would also be helpful. Since the new dlc they just camp all game long in their own territory, especially when the invasion happens they just camp at their cities no matter the site they choose.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think OP should give PvP a try. Complaining about AI is never a good idea unless the AI is so bad that it poses no challenge which i dont really see here.
Do you see any possible flaw in your logic here? Anything at all?

It is pretty clear that this game was not fully fleshed out. There are a lot of gaps, and the balance in not terribly well implemented. I think it is possible you should set your expectations a bit differently.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could sit down and get a real game going on your terms without having to arrange a massive two-day nerd-session with an acquaintance you probably won't finish the game with? Just sayin'.
 
One solution could be to make the difficulty truly customizable. You could set the AI bonuses in food, prod, science, energy, influence, opeeations stength or defense, etc...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: