I consider this all part of learning the game.
It's exactly the same process as getting to know other human beings.
Again, "good sense" is not the smae thing to the every Civ player, let alone every human being.
@Naokaukodem- It would be better to fix the AI's flaws than to give up and want the AI to be totally predictable and uniform.
Even when this is pretty impossible to know without R-E?
You should not have to learn a game. It should be playable since the start with all advantages. Only your strategy making the difference.
Not exactly. I will give you an example. (simple one) AIs never rush you early, so you know what to expect from them early. That is not a human behavior, and then is exploitable.
The "good sense" expression means precisely what is shared by everybody.
Please, next time, quote the whole reasonment and not just what suits your logic of bare contradiction.
I talked about a thing seen in Strategy and Tips forum. That was not for the dogs. Do you call logical the fact that demanding something to the AI will stop it to vassalize your enemies in your own place? No, that's not logical, there no link between the two things. That, is not logical and is not integrated to good sense.
Amongst the civ community, there seems to be a widespread desire for the next civ to be different to all previous civ games. A completely new game, with a completely fresh feel, whilst retaining that quintessential civ essence. So what shape should Civ5 take, as a whole game?
P.S: Argetnyx asked me to create this thread because he can't.
i agree that game mechanics should be logical and intuitive.You should not have to learn a game. It should be playable since the start with all advantages. Only your strategy making the difference.
hmm... if it was no so, then we would have to tackle the "lost from turn 1" issue. there would have been "spawns" where the player would just loose. that would have caused frustration among civ players. this is why ai does not rush.Not exactly. I will give you an example. (simple one) AIs never rush you early, so you know what to expect from them early. That is not a human behavior, and then is exploitable.
it is no so. "good sense" is individual.The "good sense" expression means precisely what is shared by everybody.
agreeDo you call logical the fact that demanding something to the AI will stop it to vassalize your enemies in your own place? No, that's not logical, there no link between the two things. That, is not logical and is not integrated to good sense.
i find such statements insulting. yes? maybe discuss the topic not the people involved? yes? i may be opening your eyes, but there are people you inherently disagree with you and there is nothing you can do to convince them.This says to me that you may be mistaking your own limitations and preferences as a player for things inherent to the game.
yesYou do expect to have to learn a strategy based on experience, yes?
no, for the reason mentioned above.So then, in Civ 5, give some of the AIs a strategic preference for early rushes.
we do!That would be why all human beings agree politically and we live in a perfect uniform world that has not changed through history at all, then?
the second part about ai adaptability i agree about. ai should be able to adapt [in game]. as for the first part, it's not that simple.So you raise one specific, self-evident example of poor AI programming. Why do you think this is not relevant to my point about what patterns should be learnable in Civ 5?
2) Revamped map layout. Elevation should actually matter (there are numerous threads on the subject, so I won't digress); rivers should become navigable, etc.
3) Multiple maps. I don't mean Fractal, Continents, etc. I mean a commented-out section of code or something in a GlobalDefines.xml style that would allow mod-makers to create games that held multiple maps for the player to interact with in one savefile. For example, FFH could have Erebus, Earth, and Heaven - mods focused on specific battles or wars could have maps that ranged from different theatres to different worlds. There are endless possibilities here.
5) More than 18 Civ Support. 18 Civs made sense in Vanilla Civ4 when 18 was the number of Civs. IMO, Firaxis shouldn't have left it to the modding community to make maps capable of playing with all 31 BTS Civs. Really, just expand the max number of Civs depending on the amount of Civs available with each expansion.
6) Improved AI. Again, this is a slightly different take. I'm perfectly comfortable with extra production and research boosts to higher-level AIs, since it would be difficult (IMO) to make each level have its own AI with its own rules. Hidden modifiers should be made visible to the player - or else deleted when it comes to interaction with the human. The AI should have specific rules about dealing with the human - which could easily be extended to AI-AI interaction. For example: "Hmm, the human has had a major power surge, and am within his power projection capabilities - perhaps I should form alliances to defend myself." instead of "Hmm, the human has had a power surge. I haven't declared war on him, have been peaceful, have built every wonder, founded every religion, and have no military. I should be safe."
1) The ability to take advantage of multi-core processors. This alone would make Civ 5 far superior to Civ 4. Considering that most new computers (IME) are bringing multi-core processors in order to cope with increasing demand for processor speed, this would thrust Civilization into the next era of gaming.
3) Multiple maps. I don't mean Fractal, Continents, etc. I mean a commented-out section of code or something in a GlobalDefines.xml style that would allow mod-makers to create games that held multiple maps for the player to interact with in one savefile. For example, FFH could have Erebus, Earth, and Heaven - mods focused on specific battles or wars could have maps that ranged from different theatres to different worlds. There are endless possibilities here.
i agree that game mechanics should be logical and intuitive.
it is no so. "good sense" is individual.
(..)
i find such statements insulting. yes? maybe discuss the topic not the people involved? yes?
i may be opening your eyes, but there are people you inherently disagree with you and there is nothing you can do to convince them.
You're the only one asserting that this is the case. This says to me that you may be msitaking your own limitations and preferences as a player for things inherent to the game.
You do expect to have to learn a strategy based on experience, yes ?
So then, in Civ 5, give some of the AIs a strategic preference for early rushes.
That would be why all human beings agree politically and we live in a perfect uniform world that has not changed therough history at all, then ?
Please point at some example of what you think is "shared by everybody" that is relevant to the issue in question.
If you build an argument on a fallacy, and I can counter the fallacy, the rest of the argument is pointless to engage with.
Naokaukodem said:I wouldn't push too much the variety thing, but yes, the Civ4 program is pretty big and ununderstandable...
R-E or not, it is very counter-natural to guess the AI illogical patterns.
For example, i read an article in Strategy and Tips forums, it says that if you demand something trivial to an AI (and this last one accepts it), it won't vassalize anymore your enemies. What a very logical, playable and wondefull thing it is!
That, is a good example of what I do not want to see in civ5: moronic bahavior absolutely stranger to the good sense.
So you raise one specific, self-evident example of poor AI programming.
Why do you think this is not relevant to my point about what patterns should be learnable in Civ 5 ?
hmm... if it was no so, then we would have to tackle the "lost from turn 1" issue. there would have been "spawns" where the player would just loose. that would have caused frustration among civ players. this is why ai does not rush.
I'm just killing myself to explain how unlogical and uninstinctive those patterns are...
To not kill people is pretty much a good sense thing. Although, some people are denuded of good sense and will kill people however.
That was not an argument, but a conclusion. WHERE THE FALLACY IN THAT:
And now, you do not understand why stopping vassalizing AIs when demanding something trivial is all but nothing like good sense?
What? What is your point now?
(a) do not increase the micromanagement; if anything, decrease it. Increasing it any from Civ4's level would kill the game for me, and I suspect for many others who want strategy gaming not mouseclicking contests.
(b) design the game with multiplayer play first in mind (yes I'm firmly on that side of that endless debate). Meaning that all decisions about things like pace/scale/mechanics/interface should be first grounded in what works best for multiplayer play. I'm frankly indifferent to the AI, it's just a practice tool for the actually interesting gaming which is against other human beings.
(d) don't make the game _inherently_ longer or shorter -- rather make it have decent pacing and balance at _both_ the "90-minute bloodbath" and "6-hour grand strategy" scales. (I know, easy to ask for but hard to actually design and program....this is a wish list, no question.)
One more thing: I could not possibly disagree more with the poster above who wanted Civ5 to have no unique units or buildings, that is, all civs play exactly the same.
I agree that Civ4 is the best strategy game I've ever played (and I've played a lot of them going all the way back to the 1980s). For me the key points about a Civ5 are quite general:
(a) do not increase the micromanagement; if anything, decrease it. Increasing it any from Civ4's level would kill the game for me, and I suspect for many others who want strategy gaming not mouseclicking contests.
(b) design the game with multiplayer play first in mind (yes I'm firmly on that side of that endless debate). Meaning that all decisions about things like pace/scale/mechanics/interface should be first grounded in what works best for multiplayer play. I'm frankly indifferent to the AI, it's just a practice tool for the actually interesting gaming which is against other human beings.
(d) don't make the game _inherently_ longer or shorter -- rather make it have decent pacing and balance at _both_ the "90-minute bloodbath" and "6-hour grand strategy" scales. (I know, easy to ask for but hard to actually design and program....this is a wish list, no question.)
One more thing: I could not possibly disagree more with the poster above who wanted Civ5 to have no unique units or buildings, that is, all civs play exactly the same. Yikes what a terrible idea! One of the (many) terrific things about Civ4 compared to so many other strategy titles is that it found IMHO just the sweet spot between consistency and variety in terms of how the different civs (or in other games, races or whatever) play. It's a real strength for replayability and one which the Civ designers would be quite foolish to throw away.
Because you appear to be the only person here to whom they are, in general, not logical nor instinctive.
moscaverde posted a few posts ago saying that they find the AI patterns and personalities in Civ 4 intuitive. Argetnyx finds figuring this out intuitive as a concept, and so do I myself.
Different people think in different ways.
I'm happy for the game to make logical sense as best it can to as many people as possible, but when you start taking about what's instinctive and intuitive to you, you are not talking about a standard everyone else understands.
It would be easier to engage with your ideas if it were easier to understand them, and when you say "organic" or "good sense" in the context of the game, that is not comprehensible, because it is very visible from this thread alone that "good sense" means different things to different people.
The arguments that could arise from that are endless and irrelevant.
Can you, in the interests of better communication, suggest an example of what you would mean by "good sense" in the context of game design ?
The fallacy here seems to be that you treat some things as obvious, and make arguments based on them, without establishing what on earth they are in the first place.
No. I don't understand why one example ofa specific thing the AI does being illogical is some sort of good argument for the pattern of AIs in the entire rest of the game being illogical/
The point, that I was trying to make before we got distracted, is the following:
This is a thread about a whole new model for Civ 5. One thing I would like to see as such a model is UUs, UBs and traits gone and distinct AI personalities replacing them.
Here is an example of how I would like that to work - the sort of things I consider intuitive and good sense, though i'm not claiming anyone else should;
Suppose it is the modern age, and you and one other civilisation are sharing a reasonably-sized continent and you both have reasonably large empires.
Suppose that in that situation, if your opponent is Mao Tse-Tung, his preferred strategy will be to build large numbers of infantry, and slowly overwhelm you with numbers.
Suppose that in that situation, if your opponent is Bismarck, his preferred strategy will be to make swift decisive attacks on key parts of your empire with mobile hard-hitting tank units.
Suppose that in that situation if your opponent is Hammurabi, his preferred strategy will be to smile and nod and mantain friendly trading relations, race for the spaceship, and hit you with a rain of nukes if it becomes a close race.
Suppose that the game balance is such that each of these strategies can win, each of these strategies can be defeated, but doing so takes different reactions and strategic thought from the human player in each case.
That strikes me as an interesting game with interesting challenges which one could readily learn about from playing against particular opponents and learning their reactions.
All good, but keep the UUs, it adds variety to the game.This is a thread about a whole new model for Civ 5. One thing I would like to see as such a model is UUs, UBs and traits gone and distinct AI personalities replacing them.
All good, but keep the UUs, it adds variety to the game.
All good, but keep the UUs, it adds variety to the game.