BTS Pre-release Chat with Firaxis (Q&A)

[cbmclean]

_alphabeta_

You said

I'm sure there's a reason why they specifically do not want to allow the human to negotiate when the AI comes asking for war. I just don't know what it is. I can't think of any exploits that could come of this.

I really agree with you on your disappointment on that. As it is, when the AI comes requesting war, your only two options are to say NO wand make them mad or say yes and get involved in a war, possibly with no benefit for yourself. My only idea about why they don't want us to negotiate is that maybe it would be really hard to code into the AI. it might be really difficult writing the AI so that it could assign a certain value to its "desire" that you declare war in order for it to be able to negotiate effectively.

 

[Dutch Canuck]

I'm sure there's a reason why they specifically do not want to allow the human to negotiate when the AI comes asking for war. I just don't know what it is. I can't think of any exploits that could come of this.

It has always been a game element in various versions of Civilization, as well as in SMAC, for AI powers to make sudden demands that put you on the spot where you cannot weasel out of it but instead you have to make a decisive decision right at that moment! This stress inducing game fun usually escalates with increasing difficulty and I'd expect it is coded to the aggressivity levels of the civs in the game as well.

When an AI civ is ready to make war, the tough on-the-spot decision making is part of the game experience!

I don't see how else to explain it **shrug**

 

[ZB2]

hands down, thats the best explanation.

 

[Atwork]

It would seem reasonably simple to offer a third option between 'no to war' and 'yes to war.' A player may opt to provide help besides war, the minimum level of help might be set by the AI, who could ask for some reasonable measure of money, tech, units, etc. that would be commensurate with his increased affections. It could be that this sort of monetary or material support of the AI's war would receive less positive diplomatic points than actually going to war at the AI's request, but it would be a nice in-between option. Also, if the human were unable or unwilling to provide the AI with sufficient support of any kind, then it could be treated as diplomatically equivalent to having said no outright to the AI's request. At the least, a player should have the option of providing what aid he/she can afford while maintaining friends, but without having to mobilize for war.

I also would like to see the United Nations play a bigger role in the game as far as international relations are concerned. Membership to the UN could be assigned by the person who founds it, other nations would apply for membership and member states would vote on whether to grant entrance. Continued membership would depend on conformity to the UN's civic requirements and other requrements additionally. Of course, voting by member states would remain the path to resolutions. In that way, the UN might deny the right of certain nations to develop nuclear weapons for example. Ignoring the UN would always be an option, but sanctions could be imposed for failure to abide by the UN's decisions in the form of negative diplomacy points or other costs. Non UN nations might resent UN nations and diplomatic points would be assigned accordingly. UN nations might be called upon to provide for a common defense or offense. In this way, there would be tense relations between UN states and non-UN states....blah blah, I think the end game could be spiced up if some of these ideas were incorporated into the game.

Anyways, I am very disappointed that diplomacy did not recieve as much attention as other areas of the game. Nuanced and detailed diplomatic options would take this game to another level. Even still, I think that BTS will be a great expansion.

 

[lou]

I am psyched about the improved AI and navy!

Blake, or anyone, is the AI in BTS going to be better than the better AI mod? I assume yes, but I'd be even more exicted if someone confirmed it.

 

[sennomulo]

I like the war diplomacy system as it is. It forces you to choose your friends and your enemies. You can't make everybody happy. No country in the world has maintained good diplomatic relations with everyone (no, not even Switzerland). It's realistic the way it is. You're bound to get some civs angry at you, and you're forced to constantly be prepared for military action.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

It has always been a game element in various versions of Civilization, as well as in SMAC, for AI powers to make sudden demands that put you on the spot where you cannot weasel out of it but instead you have to make a decisive decision right at that moment! This stress inducing game fun usually escalates with increasing difficulty and I'd expect it is coded to the aggressivity levels of the civs in the game as well.

When an AI civ is ready to make war, the tough on-the-spot decision making is part of the game experience!

I don't see how else to explain it **shrug**

Thanks for your insight.

I don't see why you can't make an on-the-spot decision, but also trade some techs/gold around while doing it. I think if the negotiation ends without you declaring war, you should still get the negative modifier. That said, I don't see what the harm is in negotiating. I've never been able to get an AI to declare war without giving them something.

 

[Florian]

<alexman> Does the Holy Roman Empire count? They controlled much of Eastern Europe, and the Byzantine Empire controlled much of the rest

<Martinus>Wow, talk about knowing squat about history or geography. I wonder if this guy thinks Eastern Europe is everything east of France or something.

The HRE at its height did hold the territory of modern-day Slovenia and the Czech Republic, and portions of modern-day Poland. Alexman also might have had in mind the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was a Modern successor to the Holy Roman Empire, even though its Hungarian and Balkan holdings had never technically been part of the older entity.

And then there's the Byzantine Empire, which held all of southeastern Europe. Really, there's no need to slander Alexman's geographical knowledge.

 

[LoD]

Martinus: you might want to consider checking your PMs at the c.o.p ...

Florian: Yes, but those "portions of modern-day Poland" are not exactly Eastern Europe, are they? Since when western Silesia and western Pomerania are "Eastern Europe" ? And Austro-Hungary is hardly a singular "successor" of the HRE.

And then there's the Byzantine Empire, which held all of southeastern Europe.

I.e. the Balkans. Most of their holdings were in Asia.

Really, there's no need to slander Alexman's geographical knowledge.

I agree. He displayed sufficient capability to do it all by himself .

You have to understand that it isn't anything against Alexman per se. It's simply irritation caused by yet another statement symptomatic of the lack of knowledge of the history of Central and Eastern Europe (which forms, territorially, the majority of the continent), uttered by a Firaxis employee. Really, for us, customers from those regions, this has ceased to evene provide comedic value a long time ago. You would expect that people creating games about the development of human civilization had a more decent grasp of the history of civilization, right?

 

[Florian]

LoD,

Here's an easy syllogism for you:

1) Poland is part of Eastern Europe
2) Large parts of western Silesian and western Pomerania are in Poland.
3) Those parts are part of Eastern Europe.

Or to put it short and sweet, Western Poland is still Eastern Europe. And I notice you completely ignored Slovenia and the Czech Republic, which are also part of Eastern Europe.

As for Austria-Hungary, who cares if it wasn't the ONLY successor of the Holy Roman Empire? It was the EASTERN successor of the Holy Roman Empire. That's why I brought it up.

And as for Byzantium, who cares that most of their holdings (at the height of their power, anyway) were in Asia? Most of the Russian Empire is in Asia too. Are the Balkans Eastern Europe or aren't they?

When you complain that Firaxis is "ignoring Eastern Europe," you really mean "ignoring Poland, except for Western Pomerania and Slovenia," don't you.

 

[Florian]

...And what are the Greeks, chopped liver?

 

[LoD]

As much as I would love to have the last word publicly (especially in the light of your ad hominem argumentation) I empirically know how much "fun" it is to clean up a thread gone off-topic.

Check your PMs please.

 

[Ishon]

>IS there gonna be a civ to represent seriously underrepresented Eastern >Europe?
<alexman> Does the Holy Roman Empire count? They controlled much of Eastern Europe, and the Byzantine Empire controlled much of the rest

Damn, that guy is seriously uneducated. Putting the HRE in the game makes as little sense as putting Austria in. The HRE has never controlled "much of Eastern Europe". Obviously the Byzantine Empire controlled the Balkans just as the Roman Empire controlled Spain, France or England. The HRE is more or less the same as Germany, even more than Austria is.

 

[Ishon]

LoD,

Here's an easy syllogism for you:

1) Poland is part of Eastern Europe
2) Large parts of western Silesian and western Pomerania are in Poland.
3) Those parts are part of Eastern Europe.

Or to put it short and sweet, Western Poland is still Eastern Europe. And I notice you completely ignored Slovenia and the Czech Republic, which are also part of Eastern Europe.

[...]

When you complain that Firaxis is "ignoring Eastern Europe," you really mean "ignoring Poland, except for Western Pomerania and Slovenia," don't you.

Even more hopeless ignorance here.

1. Silesia, not "Silesian".
2. Slovenia is a tiny country and it does not matter at all at the scale we are talking about here. You must have absolutely no historical knowledge if you even mention Slovenia in the same line as Poland. I recommend Wikipedia.

Firaxis is ignoring Eastern Europe, and its most influential representative: Poland. The fact that two regions of today's Poland were German has nothing to do with the fact that Poland is absent. Look at the map and see where Poland was at that time, because you really have no idea and you shouldn't discuss European history here.

 

[Ken the Great]

I want Liechtenstein as a new civ.

No really, but perhaps Austria or the Baltic Countries could do, other than that I don't know what would be in Eastern Europe and place in world history, other than local.

And honestly, I can't see any usage of the colonies, everything it's good for according to the Firaxies is giving away to earn money, nothing about why you should have a colony.

Neither they said anything what I can see about how you create one, just that you have to conquer civilizations and make them vassals and then mess around to make them colonies..

Well, now if you ask me (which none of you do), I firmly believe that it has something to do with the American history i.e. the Boston Tea Party.

Now I don't know personally either if there actually are any bonuses with having colonies except extra land, but the colonies were created by making cities on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, not that much conquering land. (this is for the 13 colonies on the east coast, which as far as I know were made by settlers from Europe).

And oh well, I've learned to not believe fully their opinions as we are talking about money.. Ignoring the 'bad' parts of a product when asked questions about it..

Other than that, I think I've gotta save how-much-it-will-cost for the release in Finland..

Yours, Kennie. (let the flaming of me begin, shall we? )

 

[Florian]

Ishon,

1. Silesia, not "Silesian".

Yeah, I know that. Typos have nothing to do with ignorance. Did you notice how I typed it correctly at the end of the post?

Slovenia is a tiny country...

Who cares? Add it to the Czech Republic and 10% or so of Modern Poland's territory, and that's a good chunk of Eastern Europe. Then add the other Hapsburg and Hohenzollern lands in Eastern Europe, and there's nothing at all to mock in Alexman's statement. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't exactly... well-defined, shall we say.

Firaxis is ignoring Eastern Europe...

Um... right. Besides the HRE, we have the Byzantine Empire, and then there's the little fact that the Russians have been in every version of the game since Civ I.

...and its most influential representative: Poland

Oh look, it's someone else complaining about how "Eastern Europe" is getting the shaft, when he really means that POLAND isn't in the game. And are you seriously claiming that Poland has been more influential in world history, or the history of the region, than RUSSIA has? Ridiculous.

I think Poland would be a good addition to the game. It would make at least as much sense as Mali or Ethiopia, and a heck of a lot more than the Native Americans. Unfortunately, you're on a crowded continent, full of old colonial powers. Other continents need love too.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

This thread has officially been hijacked. Can we get back to the game now?

 

[lordjadams]

This thread has officially been hijacked. Can we get back to the game now?

I would help you get it back on track but I'm still too upset over Nimoy having not been used in the new techs...

Hey, wait...

 

[marciv]

One feature which was lacking in in C4 vanilla and Warlords is the 'Go to City: 'Select destination' instruction for units. This is particularly convenient when playing scenarios like 'Age of discovery' when directing ships back home from colonies etc. (C3, conquests) Although this scenario isn't included in BTS, it would still be usefull in any expansion. Has this feature been considered/included in BTS?

 

[TripleGemini]

As the maps show... significant portions of eastern Europe were held by HRE in Charles the Great's time and by the Byzantines during Justinian...

I know... not all of it is there... especially those parts that have been ruled by the various Russian states... but it is there.

Back to the game

I wonder just which civs spawn which colonies... After all... just what civ would you spin off of America?