Digitaltrends GDC article

[aziantuntija]

The good thing is that if you make a mistake and leave a catapult in front it may yet be able to be saved. This will certainly add tactical depth to combat.

Not mention that it will greatly help the AI, since now the AI don’t have to pay so dearly when making a mistake.

 

[Trias]

Not mention that it will greatly help the AI, since now the AI don’t have to pay so dearly when making a mistake.

From the comments of the devs in various articles that seems to be the primary motivation for the change in the combat system. (i.e. change the system such that it is easier for the AI to deal with.)

 

[Deggial]

Sorry for being so late in my response. I didn't see you refered to my post.

So then where do the CS elections fit in to this?

The more the bars are filled (=recently solved quests), the higher your impact to the elections. Just a slight variation of the present system.

I think the Bars are nothing but a SINGLE bar for ALL the realtionship (Angry/Neutral/Friend/Ally)

Instead of one bar at time.

I think it's not more than just a simplified UI change, dont' think it's tied to anything at all. why should it?

Look at this screenshot, please:



Prague's 3rd slot is partly filled, all others are empty.

My arguments:
- We know already that there will be up to 3 different CS quests at the same time
- We know that mony will still have impact, but not as much as in vanilla CiV.
- We know that the bars will not be filled in any regular order (e.g. from left to right), but can be filled unindependently.
- The slots are not "all or nothing", but can be partly filled and (probably) have a decay each.

All of this doesn't fit to your theory about a simplified UI. But I think, it strengthens my theory of beeing the representations of fulfilled quests + money spent.

 

[SalemSage]

Actually, I think that the City State bar could work like this:

In the above screenshot, the third slot is filled. What if the middle of the bar is 'neutral'? If you have a positive relationship, the right bars start to become filled, from left to right. If you're unfriendly with them, the left bars start to fill, from right to left. Filling the two right bars would mean you're allied.

Ugh, it's difficult to type out exactly what I mean, but I get the feeling that's how CS influence will be shown.

 

[Uberfrog]

Actually, I think it's likely that the bar divisions go Enemy - Angry - Neutral - Friendly - Ally. Therefore it's quite reasonable that just the third bar will be partly filled to indicate a neutral city state on the way to becoming friendly. I don't think it makes sense for each quest to have its own bar as (surely?) completing a quest can only be a good thing.

Edit- ah SalemSage is saying the same thing. This is what I get for leaving threads open in tabs

 

[Deggial]

Angry - Neutral - Friendly - Ally (4 Slots, so without "Enemy")

Well yes, I see your points now. If you take as given, that the middle position is the "Point Zero" and not the very left side.

At least, the "Great Prophet Screenshot" doesn't disprov this agrument. Even more, there is this little button at the bar's tip. It can be seen at said creenshot, too. And: there is only *one* small button despite the fact that *two* slots are filled.

OK, OK, I capitulate to this evidence! It's just a new UI representation with neutral status in the middle and negative/positiv values to the left/right.

 

[Monthar]

Neutral is the center dividing line not one of the slots. So it's: Enemy|Angry|Friendly|Allied

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Angry - Neutral - Friendly - Ally (4 Slots, so without "Enemy")

Well yes, I see your points now. If you take as given, that the middle position is the "Point Zero" and not the very left side.

At least, the "Great Prophet Screenshot" doesn't disprov this agrument. Even more, there is this little button at the bar's tip. It can be seen at said creenshot, too. And: there is only *one* small button despite the fact that *two* slots are filled.

OK, OK, I capitulate to this evidence! It's just a new UI representation with neutral status in the middle and negative/positiv values to the left/right.

I guess. Is that really that much easier to understand than just leaving it the way it is, though?

 

[Monthar]

The change to the bar is probably for helping colorblind folks. After all it's easier to see section on a bar filled than to see different colors, especially when those colors are green, blue and red, since the most common type of color blindness is red/green.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Ah very true, good point.

 

[dexters]

I don't think it's meant for colorblind per se, there's actually a radial dot on the bar itself, so it may be a direct measure of your 'relative' influence over the city state or rather, the city-state's relative leaning toward or away from you.

with the possibility of rigging elections or coup, this introduces internal city state politics into the equation. The friendly CS will lean closer to you than the neutral and hostile ones.

And I suppose this will be randomized now.

 

[Joemarzen]

I was worried about spy's at first. The fact that they don't show up till later in the game makes me feel a lot better. I think they'd have too much potential to give random advantage in the early game. Like if you found Eldorado as Spain.

 

[Gre_Magus]

Quick thought I had reading about the ability to warn another civ if someone is planning to attack them. Wouldn't it be neat if you could lie about that? There are several ways you could implement that, and certainly some draw backs, but it could add another layer to the intrigue.

 

[theadder]

Quick thought I had reading about the ability to warn another civ if someone is planning to attack them. Wouldn't it be neat if you could lie about that? There are several ways you could implement that, and certainly some draw backs, but it could add another layer to the intrigue.

That sounds appealing; I'm unsure that the AI could cope with it, though. It might also be difficult to ensure that the other AIs understood what had happened.

I could see it becoming very difficult for any of the parties to know that they had been deceived; at that point it becomes a vehicle for achieving whatever you like with no consequences.

At that stage, perhaps the design has to be reduced to a % chance for the lie to fail? That doesn't seem like so much fun.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

That sounds appealing; I'm unsure that the AI could cope with it, though. It might also be difficult to ensure that the other AIs understood what had happened.

I could see it becoming very difficult for any of the parties to know that they had been deceived; at that point it becomes a vehicle for achieving whatever you like with no consequences.

At that stage, perhaps the design has to be reduced to a % chance for the lie to fail? That doesn't seem like so much fun.

Not necessairly, if after 15 turns (which is the amount it takes to prepare for war by AI) the AI doesn't get declared war on they know you lied to them. that sounds simple to me.

 

[theadder]

Not necessairly, if after 15 turns (which is the amount it takes to prepare for war by AI) the AI doesn't get declared war on they know you lied to them. that sounds simple to me.

Well, there are two problems with that:

The first is that changing circumstances might lead the AI to change the plan and not attack; I am hoping that it isn't locked in 15 turns in advance regardless of what happens in the meantime. That would be pretty silly. It ought not to be irrevocably committed at that stage. It is presumably a plan and not a total commitment.

In the second more specific case, what if knowledge of the leaked information itself causes a change in the plans? If Civilisation A discovers that Civilisation B knows the plan, then that is a reasonable ground for cancelling or delaying it. Hopefully it will be that sophisticated. If the AI planning the attack cannot ever find out that I have leaked the information, then that is a pretty large flaw; the last thing that we need is more mechanics that the AI doesn't really understand.

 

[Gre_Magus]

That sounds appealing; I'm unsure that the AI could cope with it, though. It might also be difficult to ensure that the other AIs understood what had happened.

There are definitely some drawbacks, but I think some of them could be dealt with.
When your spy discovers a civ's plans, you get "proof" of what that civ is planning on doing, which is noted by the engine.
When you talk to another civ, you get a prompt like, "I have a serious matter to discuss", and then something like "The treacherous _____ are planning to attack you" with a list of all the other civs you have contact with. If you have "proof" of a civ's plans to attack, then that civ has a little icon next its name, and if you choose it, the warning is issued normally. If you choose a civ for which you don't have proof, a pop-up says, "We don't have any proof of these allegations" and you can choose to cancel the warning, manufacture false "proof", or issue the warning anyway. Alternatively, "manufacture false war plans" might be a mission you have to give your spy, with a chance of success based on the target civ's actual likelihood of attacking the civ you want to falsely warn.
In either case, if you issue the warning without proof, depending on your relationship and some other modifiers, the civ you are warning may just take the advice, publicly denounce you as an agitator, or secretly warn the civ you've accused of what you're doing.
If you do have proof (whether legitimate or manufactured), the civ you've warned might check your allegations with their own spy, confront the civ you've warned, or launch a pre-emptive strike. If they decide they don't believe you (check their relationship with you, your reputation for being honest, their relationship with the other civ in question, their own spy's intelligence), they could just thank you for the warning and ignore it, start to be suspicious about your motives, or publicly denounce you.
And there's no reason the AI can't do all of this with another AI civ.
And if we want the human player to be susceptible to this sort of spying, the game just needs to add a "plan war against X" button that you have to press x turns before war can actually be declared. People might not like the idea that they can't declare war on a whim, but from a "realism" perspective it makes sense that your army and ministers and all of that have to have some time to prepare for war. There can always be exceptions (i.e., if the enemy has moved units close to your borders).

 

[theadder]

There are definitely some drawbacks, but I think some of them could be dealt with.
When your spy discovers a civ's plans, you get "proof" of what that civ is planning on doing, which is noted by the engine.
When you talk to another civ, you get a prompt like, "I have a serious matter to discuss", and then something like "The treacherous _____ are planning to attack you" with a list of all the other civs you have contact with. If you have "proof" of a civ's plans to attack, then that civ has a little icon next its name, and if you choose it, the warning is issued normally. If you choose a civ for which you don't have proof, a pop-up says, "We don't have any proof of these allegations" and you can choose to cancel the warning, manufacture false "proof", or issue the warning anyway. Alternatively, "manufacture false war plans" might be a mission you have to give your spy, with a chance of success based on the target civ's actual likelihood of attacking the civ you want to falsely warn.
In either case, if you issue the warning without proof, depending on your relationship and some other modifiers, the civ you are warning may just take the advice, publicly denounce you as an agitator, or secretly warn the civ you've accused of what you're doing.
If you do have proof (whether legitimate or manufactured), the civ you've warned might check your allegations with their own spy, confront the civ you've warned, or launch a pre-emptive strike. If they decide they don't believe you (check their relationship with you, your reputation for being honest, their relationship with the other civ in question, their own spy's intelligence), they could just thank you for the warning and ignore it, start to be suspicious about your motives, or publicly denounce you.
And there's no reason the AI can't do all of this with another AI civ.
And if we want the human player to be susceptible to this sort of spying, the game just needs to add a "plan war against X" button that you have to press x turns before war can actually be declared. People might not like the idea that they can't declare war on a whim, but from a "realism" perspective it makes sense that your army and ministers and all of that have to have some time to prepare for war. There can always be exceptions (i.e., if the enemy has moved units close to your borders).

It isn't going to be in operation for human players in multi-player it seems; in fact, it seems that it won't work for the AI in multi-player games either from the interviews and so on.

I don't think that the rest of that system is likely; manufacturing proof aside, the lack of it is an admission of a lie. It is also too complicated for the game to take account of properly.

I can't see the designers removing the ability to make instant war either; an interesting set of ideas, but unlikely.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Well, there are two problems with that:

The first is that changing circumstances might lead the AI to change the plan and not attack; I am hoping that it isn't locked in 15 turns in advance regardless of what happens in the meantime. That would be pretty silly. It ought not to be irrevocably committed at that stage. It is presumably a plan and not a total commitment.

In the second more specific case, what if knowledge of the leaked information itself causes a change in the plans? If Civilisation A discovers that Civilisation B knows the plan, then that is a reasonable ground for cancelling or delaying it. Hopefully it will be that sophisticated. If the AI planning the attack cannot ever find out that I have leaked the information, then that is a pretty large flaw; the last thing that we need is more mechanics that the AI doesn't really understand.

I don't see the problem about that. It makes sense to me if you ask me.

If you hear that somebody said that I'm planning an invasion, I'd change it and throw the person who leaked the info under the bus.

 

[CivilizedPlayer]

You know this for a fact?[/QUOTE

Yes. I specifically remember reading a pre-GDC article saying something like "The AI is smart (and nasty) enough to plan an attack 15 turns in advance. And now spies can warn you of this." So it's true. I haven't heard anything about spies "dying", which concerns me. If they're that rare, than can they be killed? If they died easily, espionage would just be annoying. And if they didn't die, it'd be boring. So I'm wondering how that works.

And there's no reason to believe that the AI couldn't figure out you're planning an attack. Sure, it wouldn't know who you planned to attack, or when. But it already has the "you're massed near my borders, explain yourself" function. Who's to say it couldn't adress me by saying "My spies are telling me you're building up your military, why?".