Play like a nation or play to win?

[kasmasnou]

play like a nation to win -sending spaceship to AC-

 

[Hygro]

Err... So ?
I was just using the cliché of the teen who wish to win to "be the stronger", compared to the cliché of the more mature person who sees that it's not the goal which is important, but the journey.

This has nothing to do with being a teenager or anything like that. Don't perpetuate false stereotypes.

 

[kryszcztov]

Sorry for slight threadjacking, but maybe this is a general issue ?

Akka, I'll only answer to the points I feel I have to, because otherwise there will be 30 stanzas or so, and some I don't have to answer because there's no need to. OK ?

I'll never understand the people who say this kind of affirmation. If it's the gameplay that is so important, why playing a game which is based on an immersive concept ?
And anyway, unlike the ultra-common (and utterly annoying) idea, gameplay and realism/immersion/background aren't at all exclusive.
(on the contrary, the best gameplays are usually the ones that are logical and realists)

This is where we differ, I think. For me, Civ isn't an immersive game at all !! Where you see nations, roleplaying and feel like being the king of the world, I just see cities, units, techs, some interface elements, a goal, etc... I often use the comparison with chess, but this is what I see : a bunch of elements and mechanics that can be completely explained (the best would be to see the code or to have the devs describe each feature). I sit in front of the computer, start a game, and make sure I'm aiming at victory, this is what the game asks me to do, in a way. I could play chess, and I like to (though it's a harder game by far), but in Civ I enjoy the richness of the game while having fun using units called "archers" and "knights", and heading a tribe called "Egyptians" and build stuff called "Great Library". The more historical elements the better, but never at the expense of gameplay, ie. I prefer to have a harder and balanced game.

I want an AI that would act like a nation in the world. If it goes against the victory conditions, then the good thing to do is to change the victory condition, not to slaughter the concept of the game to make it a glorified Starcraft.

I don't understand why the game is slaughtered if the AI starts to think about victory ?? They will compete against you, simulating the competition that is happening in the real world.

I don't see how any of these problems can be related in any way to AI that would act logically...

I was just telling my frustration to have a weaker AI than wanted. If the AI was stronger, it wouldn't produce those results that happen game after game, weakening the competition for me and the experience for you.

I can't believe that you really missed so completely the point I was making. I was very clear about the parallel, though.
So I'll ask respectfully that you read it again, and get the real meaning this time, please.

Sorry I'm ignorant, I don't know what you're referring to with the "big plastic toy soldiers".

You're missing the greatest fun in game

Nah, I don't care about "in my opinion", I don't want to be a relativist

For a game like Civ, where I have found myself enjoying multiplayer (PBEM only) more than solo, the greatest fun is when you beat a human player, and then you're feeling proud to achieve victory with your skills, while having fun toying with things called "Egpytians", "swordsmen" and "Monotheism". Also another source of great fun, as I said, is to beat a whole team relying on pseudo-roleplaying while you and your teammates rely on game mechanics.

You lack roleplaying abilities. Your loss

Roleplaying is boring in Civ because it is so limited. When I started playing Civ1 (much younger), I felt a bit like you're describing. Then it went away, and I really got rid of the roleplaying thingie once I started to play multiplayer and browse the Internet (like here). But it doesn't matter : where I lose roleplaying, I win in skills. Can't it be as satisfying ?

So what ? The world works the same for both of us, and that's the only thing that is really important.

It is not for me, once I know what Civ3 or Civ4 is about. Of course I wish that someday the AI will be a real challenge with no artificial bonus. But seriously, as I am a Deity player, playing on Regent is like wasting my time. And I doubt I'd like to lose game after game on Deity just because I roleplayed. In chess, programs are so good that the AI doesn't need such bonus. In Civ the AI is crappy, but this will slowly decrease with later iterations of the game.

Fun in multiplayer, boring in solo. I'm playing against a computer, I've no need to show a machine I can think better than it can, as it's pretty much a given ^^

Try multiplayer where other people play like you then !! I just don't know what you would do in the end of the game... As for solo, it's not to show your skills to a machine but to yourself !! And sometimes to other players when it's a solo competition (GOTM, etc...).

You should try to get this feeling of power via roleplaying. Much more satisfaying, and makes your mind work much more ^^

Maybe someday I'll roleplay (not in mind now), like those guys living in the Middle Ages for a 3-day weekend... It has to be a real experience, not something like World of Warcraft which I find boring as hell... As for Civ, it's not immersive at all, so I'll continue like I was doing, and enjoy beating teams or people who rely on roleplay too much. Also there are other things in life to feel immersion : movies, theater, books... and dreams...

You have a strange conception of "real". Do you see any nation in the world trying to "win the game" ? No, of course, because there is no "game". They just live the best they can. As such, it's "trying to win" that make it feeling not real.

Victory conditions often reward the civs that "live the best they can" : the space vic is an obvious example, and it simulates what happened in the 50s and 60s in a way, or now. The other vics are less obvious, but they favour the best-performing civs (territory, population, culture, conquest, diplomacy, isn't it what nations invest in ?).

Typical example : a three-cities civ declare war on your empire that spans on the whole continent.

I say : good luck to the AI. When did it happen in history BTW ? Just a question to see the parallel.


BTW, I think and hope that there will be less differences between us with Civ4, because the historical part of the game will be increased, hopefully not against a better gameplay.

 

[Akka]

This has nothing to do with being a teenager or anything like that. Don't perpetuate false stereotypes.

Must be why I used the word "cliché" ?

This is where we differ, I think. For me, Civ isn't an immersive game at all !! Where you see nations, roleplaying and feel like being the king of the world, I just see cities, units, techs, some interface elements, a goal, etc... I often use the comparison with chess, but this is what I see : a bunch of elements and mechanics that can be completely explained (the best would be to see the code or to have the devs describe each feature). I sit in front of the computer, start a game, and make sure I'm aiming at victory, this is what the game asks me to do, in a way. I could play chess, and I like to (though it's a harder game by far), but in Civ I enjoy the richness of the game while having fun using units called "archers" and "knights", and heading a tribe called "Egyptians" and build stuff called "Great Library". The more historical elements the better, but never at the expense of gameplay, ie. I prefer to have a harder and balanced game.

Well, I pretty much understood that from the beginning ^^
That's the main difference between "powergamers" and "roleplayers". The former see mainly, and have fun mainly by using, the game mechanics. The latter see and have fun mainly with the game feel, ambiance and immersion.
Not to say that, of course, both ideas can't be mixed (I'm quite a powergamer when it comes to the need of having the strongest character/civilization/whatever), but there is usually a general tendancy (for example, a game that is unable to immerse me in itself, that can't make me dream, that doesn't make me feel like if I "was here", usually doesn't hold my attention for more than ten to fifteen seconds. Twenty if I've nothing better to do.

I don't understand why the game is slaughtered if the AI starts to think about victory ?? They will compete against you, simulating the competition that is happening in the real world.

No. They will simulate the competition that is happening between two players in a game. NOT the competition that is happening in the real world

I was just telling my frustration to have a weaker AI than wanted. If the AI was stronger, it wouldn't produce those results that happen game after game, weakening the competition for me and the experience for you.

Ah, well, a better AI is ALWAYS better, whatever the game. But the AI is probably THE most difficult thing to do, so I guess we'll never be satisfied.
In the limited ability that an AI can have, I want it to act like the entity it's supposed to represent. I mean, it makes sense that if an AI represent a nation, it should act like a nation. If an AI is a general, it should act like a general.

Sorry I'm ignorant, I don't know what you're referring to with the "big plastic toy soldiers".

I was in fact referring with the units too big and having a "plastic look". But I was only referring to them to make a PARALLEL with the AI. This one :
- "toy plastic soldiers" => goes against the general feel of the game (more historical, realist, recreating the world and the civilizations, living the rise and fall of these civilization) => cheapen the experience of the game.
- "player AI" => goes against the general feel of the game => cheapen the experience of the game.

For a game like Civ, where I have found myself enjoying multiplayer (PBEM only) more than solo, the greatest fun is when you beat a human player, and then you're feeling proud to achieve victory with your skills, while having fun toying with things called "Egpytians", "swordsmen" and "Monotheism". Also another source of great fun, as I said, is to beat a whole team relying on pseudo-roleplaying while you and your teammates rely on game mechanics.

I doubt that you actually play with roleplayers

For me, what I enjoy is a solo game of Civ, where I can see the birth, infancy, growth, and finally dominant position of my civilization. When I see the wilderness of the world, then the villages being founded, becoming towns and then cities, seeing the evolution of the nation, the roads starting to link all the settlements, the people getting educated in the new library, imagining how people of these time talked between themselves about such and such nations, imagining the historians looking at such a move in war, dreaming about the headlines talking about a particularly decisive victory, acting like a general when the troops invade the territory of an ennemy, imagining the pressure the soldiers had on the field, the officers calling for reinforcements, the government calling for volunteers to fights against "these people", calling the draft, the population becoming more and more annoyed by this, the riots, the police being overwhelmed, the government forced to sign a not very interesting peace treaty, my diplomats being gracious or ruthless to others nations according to how they were toward me in the past, the technology slowly advancing and changing the very face of the world, etc., etc...

Powergaming seems bland to me. It only use the driest, less colourful, character-less features of the game, misses all the imagination stuff, which actually make the game LIVES, rather than simply "play".

It's quite a waste ^^

Roleplaying is boring in Civ because it is so limited. When I started playing Civ1 (much younger), I felt a bit like you're describing. Then it went away, and I really got rid of the roleplaying thingie once I started to play multiplayer and browse the Internet (like here). But it doesn't matter : where I lose roleplaying, I win in skills. Can't it be as satisfying ?

Roleplaying on multiplayer is practically impossible (except on a RPG with other roleplayers of course). Competition usually make it so that either you play "as a player", either you get wasted, which isn't really fun either (and prevent you for roleplaying too ^^).
Skills are satisfying, for sure. I don't deny that a good challenge is an important asset to a game. But immersion is even much more important to suck you into the game.

It is not for me, once I know what Civ3 or Civ4 is about. Of course I wish that someday the AI will be a real challenge with no artificial bonus. But seriously, as I am a Deity player, playing on Regent is like wasting my time.

Well, Regent allows me to roleplay and still to have a satisfying game. A bit more difficult would be funnier for me, but I can't stand the idea of the world working differently for the AI, and this irritation would cancel any additionnal fun induced by the increased challenge, so never mind.

And I doubt I'd like to lose game after game on Deity just because I roleplayed. In chess, programs are so good that the AI doesn't need such bonus. In Civ the AI is crappy, but this will slowly decrease with later iterations of the game.

Nah.
Chess has good AI, because chess is very simple, is particularly adapted to be programmed for computers, and had people working on it for decades.
Civ is infinitely more complex, is very hard to program, and has only Soren working on it for just a handful of years. Honestly, the Civ3 AI is incredible, considering the complexity of the game, the ressources to develop it, the time to make it, and the final results.

Try multiplayer where other people play like you then !! I just don't know what you would do in the end of the game... As for solo, it's not to show your skills to a machine but to yourself !! And sometimes to other players when it's a solo competition (GOTM, etc...).

I'm planning to do a big Civ game with a friend, one day, but such games takes AGE to play, so...
As for "showing my skills"... I mean, showing off to friends is fun, competitive spirit and all. Some skills are also very fulfilling to improve, when they have some importance. But skill on a video game to myself ? Showing myself I can beat an AI ? Sorry, don't see the point.

Maybe someday I'll roleplay (not in mind now), like those guys living in the Middle Ages for a 3-day weekend... It has to be a real experience, not something like World of Warcraft which I find boring as hell...

Well, you don't need to go to such a length to roleplay. But I guess it's an innate set on mind thing. I often stop, close my eyes and imagine in pretty much ANY game I play. Getting the feel, thinking about what's in the game like if it was real (work for books, even history books, movies and the like, too).
I think that's more a feature of character than anything else.

As for Civ, it's not immersive at all, so I'll continue like I was doing, and enjoy beating teams or people who rely on roleplay too much. Also there are other things in life to feel immersion : movies, theater, books... and dreams...

Well, it can be QUITE immersive, if you play along. Playing along is the most definite requirement to immerse into a game (the other being that the game actually helps the immersion ; no matter how much I try, Pong doesn't allow me to immerse myself into it ^^).

Victory conditions often reward the civs that "live the best they can" : the space vic is an obvious example, and it simulates what happened in the 50s and 60s in a way, or now. The other vics are less obvious, but they favour the best-performing civs (territory, population, culture, conquest, diplomacy, isn't it what nations invest in ?).

Well, the Russians weren't about launching nukes on and invade Washington because if not they would "lose due space victory".

I say : good luck to the AI. When did it happen in history BTW ? Just a question to see the parallel.

Well, it must have happened at some time, but it would have been a really exceptionnal case.
The point is, precisely, that no one in their right mind, leading a tiny, weak nation, will suddendly start a war against a world-spanning ennemy, just because if not he "would win the game". That'd be absurd ^^

BTW, I think and hope that there will be less differences between us with Civ4, because the historical part of the game will be increased, hopefully not against a better gameplay.

Well, the difference are from essence, from the very reasons we like the game and the very principles we found our fun in, so regardless if we both like/dislike Civ4, it will be for different reasons anyway, so the differences will still be the same

(unless you start to appreiate the "roleplayer" approach, of course ^^)

 

[Hygro]

Must be why I used the word "cliché" ?

Not the first time you posted it. Cliche was the word you used standing up for that argument.

More importantly, cliche does not equate bad stereotype.

 

[apatheist]

Why do they have to be two mutually exclusive things? Ideally, playing "like a nation" and to win would be the same thing. That's what I want (and a pony).

 

[kryszcztov]

Hehe, funny to learn about 90% of your life. (j/k)

No. They will simulate the competition that is happening between two players in a game. NOT the competition that is happening in the real world

You seem to focus on the victory conditions. AFAIK no AI has ever made everything possible to win in Civ3, so why not trying yourself ? I'd go as far as claiming that Civ3's AI doesn't know how to win, and so gets lost in AI-AI wars and in communism or fascism. In this regard they act like a nation, but badly.

Ah, well, a better AI is ALWAYS better, whatever the game. But the AI is probably THE most difficult thing to do, so I guess we'll never be satisfied.
In the limited ability that an AI can have, I want it to act like the entity it's supposed to represent. I mean, it makes sense that if an AI represent a nation, it should act like a nation. If an AI is a general, it should act like a general.

You seem to forget that we're not commanding nations but civilizations. And you're not the Emperor or President, but the God-like master of a tribe. Civ has often been put into the "God game" category.

I was in fact referring with the units too big and having a "plastic look". But I was only referring to them to make a PARALLEL with the AI. This one :
- "toy plastic soldiers" => goes against the general feel of the game (more historical, realist, recreating the world and the civilizations, living the rise and fall of these civilization) => cheapen the experience of the game.
- "player AI" => goes against the general feel of the game => cheapen the experience of the game.

Ah ok. I hope the Civ units don't refrain you from immersing like you want to.

I doubt that you actually play with roleplayers

True. I'd win almost all the time otherwise : boring.

For me, what I enjoy is a solo game of Civ, where I can see the birth, infancy, growth, and finally dominant position of my civilization. When I see the wilderness of the world, then the villages being founded, becoming towns and then cities, seeing the evolution of the nation, the roads starting to link all the settlements, the people getting educated in the new library, imagining how people of these time talked between themselves about such and such nations, imagining the historians looking at such a move in war, dreaming about the headlines talking about a particularly decisive victory, acting like a general when the troops invade the territory of an ennemy, imagining the pressure the soldiers had on the field, the officers calling for reinforcements, the government calling for volunteers to fights against "these people", calling the draft, the population becoming more and more annoyed by this, the riots, the police being overwhelmed, the government forced to sign a not very interesting peace treaty, my diplomats being gracious or ruthless to others nations according to how they were toward me in the past, the technology slowly advancing and changing the very face of the world, etc., etc...

Well, what you describe I also feel, to some degree at least. I like to see my civ develop, getting new techs, conquering some neighbours, etc, etc, etc... It's just that I don't get myself absorbed by this thrilling experience. Instead of that, I have some satisfaction to realize that this general development happened thanks to me. And then I have the desire to do even better for my tribe, always promising victory to my tribe.

Powergaming seems bland to me. It only use the driest, less colourful, character-less features of the game, misses all the imagination stuff, which actually make the game LIVES, rather than simply "play".

Well, games are games, not stories. I play games, first to have fun like you, and then to win, and only then to have a nice experience. Just like I'd play Super Mario, really.

Roleplaying on multiplayer is practically impossible (except on a RPG with other roleplayers of course). Competition usually make it so that either you play "as a player", either you get wasted, which isn't really fun either (and prevent you for roleplaying too ^^).
Skills are satisfying, for sure. I don't deny that a good challenge is an important asset to a game. But immersion is even much more important to suck you into the game.

But I don't want to be sucked into the damn game !!! I have a (neglected) life too, and I don't want to see Civ everywhere I go. I'm not talking about the huge amount of time that sucks you in Civ, the game, BTW. My brain gets a lot of pleasure when I think on how to solve the puzzle in Civ. And my imagination skills are used for other things than Civ, just trust in me about that.

Nah.
Chess has good AI, because chess is very simple, is particularly adapted to be programmed for computers, and had people working on it for decades.
Civ is infinitely more complex, is very hard to program, and has only Soren working on it for just a handful of years. Honestly, the Civ3 AI is incredible, considering the complexity of the game, the ressources to develop it, the time to make it, and the final results.

This is my (famous ?) view on it : chess have limited complexity compared to Civ, because in Civ possibilities are almost infinite and that doesn't suit the way a computer works. On the contrary, the human finds chess quite complicated, whereas Civ is quite easy (it's obvious to head for more population, attack only when you have a big army (a lesson still not learnt by the AI !), etc...). BTW I'm not blaming the efforts put into the AI in Civ. I respect Soren a lot. I was merely making a comparison between the AI in chess and in Civ, regarding the human : in Civ it is comparatively weaker, hence the need for artificial bonus on higher levels.

I'm planning to do a big Civ game with a friend, one day, but such games takes AGE to play, so...
As for "showing my skills"... I mean, showing off to friends is fun, competitive spirit and all. Some skills are also very fulfilling to improve, when they have some importance. But skill on a video game to myself ? Showing myself I can beat an AI ? Sorry, don't see the point.

PBEMs take ages to play but they work, I know it first hand. If I were silly, I would tell you that PBEM is good for you because it simulates the huge amount of time needed for a nation to develop better... by playing less turns per day. Some PBEM complete in a few months, sometimes less or more. It doesn't bother me a lot as long as I don't wait turns for ages, because I don't immerse myself. As for solo, well, when you beat a game, it means you're smart enough to learn some rules, apply them and defeat a level, that's the whole concept of gaming, I don't get what you mean. Haven't you EVER played a game to improve so as to eventually win ?

Well, it can be QUITE immersive, if you play along. Playing along is the most definite requirement to immerse into a game (the other being that the game actually helps the immersion ; no matter how much I try, Pong doesn't allow me to immerse myself into it ^^).

Seriously, you'd be better off with immersion by playing a game like Rise of Nations or Empire Earth, no ? Never played them, but I know what it is about : RTS games about the entire human history. I guess soldiers there feel more like soldiers, etc... Just a thought.

Well, the Russians weren't about launching nukes on and invade Washington because if not they would "lose due space victory".

That was close enough. ^^

Well, it must have happened at some time, but it would have been a really exceptionnal case.
The point is, precisely, that no one in their right mind, leading a tiny, weak nation, will suddendly start a war against a world-spanning ennemy, just because if not he "would win the game". That'd be absurd ^^

In Civ3 the AI doesn't know how to win, but doesn't do much in order to prevent you from winning. I think an AI can also be taught to resign when it's hopeless.

Well, the difference are from essence, from the very reasons we like the game and the very principles we found our fun in, so regardless if we both like/dislike Civ4, it will be for different reasons anyway, so the differences will still be the same

(unless you start to appreiate the "roleplayer" approach, of course ^^)

Yup, and on a silly tone, I'll say that I hope there is no plague in Civ4 because it sucks hard, man, it adds nothing but complete randomness that screws games. (mdr)

 

[jasper1]

Listen to kryszcztov he knows what he’s talking about. I have played since Civ 1. Role playing died long ago. Its not realistic is gamey it sucks it not even fun plus its ******ed.

The first multiplayer Civ game I played was hot seat Civ 2 multiplayer gold edition and I never looked back. I did not buy Civ 3 till play the world came out because I take no pride in beating up a computer. I think causal gamers are going to be the death of games. Below is a link to an interesting article that out-lines my views better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/game/20050902/index.html

Playing to win is old school I wish the next generation would take pride in winning but maybe that will not come to pass.

For me winning at Sid is just motions. No feeling to it. It’s died like a machine. Just hope your on an island and get ready to reload.

 

[The_Unforgiven]

AI should play to win, I do. Conquest, Conquest, Conquest, best way to win on Deity and up...

 

[kryszcztov]

@ jasper1 : Interesting link. Of course I agree with what is said. From what is mentioned, I had already noticed the trend towards "no game over". Example : Super Mario. In #1 on the NES, the game was short yet quite difficult, and you had limited lives and no continue. In #2 you have more lives thanks to the jackpot at the end of each level. In #3 lives are everywhere to get, and you have plenty of ways to get them and to reload them. ("The Lost Levels" (Mario 2 in Japan) is incredibly difficult.) In Super Mario World, you even have a special stage where the only thing to do is to get your lives up to the max, and you can get there anytime you want, which means that you must be a fool to get Game Over once that stage is unveiled. Of course it doesn't matter if you get Game Over because you have infinite continues (not sure about though, because of the previous element). And it continues... But I couldn't explain why it was so, and this article does a nice job to give some hints about it. In this regard, a game like World of Warcraft doesn't appeal to me at all : no game over, no pause, no victory, and having to pay each month for that ? No thanks.

Fortunately in Civ you can get game over by losing to an AI or a human. People can of course save the game and reload, but if they don't have a clue how to win, they just won't. If it's just to get something better from a hut, or finally not attack that city because they'd lose, as tested, then it's up to the player. Toggling the "preserve random seed" option on prevents some kind of reloads, and the player can behave by not reloading a save because of a bad result (this is what I do in Civ).

 

[Akka]

Jasper1 : if you wish for me to bother to read what you write, then bother to write it into proper english. I certainly won't spend half an hour trying to correct the mispelled and misused words in an attempt to try to guess what you attempted to say.

Hehe, funny to learn about 90% of your life. (j/k)

You seem to focus on the victory conditions. AFAIK no AI has ever made everything possible to win in Civ3, so why not trying yourself ? I'd go as far as claiming that Civ3's AI doesn't know how to win, and so gets lost in AI-AI wars and in communism or fascism. In this regard they act like a nation, but badly.[/quote]
Sorry, but the whole paragraph lacks sense. I don't get what you mean.

You seem to forget that we're not commanding nations but civilizations. And you're not the Emperor or President, but the God-like master of a tribe. Civ has often been put into the "God game" category.

No semantics, please. "nations" or "civilizations" doesn't change anything in this particular context.
And as for the player/leader's place, I rather see it as the "soul" of the civ, or the successive incarnations of the leaders.
And anyway, my imagination isn't so limited that I'm restricted to imagine only the President/Emperor/King/Dictator/whatever of the civ.
When there is public order problems, I can imagine the people riotings in the streets, the police being overwhelmed, the mayor giving an emergency call to the leader, and the leader ordering troops to move to the city to reestablish order.
When there is war, I can imagine the individual soldier attempting to keep its position, or assaulting one. I can imagine the snigger of the man holding his machinegun, when hordes of primitive spearmen attack him and are butchered. I can imagine the terror of horsemen when hearing a strange noise, and being bombarded by unknow strange machines from the sky.
I can imagine thousands of things, which put together, form a superb tapestry of events, people and pictures, fleshing out my game, making it "history" rather than "score".

I pity you low-imaginative people

Ah ok. I hope the Civ units don't refrain you from immersing like you want to.

Well, hopefully it was stated many times that changing the size of the units would require a simply change in a single number, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
And anyway, even if I couldn't mod it, though it detracts from the experience, I don't think it's a game-killing point anyway. Just a bad point.

True. I'd win almost all the time otherwise : boring.

Well, what you describe I also feel, to some degree at least. I like to see my civ develop, getting new techs, conquering some neighbours, etc, etc, etc... It's just that I don't get myself absorbed by this thrilling experience. Instead of that, I have some satisfaction to realize that this general development happened thanks to me. And then I have the desire to do even better for my tribe, always promising victory to my tribe.

Well, I don't know if the feeling you describe is really a "toned down" version of the one I talk about, or one from a different nature. I do like to stop and look at what I accomplished, too. But then, it's usually to imagine some historian talking about the accomplishment of this king, or this president, which elevated the civ from this point to that point, and the like.

Well, games are games, not stories. I play games, first to have fun like you, and then to win, and only then to have a nice experience. Just like I'd play Super Mario, really.

Blasphemy !

What makes immersive games interesting, is precisely to make them histories ! Super Mario kind of fun is, well, fun, but that's a one-dimensionnal fun, like a good Street Fighter game, or the like. It's not the much deeper, much more fleshed-out fun that comes from the "story-mode" we can develop in immersive games.
Not that, sometimes, we don't simply want a bit of pure, raw fun. But except in these cases, one-dimensional fun feels like a shallow and superficial time-killer.

But I don't want to be sucked into the damn game !!! I have a (neglected) life too, and I don't want to see Civ everywhere I go. I'm not talking about the huge amount of time that sucks you in Civ, the game, BTW. My brain gets a lot of pleasure when I think on how to solve the puzzle in Civ. And my imagination skills are used for other things than Civ, just trust in me about that.

Why do you assume that being sucked into the game means to spend your life in it ? It's been monthes that I didn't even started Civilization, you know ?
It's just that, if I'm going to spend some time playing, then at least let it be the most pleasurable possible. And the most pleasure, I get it by "living" the game rather than merely "playing" it on a superficial level.

This is my (famous ?) view on it : chess have limited complexity compared to Civ, because in Civ possibilities are almost infinite and that doesn't suit the way a computer works. On the contrary, the human finds chess quite complicated, whereas Civ is quite easy (it's obvious to head for more population, attack only when you have a big army (a lesson still not learnt by the AI !), etc...). BTW I'm not blaming the efforts put into the AI in Civ. I respect Soren a lot. I was merely making a comparison between the AI in chess and in Civ, regarding the human : in Civ it is comparatively weaker, hence the need for artificial bonus on higher levels.

Well, yes. And precisely, what makes the game more intuitive to play, is that it's emulating the real world. A civ/nation-like AI would enhance this "real-like" feeling, which would make it even more intuitive.

I like when I can get the stats, but I don't NEED them to play. It's sign of an excellent gameplay to me.

(on this point, the battles of Medieval Total War are excellent : you never need to know the actual stats of units, because all is so LOGICAL, that you never have to bother with the exact numbers. Just doing things "like they should be done" is sufficient. That's a great lesson to be learn by most games)

PBEMs take ages to play but they work, I know it first hand. If I were silly, I would tell you that PBEM is good for you because it simulates the huge amount of time needed for a nation to develop better... by playing less turns per day. Some PBEM complete in a few months, sometimes less or more. It doesn't bother me a lot as long as I don't wait turns for ages, because I don't immerse myself. As for solo, well, when you beat a game, it means you're smart enough to learn some rules, apply them and defeat a level, that's the whole concept of gaming, I don't get what you mean. Haven't you EVER played a game to improve so as to eventually win ?

About the "rules", read the paragraph above
I don't like knowing to much of the "rules", in fact, because then it becomes simply a point of exploiting them, which is particularly boring and anti-immersive. I like rules to make sense by themselves.

And playing solely to improve and win ? Only for some few multiplayer games. In fact, only Starcraft and Warcraft III comes to mind.
Of course, when I start a new game that I never tried before, my first games are just to "test", so in a way, it's just to "improve" and "learn to play". But it's only to get a sufficient knowledge of the game to be able to play without not understanding what's happening. After that, no, I don't care.

Seriously, you'd be better off with immersion by playing a game like Rise of Nations or Empire Earth, no ? Never played them, but I know what it is about : RTS games about the entire human history. I guess soldiers there feel more like soldiers, etc... Just a thought.

Gah, are you joking ?
These are fun, but much LESS immersive.
They are, on the contrary, far too much "game-oriented" to be really able to suck someone up into them.
They are much more action-oriented. No time to stop, pause, imagine and roleplay. No sense of realism. No feeling of time passing while the civ is growing.

I'm afraid you really didn't grasp the principle of immersion, my friend

That was close enough. ^^

In Civ3 the AI doesn't know how to win, but doesn't do much in order to prevent you from winning. I think an AI can also be taught to resign when it's hopeless.

"resign when it's hopeless" ? If you mean "yield to an obviously much, much stronger opponent", yes it needs to, because that's what real civ would do.
If you mean "surrender because it can't reach the victory condition of the game", then you really didn't understand the "Russian didn't throw a nuke on Wahsington to prevent them from sending a spaceship" thing.
Stop thinking in game terms, and try to imagine that they are REAL civs. From then, imagine what it would be logical for them to do.

Yup, and on a silly tone, I'll say that I hope there is no plague in Civ4 because it sucks hard, man, it adds nothing but complete randomness that screws games. (mdr)

It depends heavily on the actual effects and randomness of plagues, and above all of the means the players has to counter them.

 

[Commander Bello]

Definetely like a player.

Where's the point to have England try to act as "Britannia rules the waves" when they sit somewhere in the middle of the desert?
Where is the point in having the US lie to the international community and to start wars when their neighbours are of double strength?
Where is the point in the Mongols trying to re-create the "Golden Horde" when they are just sitting on a small island?

On the other hand, what do nations really do? They compete with each other, trying to get the max out of what is available at a given point of time.

To me, this seems very similar to what a player plays like. Therefore, make the AI play as much as a good player would do. That is, make it become aware of opportunities and make it make use of those opportunities.

If I would like to play SimCiv, I would ask for a world version of SimCity.

 

[Naokaukodem]

As I already said in other topics, I prefer Civ as an experience. In Civ2, The fact that we were forced to peace with AIs by our governement were reflecting this will to limite the agressivity of the player perfectly, to limit the "gameplay" and enhance the "nation" side. (after all, not every AI in civ attack us as soon as it see us) Civ is more a game where we play a nation, develop it, than where we have to play with roughly defined rules. But, in Civ3, we can be extremely agressive and make the other civs fall one by one, with ease, without caring about our territory defense that much. In the same way, the harder levels are exclusively conserned by war and conquest. There is no way that in Civ3 our research and developement will be limited by the size of our army... this make it a game of conquest more than anything else. I think that the experience side and feeling should be reinstored/reinforced in the next civs.
Or as AI usually don't attack us all the time with the goal of "winning", they just could do it: we would have to defend our territory from many directions, the most of the time, or lose, conquered. Those battles would be non-stop and constitute the bone of the gameplay. To reach the size of a great empire, we would have to defend a lot, and to attack a lot. The game would be like a simulation of bacterias: the bigger eat the smaller, or the stronger eat the weaker, eaten at his turn by another one, etc, and with the evolution, entities becoming bigger, stronger, more complex... it would be a Darwin type of game, with continual gameplay, and after all, even if a "player" game, with a constant fight for victory, also a "nation" one after all, with the developement and evolution of it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Quite frankly the problem is the fact that there is a distinction between the two.

To determine how to "play in character", look at the rules. What sort of behavior do they encourage to pursue a winning strategy. That is the 'Character' the game has given you to play.
Ideally
1. You have some choice as to the character (ie military/builder style..everyone's ideal society, with some modifications, is a winning path)
2. Those 'Characters' make sense in other terms than just game rules.
3. The AI acts as much like a standard human in the game as it is reasonably possible to make them, so they have a general 'strategy' that they favor, but will switch out or make exceptions if it just doesn't work for this situation.

 

[kryszcztov]

Sorry, but the whole paragraph lacks sense. I don't get what you mean.

Yeah, forget that one, it was badly written and it is redundant with the rest.

No semantics, please. "nations" or "civilizations" doesn't change anything in this particular context.

I used semantics because they serve my point of view : nowhere does Civ have the arrogance to simulate History like you're dreaming of. That's just what is written on the game box. But as you play the game, it feels very abstracted. Hence why I made a point about "nations" in RL and "civs" in the game, which are a very abstracted version of nations. Hell, by a simple modding, you could change civs into an abstracted version of a family...

And as for the player/leader's place, I rather see it as the "soul" of the civ, or the successive incarnations of the leaders.

OK.

And anyway, my imagination isn't so limited that I'm restricted to imagine only the President/Emperor/King/Dictator/whatever of the civ.
When there is public order problems, I can imagine the people riotings in the streets, the police being overwhelmed, the mayor giving an emergency call to the leader, and the leader ordering troops to move to the city to reestablish order.
When there is war, I can imagine the individual soldier attempting to keep its position, or assaulting one. I can imagine the snigger of the man holding his machinegun, when hordes of primitive spearmen attack him and are butchered. I can imagine the terror of horsemen when hearing a strange noise, and being bombarded by unknow strange machines from the sky.
I can imagine thousands of things, which put together, form a superb tapestry of events, people and pictures, fleshing out my game, making it "history" rather than "score".

I see. I myself don't feel the need to go into such details and realism. For a start, it would always feel the same to imagine a riot in Ancient Times. Or I lack imagination for that. But it would be like watching the same movie over and over. I like to stay on the abstract layer, only focusing on important things, and not on that single soldier who died while I captured a foreign city.

I pity you low-imaginative people

Don't. I don't do this for games but for other things. In fact, I don't want to imagine things in video games, I want to see them on the screen. And that is the trend of video games, for good and worse ! If Civ doesn't want to display the dying soldier at the gate of the enemy city, then be it. I'll see him in Age of Empires.

Well, I don't know if the feeling you describe is really a "toned down" version of the one I talk about, or one from a different nature. I do like to stop and look at what I accomplished, too. But then, it's usually to imagine some historian talking about the accomplishment of this king, or this president, which elevated the civ from this point to that point, and the like.

Different nature, I guess. For you it's about feeling the achievements of your nation. For me it's the satisfaction of playing well and beating the hell out of my opponent.

Blasphemy !

Yet true.

What makes immersive games interesting, is precisely to make them histories ! Super Mario kind of fun is, well, fun, but that's a one-dimensionnal fun, like a good Street Fighter game, or the like. It's not the much deeper, much more fleshed-out fun that comes from the "story-mode" we can develop in immersive games.
Not that, sometimes, we don't simply want a bit of pure, raw fun. But except in these cases, one-dimensional fun feels like a shallow and superficial time-killer.

I won't deny that what makes immersive games interesting is the history part of it. It's just that I don't play such games ! And for me Civ isn't such a game either. Games for me are superficial time-killers per se in a way : they won't learn a lot about myself, etc... Only when they lead to more interesting things related to RL are they not superficial : social contact, new centers of interest... I clearly don't put the best of my personality into the games I play, and I don't know about you.
Don't know if you're interested, but you might enjoy some places where some people played some Civ3 games very well while at the same time telling a story around it. I'm thinking of Sullla and Dwip's websites, with their RBCiv epic games. I know there are a lot of stories at CFC, but those are top players who know how to write, so...

Why do you assume that being sucked into the game means to spend your life in it ? It's been monthes that I didn't even started Civilization, you know ?
It's just that, if I'm going to spend some time playing, then at least let it be the most pleasurable possible. And the most pleasure, I get it by "living" the game rather than merely "playing" it on a superficial level.

Yeah, I just pointed out that you don't necessarily get more pleasure by being sucked in it.

Well, yes. And precisely, what makes the game more intuitive to play, is that it's emulating the real world. A civ/nation-like AI would enhance this "real-like" feeling, which would make it even more intuitive.

I like when I can get the stats, but I don't NEED them to play. It's sign of an excellent gameplay to me.

(on this point, the battles of Medieval Total War are excellent : you never need to know the actual stats of units, because all is so LOGICAL, that you never have to bother with the exact numbers. Just doing things "like they should be done" is sufficient. That's a great lesson to be learn by most games)

I partially agree that humans do well because Civ tries to simulate History (though on a very abstract way). And I think that Civ will stay on this abstract level, at least Civ4 doesn't seem to pretend to be deeper in this regard at all.

About the "rules", read the paragraph above
I don't like knowing to much of the "rules", in fact, because then it becomes simply a point of exploiting them, which is particularly boring and anti-immersive. I like rules to make sense by themselves.

I want to know all the freaking rules. Just like when I'm playing chess or Risk. Civ for me is a social experience (all the more since I play multiplayer) rather than an inner experience.

And playing solely to improve and win ? Only for some few multiplayer games. In fact, only Starcraft and Warcraft III comes to mind.
Of course, when I start a new game that I never tried before, my first games are just to "test", so in a way, it's just to "improve" and "learn to play". But it's only to get a sufficient knowledge of the game to be able to play without not understanding what's happening. After that, no, I don't care.

And don't you want to improve a bit more in order to lead your nation even better ? What will you do when the AI is unbeatable in Civ 10 ?

Gah, are you joking ?
These are fun, but much LESS immersive.
They are, on the contrary, far too much "game-oriented" to be really able to suck someone up into them.
They are much more action-oriented. No time to stop, pause, imagine and roleplay. No sense of realism. No feeling of time passing while the civ is growing.

I'm afraid you really didn't grasp the principle of immersion, my friend

OK, sorry about that. In fact, a bit after I posted last night, I came to the same conclusion as Commander Bello just above : you'd be better off with some kind of SimCiv. I know some people have some projects on such a game. I myself would be tempted to see what it is. But AFAIK it's a very difficult kind of game to create, as you can imagine. I think it's a sub-genre of games yet to set up.

"resign when it's hopeless" ? If you mean "yield to an obviously much, much stronger opponent", yes it needs to, because that's what real civ would do.
If you mean "surrender because it can't reach the victory condition of the game", then you really didn't understand the "Russian didn't throw a nuke on Wahsington to prevent them from sending a spaceship" thing.
Stop thinking in game terms, and try to imagine that they are REAL civs. From then, imagine what it would be logical for them to do.

It looks like the concept of victory conditions, or to be more general, the concept of Game Over, is a barrier between us. Otherwise we'd have much closer wishes about the AI. I think someone (maybe you) said here that he likes to continue a game after it is technically won. That impresses me too, because I hate doing so, I really do. Once it is over, there's nothing left to do but milking the game and I'm not a farmer. No goal, no motivation : as in RL I'd get bored.

It depends heavily on the actual effects and randomness of plagues, and above all of the means the players has to counter them.

I like to take C3C's plague as an example. It is just a meaningless and artificial thingie that does nothing but annoy you a little before getting lost. It adds nothing in terms of strategy (hey, a word we haven't used yet in our little conversation !), it is totally random, ie. it is there just for the sake of realism. Well, if you want to penalize me because my cities are overpopulated, do it in a smart way, not with this thing at par with Civ-pollution. It looks like Civ4 is doing a very nice job of getting rid of such things, for example, the health system sounds good.

 

[nicae]

Listen to kryszcztov he knows what he’s talking about. I have played since Civ 1. Role playing died long ago. Its not realistic is gamey it sucks it not even fun plus its ******ed.

The first multiplayer Civ game I played was hot seat Civ 2 multiplayer gold edition and I never looked back. I did not buy Civ 3 till play the world came out because I take no pride in beating up a computer. I think causal gamers are going to be the death of games. Below is a link to an interesting article that out-lines my views better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/game/20050902/index.html

Playing to win is old school I wish the next generation would take pride in winning but maybe that will not come to pass.

For me winning at Sid is just motions. No feeling to it. It’s died like a machine. Just hope your on an island and get ready to reload.

"old school"? maybe "obsolete" ;P gamespot once hosted a video interview with 3 important game developers. i can remember maxis founder and creator of simcity mentioning that change. he said that all his previous games were aimed towards gaining points and after this sequential series of levels until its end, because all the market was driven to arcades, and so they had to be linear and difficult to suck those tokens. until he noticed this game where he enjoyed the city building much more than the rest of the game itself, so he created simcity.
"playing to win".... you were the perfect customer in those days.. you would spend some 200 bucks per week in some arcade store, just trying to "master that very difficult game", as mentioned by that article at tomshardware.
yet again, it mentions

I've had Super Mario Bros for about 12 years and every time I pass that final Bowser stage, I still get a great sense of satisfaction. In contrast, when I conquer a game from this era, I just feel relieved that it's over. I rarely get the feeling anymore that I won because of hard work and determination.

if i defeat a lousy amalgam of computer algorythms, i get "releived that it's over". the only difference is that got extremely pissed off many times because of the "game over" situation, where i had to start over from the beginning!!!! its like.. yeah right! wtf! why the heck should i go through the same dull and irritating stuff again?! thats not fun, thats making a game an obligation! even with "continues", as the article suggests. just to reinforce that difference in point of view:

We've become a society where, outside of our jobs, we want to exert as little effort as possible and give our brains a rest. The gaming culture has shamelessly shifted to accommodate that lifestyle as well.

honestly, i cant see where thats a problem. if you didnt want to give your brain a rest, stay at work. the article still says "We need those challenges that leave us ripping out our hair trying to figure out what to do". but as i see it, running in one direction, jumping on enemies to gather "points" and memorizing the level so when you die you will know what to do isnt really an intellectual challenge. if you look at simcity, you have space to develop your creativity, yet concealing all the diverse complexities that involve city planning, and you never have to go through the same repeating sequences because you "died". sure, maybe you have no "challenges" in simcity because it doesnt give you exact objectives. could it be growth? quality of life? but in civ, its more obvious, since we all know what is best for the interests of a nation. and the world context helps with that as well - something you dont have in simcity.

the more common concept of having virtually no punishment for meeting your demise in a game is just ludicrous.

But, to my view, whats ludicrous is becoming a geek in spending weeks playing the same levels in the same repeating game. and thats to what avail? oh yeah, seeing the end of that amalgam of computer algorythms.

the article still mentions that games nowadays dont have any punishment when the player makes mistakes. but since we're talking about civ.. i cant see where our mistakes arent reflected in the game results! try mistakingly declaring war at the wrong time for you to see. even with this lousy AI you will be punished. oh, and why dont we take the next step in bringing civ back to "old school"? lets bring final bosses to the game! xD

Also, driving games have exploded in popularity over the last 7 or 8 years. While they require some good basic reflexes, racing games do little to really challenge gamers.

although i agree when it speaks of The Sims, driving games have certainly not exploded. maybe they grew, but for the past 10 years, we have only seen those lousy arcade racing games, that pretty much follow the "Old school" ideology of linear game and point gathering. the true sims are few, and those are certainly much more than games that "require some good basic reflexes that do little to really challenge gamers". try regulating the dampers and break balance in a F-1 game like geoff crammonds GP4. heck, not even *i* know what those are for! in fact, the games that do what he is disliking are games such as the old pole-position, that he so dearly mentioned on the 1st page...!!

that said, i have to say that im not saying that "games should be MY way, and not yours!". basically, my point is.. sure, you can enjoy arcade games (old shool), but civ? like someone said, although in the opposite direction, i recommend you play an RTS game like age of empires - its pretty straightforward: win win win win. civ may not be the perfect simulation, but its the best we get (worldwise and agewise). if you still wish to play civ in the arcade-manner, i (we?) wouldnt mind sharing - why not have a different set of AI for each?

 

[kryszcztov]

In Civ2, The fact that we were forced to peace with AIs by our governement were reflecting this will to limite the agressivity of the player perfectly, to limit the "gameplay" and enhance the "nation" side. (after all, not every AI in civ attack us as soon as it see us)

"Limiting the gameplay" ? Sounds like a rather silly idea, and I'm not sure it's what you meant. Still, Civ2 did a better job at this than Civ1 IIRC, but it was far from perfect. You want realism, and yet you wouldn't be allowed to attack a nasty nation but at the same time have the power to decide where your citizens work (tile assignment). It's usually the opposite in RL, even in democracies !! So, we have a feature which isn't satisfying in terms of gameplay and in terms of realism. It was better addressed in Civ3 (war weariness), though there is still room for better ideas.

Civ is more a game where we play a nation, develop it, than where we have to play with roughly defined rules.

Why do you say so ? It's your personal point of view. For a start, I can say that Civ is just a game with rules and historical decoration. And also, the rules are very precise, the annoying thing is that they're not displayed in their entirety in the Civilopedia nor in the manual (the what ? ). But ask the devs to send you the code, and you will get the exact rules (or more pragmatically, browse this forum).

There is no way that in Civ3 our research and developement will be limited by the size of our army... this make it a game of conquest more than anything else.

Yes there is : just build thousands of units and you'll start to have problems of maintenance, which will harm your research capability. This was even reinforced for the Republic type of government in C3C. But I agree that Civ is still too focused on conquest.

The game would be like a simulation of bacterias: the bigger eat the smaller, or the stronger eat the weaker, eaten at his turn by another one, etc, and with the evolution, entities becoming bigger, stronger, more complex... it would be a Darwin type of game, with continual gameplay, and after all, even if a "player" game, with a constant fight for victory, also a "nation" one after all, with the developement and evolution of it.

I think that is what Civ is about, no ? And too much : the big always eats the small (in terms of population). Civ4 should give a chance to small but powerful nations, like in RL.

 

[kryszcztov]

the only difference is that got extremely pissed off many times because of the "game over" situation, where i had to start over from the beginning!!!! its like.. yeah right! wtf! why the heck should i go through the same dull and irritating stuff again?!

Because you were bad at it so far. SAME PLAYER, TRY AGAIN !

thats not fun, thats making a game an obligation! even with "continues", as the article suggests.

You're not forced to play that game, you could play another one or take a nap in the sun. Some people find it fun though.

just to reinforce that difference in point of view:
honestly, i cant see where thats a problem. if you didnt want to give your brain a rest, stay at work.

Some people (like me, I guess) don't like to stay mentally inactive for long. I have a friend who is the opposite : he just wants to play a smooth game once in a while, just to get distracted.

but as i see it, running in one direction, jumping on enemies to gather "points" and memorizing the level so when you die you will know what to do isnt really an intellectual challenge.

I played a game when I was young, it was called "Memory", I guess, it was about finding out card pairs amongst a bunch of cards. I won't digress into what is intelligent and what is not, but it certainly trains the brain hard.

if you look at simcity, you have space to develop your creativity, yet concealing all the diverse complexities that involve city planning, and you never have to go through the same repeating sequences because you "died". sure, maybe you have no "challenges" in simcity because it doesnt give you exact objectives. could it be growth? quality of life? but in civ, its more obvious, since we all know what is best for the interests of a nation.

I enjoyed SimCity a lot when I was younger. It doesn't suit me as much as before though, I guess I eventually got a serious burnout about this game, because it is essentially always the same story : draw your zones, your roads, your power plants, and watch it work. Creativity ? Surely some, but as I said, I put my creativity elsewhere than in playing games.

But, to my view, whats ludicrous is becoming a geek in spending weeks playing the same levels in the same repeating game. and thats to what avail? oh yeah, seeing the end of that amalgam of computer algorythms.

Well, I stop after a while if I can't beat it, I'm not a weirdo. I can admit I'm not good enough to get through that level.

the article still mentions that games nowadays dont have any punishment when the player makes mistakes. but since we're talking about civ.. i cant see where our mistakes arent reflected in the game results! try mistakingly declaring war at the wrong time for you to see. even with this lousy AI you will be punished. oh, and why dont we take the next step in bringing civ back to "old school"? lets bring final bosses to the game! xD

Hehe. And what about the idea that the Space Race in Civ feels like a final boss ??? Not in Civ3, mind you (for me), but at least, when I played Civ2 it was a pretty intense part of the game, close to what the article describes, and it happened at the end of the game.

 

[nicae]

Because you were bad at it so far. SAME PLAYER, TRY AGAIN !

was i? i mean, i didnt lose a single life until level 54. then i lost all 3 of them in the next 2 levels. should i really start over?

You're not forced to play that game, you could play another one or take a nap in the sun. Some people find it fun though.

you're not forced to play that simulation, you could play another one or take a nap in the sun. ^^

Some people (like me, I guess) don't like to stay mentally inactive for long. I have a friend who is the opposite : he just wants to play a smooth game once in a while, just to get distracted.

yes, it was my point to show the difference between our enjoyments

I played a game when I was young, it was called "Memory", I guess, it was about finding out card pairs amongst a bunch of cards. I won't digress into what is intelligent and what is not, but it certainly trains the brain hard.

"train" would be the right word. but, IMHO, creativity should be stimulated even more. but thats just an opinion!

I enjoyed SimCity a lot when I was younger. It doesn't suit me as much as before though, I guess I eventually got a serious burnout about this game, because it is essentially always the same story : draw your zones, your roads, your power plants, and watch it work. Creativity ? Surely some, but as I said, I put my creativity elsewhere than in playing games.

yeah, i kinda agree that it can become repeating. mainly because its just a city, and the surroundings have no interaction with it. in simcity4, however, you have some limited interaction with neighbouring cities. even so, civ is much mor einteresting in that aspect - since you have all the diplomacy and, of course, all the wars to take on. and those really impact your "zoning"

Well, I stop after a while if I can't beat it, I'm not a weirdo. I can admit I'm not good enough to get through that level.

but if you stop, it means the game stopped being fun, doesnt it? a good game will be fun forever. even if you reach the end of an arcade game, it will have an end! :-\

Hehe. And what about the idea that the Space Race in Civ feels like a final boss ??? Not in Civ3, mind you (for me), but at least, when I played Civ2 it was a pretty intense part of the game, close to what the article describes, and it happened at the end of the game.

ok, maybe! but, usually, the space race is not just at the end of the game - players often have it planned from long before.

cheers!

 

[sealman]

The funamental aspect of a game is to win so the AI should be programmed to do just that. It needs to be able to win the game. I think that the best chance would be if the AI was designed to "play like a player".