2 negative thoughts from a BtS fan

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Shawnosaurus, Jul 28, 2007.

  1. oranges4ever

    oranges4ever Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I think that may be realistic. The more backstabbing, the more need for a 'pre-emptive defense' of wiping someone else out before they get you.
    Certainly military buildups happen in real life where there is military aggression.

    Warmongers might not care about more wars.

    Friends who support each other against aggression would get the helping-us-with-the-war bonus and hence would reinforce their good relations. Even less likelihood of war there.

    Also, don't forget the puppet masters who manipulate war and peace. They might have a more difficult task, but I'm sure they are up to the challenge!
     
  2. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,052
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    I'll wait till you are talking about some aspect of the game that you don't like or about some ideas that you don't agree with and I'll say that you are whining. How about "LOL whiner"?

    So far so good.

    The situation that you just described is valid. But I believe the OP wasn't talking about such a disfunctional marriage.

    Yup, such as making the AI gang up on the most powerful civ. When you have been peacefully building up your empire for the past millenium and making it the most propserous, I'm sure you'd be smiling with nostalgia when all the other civs sign a pact "to contain [your] aggression".

    Again, we can have ruthless AI or we can have diplomatic AI. No this-turn's-dice-roll-says-I-should-be-ruthless-AI.

    Good for you, then. The optimal solutions to an AI that cares less about diplomatic relations are unit spam and warmongering, though, so be careful what you wish for.

    I don't agree. I don't like dice-roll diplomacy. It shouldn't be that. The reasons why a Pleased AI would declare war must be based entirely on real factors that force its hand, such as closed borders and being boxed in by you. After that, the AI should consider how strong it is relative to you. Friendly AIs should never attack. I'm aware that the current system employs the kind of dice rolls you describe, and I don't completely agree with it either. There is certainly no need to make it worse than it was in Warlords and before.

    You don't want diplomacy to be the be-all-end-all of the game, but I don't see why it would. Can you always guarantee you'd be friends with everybody? And, as it is, unit spamming is becoming the be-all-end-all of the game.

    Depends on how much effort you put into it. If you put effort into building up the biggest and most up to date military, you'd be pretty much safe from attack, right? So why can't diplomacy enjoy something similar? It's not as if my AI friends can't demand stuff from me. If I wanna play nice and give in to them all the time, why should I risk getting attacked? That would be dumb. Smart people would then spam units and perform pre-emptive strikes, diplomacy be damned.

    So, at the end of the day, you unit spam your way out, right?

    Do not equate diplomacy with trading, even in the game. Trade contributes to good relations, but only to a certain extent. Conversely, good relations contribute to trade to certain extent. The game has actually simulated it quite nicely. And, so far as diplomatic modifiers are mostly used to determine whether an AI would attack you or not, the game's system would be perfectly fine.

    Even if you are weaker, I don't think you should simply be subject to abuse from your friends. I, too, dislike the increasing bias in the game that favours warmongers and militaristic players. BTS is designed around MP, unfortunately, so we are seeing more Starcraft and less Civ4 here. In the time of Warlords, some people justified it with the expansion's title. Now the title is Beyond the Sword. Are they going to tell us that beyond the sword lies the gun? :rolleyes:
     
  3. dh_epic

    dh_epic Cold War Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,627
    Location:
    Seasonal Residences
    I think there's a lot of merit to this line of thinking. A lot of people want a smarter AI that can't be exploited. But they also want an AI that will never back stab you. People really have to make up their minds.

    You can do the same thing to the AI. Say someone declares war on you, and they don't really have any close allies. You could bribe a few other people to fight them on your behalf.

    There's no "trust" penalty for you when you declare war on anyone. Only if you declare war on someone's friend will you piss them off. This is fair. If someone declares war on you, they receive a small diplo penalty with your friends too.
     
  4. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,052
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    Define 'exploited'. In any case, by your definition, if you can exploit the AI, the solution is then to make the AI able or more likely to exploit you? :confused:
     
  5. elderotter

    elderotter Otter King

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    659
    Location:
    Central Upstate NY
    I have also noticed that Allies that are pleased with you can be furious with a Vassal of yours and start a war with them that sucks you in. I like that aspect of the game - it makes you be cautious about who you accept as a Vassal. I was on friendly terms with 2 Nations - my Vassal - Japan was not - they declared War on Japan - which drew me into the war - against my wishes - and since I won the war probably against the wishes of those Nations which had to fight me along with my Vassal.
     
  6. Feyd Rautha

    Feyd Rautha Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    583
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Ever heard of bootlegged DVDs in China? Aww yeah CIA tax dollars at work baby!!! ;)

    By the by has anyone ever actually been able to afford this? I get my guy into the city and check the price in the espionage menu to find it is ridiculously priced.

    Example, I had been spending a healthy portion (almost always rank 3 or higher of 7) of my espionage points on Elizabeth as she was my strongest immediate neighbor. I had even hit her with a great spy for the espionage bonus yet when I entered her city to try to get it to flip (it was 40% mine anyway) the cost was DOUBLE what I had (54k to my 23k). Anybody else have this issue?
     
  7. Flak

    Flak vBülletin Förum

    Joined:
    May 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,523
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    These aren't contradictory. It's quite possible to have a trustworthy AI that can't be necessarily exploited (atleast not obviously). Exploits are ofcourse going to be impossible to to stop, because we are humans and we will always find a way against a machine.
     
  8. marioflag

    marioflag History Addict

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,902
    Location:
    Napoli, Italy
    I don't think that there is an increasing bias toward warmongering.AI without aggressive AI on is just better in making warfare, so you have to be more carefully prepared when you are attacked but nothing has changed that makes AI more biased toward warmongering.Frankly i don't even think that this thread is useful considered that we have 2 AI, one for people which likes a more aggressive and realistic AI and another for people which likes more nation building over warfare in general.Different people have different tastes, until we have options which give us a choice on what kind of game we want to play i'm fine with this.If you are having problem for example with enemy's invasions in BtS it's probably due to the fact that now AI is good in naval warfare, actually it uses plane to bombard your land, and uses stacks which can be deadly, in Warlords or Civ4 you had useless stacks of 10 units attacking you sometimes even without siege units...which could be destroyed without any problem.
    What you are noticing is a more COMPETITIVE AI not a more aggressive AI on standard settings, which has the side effect to make your games a bit more militaristic.My advise would be to drop of a level from your Civ4 and Warlords level of difficulty, i have done that and the gameplay is a lot better for me.
     
  9. klokwerk

    klokwerk Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    433
    Location:
    Paris
    I agree with marioflag. The AI is just more competitive now, and two different AIs were designed to please everybody. Maybe the 'normal setting' AI is a bit more militaristic than before though, just because it acknowledges war as a good opportunity more realistically.

    If you want Civ4 AI to be less militaristic, then war should become even less of an oportunity in the game mechanics, maybe by lowering offense and increasing defense. Then the AIs would become more peaceful since it would now be a more dominant strategy. The AIs just adapt to the game mechanics themselves. It happens that wars give good opportunities in this game. I wish it won't change, I think the balance is ok for me (at least on agg AI setting), a 100 % peaceful game would be boring. Only my taste.

    Disclaimer : This post doesn't include any Blake quote whatsoever. ;)
     
  10. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,052
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    My contention is that the game was not originally designed for AIs that play like humans because of things like the diplomatic system. Granted there are some broken game mechanics that favour war in multiplayer, so Blake's stand has been since MP players almost always spam units and fight wars, either that must be the optimal way of playing or the AI must be built to be better able to overcome that in general. However, I have always said that equating MP with SP is a mistake, and that SP is different - to no avail, of course.

    Already done so, grandpa.

    Still riding on others' arguments, though.
     
  11. InFlux5

    InFlux5 King

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    617
    aelf, I think your argument breaks down without this premise, and there's no information in the OP about any aspect of the relationship other than the Pleased attitude of the AI. So I guess I'm giving myself the benefit of the doubt, but I assume there was some factor other than a random dice-roll (not what I was advocating, btw) which accounts for the DoW. Without more information we can't know. And ultimately, without seeing the source code, we can never know whether there is a random element or not. I actually suspect there isn't, and that in all the anecdotal cases there is a reason the AI attacked. We just don't know what it is.

    In response to me saying that I avoid the military aspect of the game, you said:

    I'm not wishing for anything. For some unexplained reason I haven't experienced this AI-attacks-for-no-reason phenomenon. Thus I'm perfectly happy playing a game that's not focused on military, while also not worrying too much about backstabbing. But if I get backstabbed, I don't cry foul. Granted it's always from predictable civs in my game (e.g. Alex, Toku). But if it was from a more peaceful civ, I wouldn't see that as all that much different. I would just assume that while the threshold is higher for less-agressive civs, they still have a "backstab threshold", and it was obviously reached somehow.
     
  12. T.A JONES

    T.A JONES Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,471
    Wow it looks like they actually heeded to a lil of my advice! for improvin BTS. Still, somehow it ain't as I hoped. ;)

     
  13. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,052
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    This "backstab treshold" is entirely determined by dice rolls. That is known.

    And the OP did somewhat describe what the relationship was like. He also said that it was an "ally", so it couldn't be just some neighbour that happened to be Pleased due to one good trade.

    Illogical AI declarations of war have also been described by others, so I'm not making things up.
     
  14. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    I would go even further, and say that more than just illogical, they are becoming inevitable, which in turn starts to make them predictable, so even less point to them....
     
  15. Skavenrot

    Skavenrot Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    NJ
    Absolutely. Every so often I'll check and find they've made priests in my cities that I had no plans to specialize in religion, no matter if I have the auto populate set to off (I've never turned it on). They seem to do it when I leave forests around. I've been hoping since Vanilla Civ that this got fixed.
     
  16. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    This is true. Every time either a city grows, or another tile in that city's radius becomes improved, even with all gov functions off, the game seems to re-asses every tile combination in that city, and re-assign them as it sees fit. Occasionally useful, often annoying, sometimes ruinous.
     
  17. jackdog

    jackdog Warlord

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    256
    Forgive me if I am repeating something said before as have not had time to read the whole thread but re the backstabing dice roll surely some civs are well known to have a very strong tendency more than others, alex/gandi for instance, this is not a random 'dice role' chance of the back stab.

    As far as the illogical attacks surely this is just more like real life than ever with annoying unintelligent dictators doing illogical warlike things agianst all odds and common sense, if the AI was always very smart it would soon become predictable and patterns would emerge, such attacks though a real pain keep us on our toes and are overall not a bad thing IMO. if it was predictable well it would be predictable....

    I'm sure if you looked at the power graph of some of the people who thought they were well protected before the attack it would show the AI though opportunity was there, this may account for a good number of complaints about 'random' attacks, the rest are probably just alex and the like being themselves. I realise the power graph may bare no relation to what a human player sees as reality but its what the AI goes off so needs constant attention.

    Is the power graph not the thing that needs the work....
     
  18. Innawerkz

    Innawerkz I'm the other white meat.

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Very late to this party, but this idea was not given enough attention. I think this would be a great balance for both AI & human players. It has clear & measurable ramifications. In addition, it is not needlessly complicated. Although I love the idea of Aussie Lurkers suggestions on tying relations to Civics, I don't think that would play out well. Essentially, everyone would be (more) peaceful in the first eras of the game as ALL are limited to a very small number of Civics to pick from. In addition, everyone already gets a bonus from pandering to AI"s Civics if they choose.

    IMO, Norsemans suggestions are elegantly simple. I am speaking from on-going personal experience. Us, on Civfanatics, having played Civ for so many years, it's easy to lose sight that it is a complicated game to learn. Currently, I am teaching my girlfriend & my 8-year old son how to play. Explaining the combat system percentages, how to use siege engines & defensive terrain effectively, how production and growth are increased, happiness & health caps, cultural expansion, the sliders, what a specialist is, how to use great people, why we need resources, trading & diplomacy, civics & religion, what the traits are all about and on and on and on. Add espionage, corporations and some other BtS features and it is quite an uphill battle to streamline the concepts.

    Why shouldn't our city populations be more vocal and involved in the worlds politcial scene? Not to the extent of Civ 2's 'Democracy', but actually show consequence to some of the more questionable decisions in the Administration. ;)
     
  19. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,052
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    That part is true. But random dice roll is still involved. There are several testimonies of illogical war declarations, also by some people who are familiar with Warlords.

    And the resultant unit spam to protect yourself makes the game very challenging? You can look at diplomacy as an alternate measure to keep yourself secure. Now that the effectiveness of it is reduced, only one measure is the most logical.

    If this is true and it's as simple as that, why now? Why with the introduction of BtS did many people suddenly talk about illogical war declarations? There definitely is a spreading or worsening of the Monty complex among the AI.
     
  20. Zhahz

    Zhahz PC Gamer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,615
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    1. As a player I do this - if I want the land it doesn't matter if my neighbor has been my best friend for 2000 years - it's time to conquer. You see it often in game reports too. It might sucks that it happens when AIs do it to you, but war should always be a possibility, regardless of relations.

    2. Pretty much agree. Sometimes it doesn't quite make sense to me and forces me into MM I'd normally not mess with.
     

Share This Page