A.I basically lets you win.

[omniclast]

When the A.I is building the victory condition the player will basically stop it.The A.I factions need to be proactive in actually stopping you winning.It just means you end up doing nothing for 20+ turns to win.Makes the end game boring.

I think this is the biggest problem with the end-game, and the easiest way to improve it. My evidence for this is that in MP, you really can't just build your wonder and wait to win -- the other players WILL try to stop you.

There are some domino effects to that. Because you know you will have to defend your wonder, you can't just rush to victory and ignore military/play as tall as you want. You may not even want to start building your wonder right away once you can, since you'll need to make sure you have a big enough army that you can stop or at least slow the other players from getting to it. So you end up actually using a lot of end-game techs, including the ultimate units, on your way to victory.

The handful of MP games I've played to completion against players that know the game well have been way, way more interesting than SP. Actually in one Soyuz game, me and my two human opponents spent so much time killing each others' wonders (went back and forth a good 2-3 times) that the PAC AI eventually finished the Mindflower and won before anyone could stop her.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

See, I'd agree with you on any other game series except for this one.

After all this is Civ, a game that was never known for being a super-indepth strategy game with tons of options but instead always had a somewhat casual touch. Especially since CiV the Series has gathered all sorts of players and a lot of them are role-players to a certain extend. So for the Devs it probably makes total sense to continue to try to strike the balance that makes both sides "somewhat happy" instead of favoring one and dismissing the other.

Making the game play within its own rules is not the same thing as dismissing role players.

Making the AI throw the game and then saying "it's okay cuz roleplay not everyone is a powergamer" is an excuse, not a legitimate defense of flagrant game-throwing by the AI.

You can role play regardless of whether the AI throws the game constantly...but it's not true in reverse. The non-casual players don't get a better experience because the AI doesn't try, they get a worse experience.

I get that they made Civ V easier to bring in more people. Civ IV had this design flaw too (AI didn't try to win). I would go so far as to directly debate theory against Soren Johnson himself if that's what it came to, and I think I could win this particular one even then .

Ultimately, players choices in a strategy game should matter, or there is no point in making those choices. Having elements/shortcomings that so fundamentally damage the importance of those choices is not a positive design aspect.

Case in point:

There are some domino effects to that. Because you know you will have to defend your wonder, you can't just rush to victory and ignore military/play as tall as you want. You may not even want to start building your wonder right away once you can, since you'll need to make sure you have a big enough army that you can stop or at least slow the other players from getting to it. So you end up actually using a lot of end-game techs, including the ultimate units, on your way to victory.

These are real considerations that impact what you tech, when you tech it, and evaluating whether you can go for it safely. When you don't even have to bother, an entire range of potential considerations and decisions? Poof, gone. Derp build mindflower and now you winzor.

You know. For role play. Now, I challenge you in reverse. If the AI did try to interrupt a player's win similarly, what negative consequences would you anticipate on someone trying to "role play"? Be specific, similar to the details of choices that aren't being made above.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

See, I'd agree with you on any other game series except for this one.

After all this is Civ, a game that was never known for being a super-indepth strategy game with tons of options but instead always had a somewhat casual touch. Especially since CiV the Series has gathered all sorts of players and a lot of them are role-players to a certain extend. So for the Devs it probably makes total sense to continue to try to strike the balance that makes both sides "somewhat happy" instead of favoring one and dismissing the other.

The thing is, you can make both sides happy by changing game mechanics rather than AI.

If the best way to win the game causes you to act like a believable 'empire/society' then you have split the difference.

'enemies' need a believable (roleplay) reason to pick now to attack (simple...proceeding towards victory induces a 'balance of power' factor)

'allies' either need a (roleplay) reason to suddenly change (hard unless they are different affinities*)
OR
a (gameplay) reason to stay your ally while you win (ie shared victory=you win=they win)

*As mentioned, Alternate Affinities already make this roleplay work (of course then you should also have alternate affinities nearly impossible to be allies by the end of the game)..so add additional DC costs to maintaining an alliance/cooperation/neutral
If you are both level 15 in different affinities, it should be almost difficult to be anything but sanctioned.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^Alliances/working with wrong-affinity populations could be mechanically discouraged via making cooperations cause penalties, thus creating anger when one leader picks a different choice from another because bonuses erode to negatives.

It works a lot better than "we hate you now because you have slightly different kinds of units". It mechanically induces behavior that's plausible from a role play standpoint (IE purity populations are weirded out by the machine people and the machine people think the meatbags are too fragile/dated to be useful etc), but it also gives players in the game a *good reason to make the choices they do*.

 

[Ryika]

Making the game play within its own rules is not the same thing as dismissing role players.

Making the AI throw the game and then saying "it's okay cuz roleplay not everyone is a powergamer" is an excuse, not a legitimate defense of flagrant game-throwing by the AI.

You can role play regardless of whether the AI throws the game constantly...but it's not true in reverse. The non-casual players don't get a better experience because the AI doesn't try, they get a worse experience.

I get that they made Civ V easier to bring in more people. Civ IV had this design flaw too (AI didn't try to win). I would go so far as to directly debate theory against Soren Johnson himself if that's what it came to, and I think I could win this particular one even then .

Ultimately, players choices in a strategy game should matter, or there is no point in making those choices. Having elements/shortcomings that so fundamentally damage the importance of those choices is not a positive design aspect.

Oh, I agree with all of that. What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that Firaxis will just make it so "everyone starts hating you" when you're getting close to a victory. It doesn't make sense for a Harmony Civ to hate another Harmony Civ for anything other than "they're players". I'm pretty sure that is not what is going to happen if we get an "escalation"-patch, it would rather end in affinity wars or something similar.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You absolutely can frame justification for targeting anybody who builds a mindflower, even as harmony. It would hurt immersion if it's *only* the player that is so targeted, but a faction could reasonably want its own consciousness to be the dominant one.

The other option is shared victories with sufficient cooperation/trust/alliances built up, creating a situation where the winning alliance has to hold out long enough.

 

[Olodune]

Oh, I agree with all of that. What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that Firaxis will just make it so "everyone starts hating you" when you're getting close to a victory.

We're not even close to that though. My current Apollo game has straight 9/9 respect except for Rejinaldo who is still 8/9 (we fought earlier; I razed some cities). These are just from passive good play diplomatic boosts. Differing Affinities don't really matter much it would seem.

With the Mind Flower just finished (t170, slow, poor arid map), will this be nail biting "next turn" clicking? I don't think so.

 

[Ryika]

You absolutely can frame justification for targeting anybody who builds a mindflower, even as harmony. It would hurt immersion if it's *only* the player that is so targeted, but a faction could reasonably want its own consciousness to be the dominant one.

The other option is shared victories with sufficient cooperation/trust/alliances built up, creating a situation where the winning alliance has to hold out long enough.

I don't really think it makes sense for Affinities to fight wars internally when there are wars going on with other Affinities that differ so much that the members literally don't consider them to be human anymore. Internal Wars could, in an optimal case, certainly be the backup-option if one affinity is dominant, but other than that it seems a lot like fighting over petty problems vs. fighting the arch nemesis to me.

I like the idea of team-victories, but that would require even more AI-work than an AI that just intervenes.

We're not even close to that though. My current Apollo game has straight 9/9 respect except for Rejinaldo who is still 8/9 (we fought earlier; I razed some cities). These are just from passive good play diplomatic boosts. Differing Affinities don't really matter much it would seem.

With the Mind Flower just finished (t170, slow, poor arid map), will this be nail biting "next turn" clicking? I don't think so.

...uhm... yeah. That's why we're talking about the feasible ways to change it, right? ^^

 

[Olodune]

...uhm... yeah. That's why we're talking about the feasible ways to change it, right? ^^

Hmmm, that does make sense

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Oh, I agree with all of that. What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that Firaxis will just make it so "everyone starts hating you" when you're getting close to a victory. It doesn't make sense for a Harmony Civ to hate another Harmony Civ for anything other than "they're players". I'm pretty sure that is not what is going to happen if we get an "escalation"-patch, it would rather end in affinity wars or something similar.

The point is they Should put that factor in (put it in as a 'you threaten to overwhelm our society'). [with increasing unrest if you are anything less than at war with the potential winner]

The only reason they should NOT have that factor is if allies can move '1 level higher' and get shared victory
(in which case you should have a 'we want to join you' factor for allies, and unrest if you are anything less than unifying for shared victory)

So when you are winning, those who are Neutral-Cooperating with you would be Very unhealthy, those who are Sanctioning/Allied with you would be slightly unhealthy, those who are unified/at war with you would be fine. (our society will be fulfilled/we're not going down without a fight)
The penalty would be diminished for those who are on teams much closer to winning than you are.

 

[omniclast]

We're not even close to that though. My current Apollo game has straight 9/9 respect except for Rejinaldo who is still 8/9 (we fought earlier; I razed some cities). These are just from passive good play diplomatic boosts. Differing Affinities don't really matter much it would seem.

With the Mind Flower just finished (t170, slow, poor arid map), will this be nail biting "next turn" clicking? I don't think so.

Well, there's another issue there, which is that the way the diplo system is set up is that every AI likes you more if you get more ahead (regardless of what they're specifically looking for). So once you are substantially in the lead, diplomacy becomes pretty irrelevant and you can just warmonger or do whatever you want, and everyone will still love you because you've got the most spies/production/science/etc/etc/etc.

I think the solve for this is making some of the AIs get jealous and dislike you more for doing better than them, or for doing too much better than them. They should certainly start to dislike any civ that pulls away from the pack and becomes a superpower, rather than just worshipping at your feet.

 

[Red Menace]

Well, there's another issue there, which is that the way the diplo system is set up is that every AI likes you more if you get more ahead (regardless of what they're specifically looking for). So once you are substantially in the lead, diplomacy becomes pretty irrelevant and you can just warmonger or do whatever you want, and everyone will still love you because you've got the most spies/production/science/etc/etc/etc.

I think the solve for this is making some of the AIs get jealous and dislike you more for doing better than them, or for doing too much better than them. They should certainly start to dislike any civ that pulls away from the pack and becomes a superpower, rather than just worshipping at your feet.

that's annoying it basically puts you in easy mode for not sucking, that also doesn't add any personality and in some cases its out of place entirely, sure Rush Hour villain respects you for your science rate but he is still Jackie cHan-Jae-Moon , and I expect to see some hostile covert action.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't really think it makes sense for Affinities to fight wars internally when there are wars going on with other Affinities that differ so much that the members literally don't consider them to be human anymore. Internal Wars could, in an optimal case, certainly be the backup-option if one affinity is dominant, but other than that it seems a lot like fighting over petty problems vs. fighting the arch nemesis to me.

Human history suggests that intra-affinity war is plenty plausible. You have stuff like the Ottomans providing nominal support for the Protestant league (major ingrained ideology conflict) or longtime enemies working together if feeling existential threat throughout history. They'd be less likely to do it with other affinities also running away of course, but saying just because these guys are going into heavy machinery that you're not going to work with them in order to survive and/or prevent losing your place in the world is a stretch. You could just as easily abstract one supremacy faction taking the other more seriously as a threat since it's ahead and using the "inferior" purity or harmony factions to further their goals, or one harmony faction fearing what the consciousness of another faction merging with the planet might entail.

I might remind you that these aren't real people or factions and so you can take whatever interpretation you like and pretend it's plausible or implausible with equal credibility. There's no good reason we have to buy that each nation going a certain ideology would see eye to eye on its "victory" or be okay with another taking it.

 

[Acken]

When the A.I is building the victory condition the player will basically stop it.The A.I factions need to be proactive in actually stopping you winning.It just means you end up doing nothing for 20+ turns to win.Makes the end game boring.

Why ? I've made enough improvements and trade routes for them to love me and not minding me

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Why ? I've made enough improvements and trade routes for them to love me and not minding me

Which is a point (even if/s), if diplomacy is going to matter, it needs to matter in the victory condition, so you need some way to Work with your allies to become a winning team. That way they only declare war on the winner if they are on another team (that didn't like you enough to join).

 

[omniclast]

But I don't want to be on a team with the AI. I want to win by myself.

 

[Lucius_]

In vanilla BE, difference in affinity made a difference with diplomacy. Why don't they just crank that up, then add another major modifier for building a victory wonder that affects all opponents. If they make the AI hate you for being too different, and hate you for building a wonder, it should spark affinity wars, but similar affinity would be less likely to go to war with you, unless you've given them other reasons through the rest of the game. This should make RPer's as well as serious players happy.

I don't think anyone is necessarily looking for the entire world to DoW you when you build a wonder, just enough opponents to make the last two dozen turns more challenging and meaningful. If half to two thirds of the AIs declare war, you would think at least one of them would make an honest effort to go after you, especially if they are coded to prioritize destroying your wonder.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But I don't want to be on a team with the AI. I want to win by myself.

Under this desire, it is acceptable for everybody in the world to dogpile you, and if you still win despite that + contending with people trying to win combined it's all the better.

In vanilla BE, difference in affinity made a difference with diplomacy. Why don't they just crank that up, then add another major modifier for building a victory wonder that affects all opponents. If they make the AI hate you for being too different, and hate you for building a wonder, it should spark affinity wars, but similar affinity would be less likely to go to war with you, unless you've given them other reasons through the rest of the game. This should make RPer's as well as serious players happy.

Behaviors should be based on mechanics giving the player and AI a reason to behave that way, not on contrived modifiers that in many cases make the AI game-throw.

If the AI is operating against the mechanics "for flavor" and game-throwing, it suggests a massive weakness in either the AI or the mechanic. This "role play" stuff from a design standpoint is usually a weak excuse for a poorly implemented mechanic.

 

[roscoepfox]

I wonder if relative military strength has anything to do with trying to stop the player from victory.

I won last night with the Emancipation victory. But I could have lost since the Slavic guy had built the signal thing a continent away before I was able to build my wonder. Two or three other AIs declared war o him and I'm guessing destroyed it since I was able to catch up and win. I thought about going over there and destroying it if able, but it was gone before I even assembled my forces.

Now when I built the warp gate and began settling Earthlings I expected PAC to try and stop me. They were really close to me and had a decent army. I had already lined my border with troops though. They didn't even try though they had a chance of stopping me if they had attacked. If positions were reversed I would have attacked. The PAC AI basically just sat back and watched me win.

 

[Callonia]

I moved up to Soyuz recently and all of suddenly everyone is hating me for my weak military and then dow'd on me.

The arabians is tryign to get at my portal cities where my marines and gunners hunkered down to face the armor tanks.

Then my reinforcing marines spotted a siege worm in the wild and leashed it.

And one of my garrisoned marine in the city being attacked saw a wandering nearby siege worm and leashed it as well.. He almost died in the process but made it. Now, the city being attacked by 10+ armor tanks is trapped by two siege worms attacking them in the rear.

All but one armor tank was destroyed as the armors tried to escape from siege worms attacking them....

Now those two siege worms is circling the capital of teh arabians ripping up infrastructure and killing anything close enough to hurt. Their capital is too tough to be taken atm XD str 60+ on a hill and protected by two rivers.

And all of suddenly everyone who hated my guts cuz military is too weak is now singing songs of praise just because I have two siege worms and one kraken. Although about ten turns later I finally had enough affinity into purity to unlock the sentinels and broadsides.

I thought AI was far ahead from all their taunts on me but as it turned out, they barely had a par over me. -.-