A Rant About AI Policy Towards Players

[Agamemnus]

[start rant]

I used to think that the AI approach towards much larger rivals was unrealistic. (and the opposite approach towards much smaller rivals) Kind of like trying to kill elite fortified-on-a-mountain-in-a-fortress Modern Armor just because you're a tank, ya know?

But now I see that the AI isn't really that gracious anyways when you're militaristic towards others, even when you're much smaller than it.

Also perhaps it IS realistic when one country doesn't like another because it's bigger. And one thought that's just popping into my head is: the US. Israel. CHINA!

The US is unliked by countries much weaker than it, like its 'friends' Saudi Arabia. Did you know that 3 people, one of them a Saudi prince, 'just happened' to be found dead in the middle of the desert? (Conspiracy)

They're not liked by most, if not all, of the other Arab states in the region. France doesn't like the fact that the US is badmouthing them.

Cuba.

Iraq. Iran.

All examples of worse relations if you're bigger [than these 3 countries and if you're also the US].

Israel. Most advanced and the far superior army, navy, and air force in the Middle East, by far. Hated by all. Smaller than almost all by acreage, but much more powerful militarily (and culturally and economically) --> because of Democracy.

China.

Taiwan won't accept China's demands, but then again, they kinda have a MPP with the US.

I dunno.

[end rant]

 

[SirJethro]

Ummm...what exactly are you suggesting? Frankly, you could search the world over and find a good example for every possible scenario (big loves big, big loves small, big hates small, small hates small, etc.).

Its not realistic to expect the AI to be as diverse as to cover every possible scenario.

Here's my own mini-rant:

Folks...its just a game. Historical accuracy was an element considered in the design, but Firaxis has never claimed it to be fully true-to-life. That would be unrealistic. It's a game. Play it. Leave the rest to the History Channel.

[end rant]

 

[Higher Game]

The "it's just a game" fans should see the EU freaks. Civ 3 really is just a game, but more advanced diplomacy was an expected improvement from Civ 2. It should be taken more seriously, and it is. If you are in any position of power, or an AI could place himself in a position of power by destroying you, you will be hated and will have to defend yourself. It's part of the game. And this game IS based off of real civs, so I see nothing wrong with making it a little more realistic.

 

[Gottesfreunde]

But that is just the point, it is NOT more realistic. The diplomacy in SMAC is lightyears ahead of the diplomacy in Civ III, and frankly, i just don't understand how the decision was made to make this case. It is ridiculous that engaging in an alliance automatically starts a war... i mean, if this were realistic, England and the US would have nuked the Soviet Union years ago. In addition, the US brokers treaties, or attempts to do so, between other countries. Once war breaks out in this game, there is no rhyme or reason to it, countries are flip flopping constantly until it is just silly. i have not read anything that suggests that this will be addressed in PTW, which is just a shame. Even Civ II, in terms of diplomacy, is a leap ahead of the diplomacy in Civ III. Didn't the same company make SMAC? This game is bubble gum compared to SMAC. It looks great, but the game AI is schizophrenic.

 

[Kilroy]

Off topic, but the thought just popped into my head. Often when I've made a deal that the AI will almost accept but not quite ("we're getting pretty close to a deal here") and the other civ isn't furious with me, I'll demand they accept the deal or cancel our peace treaty. It works about 80% of the time and they're usually polite afterwards for about 15 turns or so.

Not a good strategy to use if you're weak, obviously.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Kilroy: do you mean you ask them, they refuse, you go to war and fight them? And then they are polite???

 

[Higher Game]

SMAC's diplomacy system was far too difficult for most people. The majority of gamers wanted better graphics and cooler looking civs. Most people didn't want a complex game. And most people are happy with what they have. Just get used to it.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Higher Game
SMAC's diplomacy system was far too difficult for most people. The majority of gamers wanted better graphics and cooler looking civs. Most people didn't want a complex game. And most people are happy with what they have. Just get used to it.

Who says?? YOU?

The majority of the people left on this forum seemed to be impressed with superificial meaningless "cool" graphics, but a great many lovers of Civ 2 wanted a BETTER game - not one that was dumbed down.

But thanks for confirming what I have been saying for months about Civ 3. And it is not good. I have no intention of "getting used to it".

BTW, I know damn well what the majority of Civ 2 players really wanted because I read their posts for over five years on the forums afterCiv 2 came out - and we didn't get them.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Over 5 years on the forums founded in 1999, interesting

As for the policy, it does not make sense that the AI will do certain things towards the players. Notifying firaxis is about the only thing you can do, but that most likely wont get changed this late in the game.

 

[hzm]

Originally posted by Higher Game
SMAC's diplomacy system was far too difficult for most people. The majority of gamers wanted better graphics and cooler looking civs. Most people didn't want a complex game. And most people are happy with what they have. Just get used to it.

That's rediculous! The only thing complex about SMAC diplomacy was how the computer figured out how many votes each faction had.

And I don't think Zouave was just talking about these forums.

 

[Vorlin]

Not only was the diplomacy game mechanics much better in SMAC, the leaders you were doing diplomacy with had actual personalities. All I have to do is mention Miriam or Yang and every SMAC player out there is going to know right off how these two behaved. Each leader was like that. In Civ3 the AI leaders have no personalities at all (the shun/liked governments in the default BIC file mean nothing that I can tell). Their traits mean something as far as game mechanics go, but they don't have any likes or dislikes. Each one plays almost exactly (heck, I'll go out on a limb and say -exactly-) like the other.

Civ3 is a very good game, I'd give it 8 of 10 for turn-based strategy gaming. I think what gets some people upset (myself, at any rate) is that it seems so close to being a 10 of 10, yet can't seem to get there. Maybe we are asking too much (gamers can be that way ), or maybe the Firaxis programming team is focused on the wrong things.

The Civ3 computer opponents are lightyears ahead of the ones in SMAC. The interactions between players and AI leaders is hands-down in favor of SMAC. If the best of both could be put together you'd have a truly amazing game: a very challenging set of AI opponents with unique (and oh so memorable!) personalities, personalities which a more complex diplomatic system would allow you to interact with in a more satisfactory way.

It seems this could at least to some extent be down with the current system without -too- much new code being added. Make certain civs hate some civs, make them love others, and make them indifferent to the rest. Have them form alliances (and start wars) based on this. Have the AI trading take their preferences into account. Adding in these three things would (IMO) greatly improve the feel of a Civ3 game.

 

[Higher Game]

Civ 2 was basically just a graphical improvement over Civ 1! And look at all of the people that love it! They just like the graphics, and the bells and whistles. Civ 3 is actually a big jump from Civ 2, and we got more than what is expected. In fact, we are lucky that Firaxis even tried to make Civ 2 better, what many people think is the perfect turn based game. It's the people that liked Civ 2 so much that caused Firaxis to be so conservative in changing the game for Civ 3! Hopefully PtW will improve the game more, as most people have gotten used to how Civ 3 is.

 

[Venger]

Civ2 was a huge evolutionary jump over Civ1. The combat system ALONE was huge - no more phalanx sinks battleship. Everything about it was a noticable leap forward, with only a couple exceptions - the lack of disasters was sorely missed, as well as the replay function.

Additionally, the ability to do scenarios simply isn't there in Civ1, whereas Civ2 has a ridiculous number of outstanding fan scenarios...something Civ3 is still sorely lacking...

Venger

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

I agree fully that the ability to make scenarios was a gigantic leap between civ1 and 2. As soon as the full editor is released for three it will be good too. I loved the map editor that came with civnet I believe. It made some pretty cool civ maps and it was 100% simple, anyone could do it. Anyways, thats really off topic.

So....I'll write this spam off as a warning...get back on topic

 

[hzm]

Originally posted by Venger
Civ2 was a huge evolutionary jump over Civ1. The combat system ALONE was huge - no more phalanx sinks battleship. Everything about it was a noticable leap forward, with only a couple exceptions - the lack of disasters was sorely missed, as well as the replay function.

Additionally, the ability to do scenarios simply isn't there in Civ1, whereas Civ2 has a ridiculous number of outstanding fan scenarios...something Civ3 is still sorely lacking...

Venger

In all fairness though how many expansion packs did it take to get to that point? Really, I don't really know.

 

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Kilroy: do you mean you ask them, they refuse, you go to war and fight them? And then they are polite???

No, they cave in and afterwards they are polite. Taking risks, it seems, has its rewards.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

OK, so you go slightly below the amount they offer (i.e. they say give us 200 Gold for Monarchy, you turn that to 180), then ask if they acccept - and they take it? Do I understand that right?

 

[Gottesfreunde]

i fail to see how giving the player more control over interactions between Civ's makes the game more difficult. Players should have the ability to cancel peace treaties, without going to war. We should be able to cancel trades, etc. We mostly, should have the capacity to intercede on behalf of other civs. For example, if i have a mutual protection pact, i can be automatically drawn into a war without any choice of my own to break the treaty or request the nation to "lay off" the other. It is difficult to follow twenty turns and always remember who i am allied with. If i am allied, then i am automatically drawn into a war and if i declare peace (because i am getting my ass whipped and the nation i am allied with, although huge, is not helping me much) then this counts against me. Nations continuously flip flop and go to war for seemingly no reason at all... i did not find the diplomacy screens of SMAC to be difficult at all. Indeed, it was one of the major appeals of the game. Civ III, although pretty, completely lacks the versatility of it's predessor Civ II and SMAC, in this realm. Diplomacy in Civ III is a schizophrenic joke. However, i think it is clear that this will *not* be revamped with PTW, as far as i have read.

 

[Gottesfreunde]

One more point... the allied function is completely redundant. As soon as it is chosen, the player has to click through multiple other screens stating such and such nation has gone to war. If this is the function of garnering allies, then it would seem more efficient to simply call it "the go to war" function and save the wrist strain of clicking through those other annoying screens.

 

['Copter Pilot]

Alliances in SMAC were great, you could choose how to help your allies -- declare war on their enemies, give them military units, place your own defenders in their bases, or just ask their enemies to call off their dogs, which worked reasonably well if you were big enough.

In Civ III there is no diplomatic way of ending the war between 2 AI civs, yet in reality America and Europe try to prevent a war between for example India and Pakistan by diplomatic means, try to get Israelis and Palestinians back into negociations, etc.