Aggressive AI = The Real Civ?

[Spearthrower]

In my experience, AIs in aggressive girlyman AI have appeared more like they are playing to win the game. For that reason I would argue aggressive girlyman AI is the real civ.

And naturally the other side would say.... that on AGG:AI the AI's ONLY chance to win is militarily unless the human doesnt play to win.

For a small time I can enjoy having civs stick to their personalities and just exist in the game without any real purpose. But eventually I get tired of this and want to see the AIs actually compete with me. (I want to stress this is my view and I understand others prefer to see less crazy randomness in leaders and more historical accuracy - to each his own.)

Better than that - just choose random personalities and you can have a Monty AI in your neighbourhood Gandhi - and you'd never know until the 30 swords suddenly waltz into your land - now that's a real challenge because you can't predict it like you can with AGG:AI.

Anyway.... not sure where others stated they wanted historical accuracy or what-have-you.... but my argument is that the AI is worse at achieving victories other than militaristic ones with AGG:AI on. The only thing it can compete with me is on military... and given that the AI is never as good a tactician as the human, it can't hope to compete there - even outnumbered, I win.

Whether there are other games which depict war better than civ is irrelevant. Since civ1 the franchise has in fact been mainly empire building and then clashing of empires ie. war. I can just as easily argue that empire building is not civ's strong point either, by comparing it to games like simcity etc. When you think about it, the way the economy works in civ is probably more unrealistic than the warfare aspects eg. you use resources from mines to help you build horses faster?? . Anyway...
No offense taken. But you're missing, or possibly avoiding, my point.

Of course Empire building is Civ's strong point - it's the foremost empire builder on the market today..... strip away all the economy, religions, cities, improvements, buildings etc - would you play it as a war game then? It's incredibly simplistic as a war game..... but strip away the war elements and it is still a complex empire builder - please note that I am not arguing for this or saying it would be fun, just that the core element of Civ's success is clearly not the war side as it is abstracted and simplistic.

Consider this analogy.

Suppose you play monopoly against a bunch of ten year olds who each start off with ten times the normal starting money. Then consider playing a bunch of 20 year olds but on a level playing field. It's likely that you'll find it more difficult playing against the 10 year olds. Yet you would probably find playing the 20 year olds more of an interesting challenge because they are more competent.

last time it was Risk.... damn you - I'm better at Risk than Monopoly.... your analogy is unclear to me - I read that as the AGG:AI is the 10 year olds with the bigger armies and simplistic goals and the 20 year olds are the standard AI with varying goals and understanding of how to achieve them rather than all uniformly following the same strategy. Either you weren't clear enough there or you are arguing the other side?

Besides, the AI is also pretty bad at empire management compared to the human player as well. It is only because it gets bonuses left right and centre to things more economic that you think it puts up more of a challenge there. If AIs got bonuses to combat eg. better odds, then I don't think you'd be so quick to say the AI is being pushed into a game it can't hope to compete at.

Unfortunately true, but its still potentially able to grab a lot of land and tech like mad and leave you in the dust even without so many boni. Your only redress will be war. If the builds endless units, all you have to do is wait as its economy grinds to a halt and its units obsolete.... it will kill itself for you - this has happened with a number of civs in each of the AGG:AI games I've played - even the graphs show it.

The main thing I'm disagreeing with you is your evaluation of the aggressive girlyman AI. Obviously I can't argue whether or not you find one setting more challenging than the other.

Let's make it clear here that I never used that appellation. My original argument was to counter a load of AGG:AI players who were claiming that people who played without AGG:AI were somehow lesser players because of it. Personally, I just think one is simply a stressing or emphasis of one element of the game over others.

I guess as you said we will have to agree to have this difference of opinion. For me, I don't mind how difficult an AI is because I can always adjust the handicap until it is an appropriate balance for me. I care more about seeing interesting, dynamic games where I feel like I'm only one player in a game. I'm more bored when it is fairly samey from game to game. I like fighting against AIs more than I like competing in space race. This may mean I compete at a higher difficulty to compensate for the fact the AI is worse at war than space race, but that suits me just fine.

Me too.... and hehe alternately, thats why I like the standard AI, as I feel that it can challenge me on other victories and couldnt imagine playing the unit spam, one dimension of AGG:AI every game.... it's fun every now and then when I don't want to think about it too much, but it also gets tedious with micromanaging the larger number of troops and fighting endless hordes of obsolete units.

Precisely. I would say aggressive girlyman AI is the real civ because the game is not militaristic enough without it. Clearly that is pure opinion and so there is no reason that others can believe that is complete rubbish.

Agreed - that's your opinion and that's all that counts in your games. If you and I had started this discussion, I think we would have come to this agreement long ago!!

 

[Arlborn]

There is a lot of threads about why some AI attack you in Pleased/friendly(backstabber AI), but sadly I don't know how Agg. AI influence it.
Well, I can't find any of those threads right now, but only to give you a rough idea:

Each AI has 2 decisions to make before going to war with somebody. First they check if the conditions for war are actually good(i.e. Bigger power than opponent/dog pilling opportunity and bla bla bla), and if they are, then the computer checks the diplomatic status.
I know that each one of the CIVs have a fixed % for each status. This is basically the chance they will declare war on this diplomatic status.
Some CIVs(Gandhi?) have 0% of chance of attacking in friendly, and probably in pleased too, while others(Napoleon? Cathy?) have a bigger chance like 30%? Or more I can't remember. I guess that most of the AIs won't attack on Friendly and have low values of chance in attacking on Pleased.
But there is always backstabbers, and they just will attack anyway in Friendly if the opportunity arrives.
.
And no, Blake didn't change those values.

 

[Arlborn]

By the way, I was reading some old SG game and i found this small Blake's statement:

"...what I said about loss of personality being considered a bug. I (and presumably Iustus also) do read absolutely all posts (even if there's too much to respond to) and take opinions expressed into consideration although it's obviously very much a balancing act."

He meant the posts in the Better AI forum in the mod area, when it was active at least hehe

edit: You can find much more out about what is(was) passing on the mind of Blake by reading the part of the forum used for his project... Although I consider that it is a lot to read at once. I did read(and gave my opnions) as it went hehe.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

By the way, I was reading some old SG game and i found this small Blake's statement:

"...what I said about loss of personality being considered a bug. I (and presumably Iustus also) do read absolutely all posts (even if there's too much to respond to) and take opinions expressed into consideration although it's obviously very much a balancing act."

He meant the posts in the Better AI forum in the mod area, when it was active at least hehe

edit: You can find much more out about what is(was) passing on the mind of Blake by reading the part of the forum used for his project... Although I consider that it is a lot to read at once. I did read(and gave my opnions) as it went hehe.

Can I ask what you are trying to illustrate with this?

 

[Spearthrower]

Yes, AGG:AI doesnt change the values, it simply makes it more likely to occur because of the first point - it looks at the power graph and with AGG:AI those power differentials are massively more noticeable.

Let's use some random numbers to show what I mean....

Let's say a defensive troop of the age is worth 1 point.... and an offensive troop is worth 2 points.

Under normal AI.... I have 10 defenders and 10 attackers totalling 30 "points".

The AI has 20 defenders and 20 attackers totalling 60 "points".


Now under Aggressive AI.... I have 100 defenders and 100 attackers totalling 300 "points".

The AI has 200 defenders and 200 attackers totalling 600 "points".


Now, in each case everything is doubled, so if it was looking at it from fraction perspective, all would be equal, but it doesn't - it looks at differentials and sees that AGG:AI 300 point gap to be a lot larger than the 30 point gap before.....

Now to some degree that is right as sheer numbers do matter to some degree - but this is also amplified for the defender.... however, the AI is never able to bring these numbers to bear effectively, thereby ensuring both that a) even Friendly civs will go to war because you appear so much weaker and b) the AI will fall into the trap of not recognising that the balance is fractionally equal - i.e. it has roughly the same chances when everything is considered as in the 30 point differential when it would choose not to declare.

Add to that its inability to deal with the logistics needed for all those additional troops and it is massively over-judging its own potential. The human, with a vastly better logistic capacity can use a lot less troops for a much better effect.

Ack... I keep writing words that few people will even read! I should go and start packing instead - gotta fly to the UK tonight!

 

[PieceOfMind]

Spearthrower,
Ok I think we've cleared up most things. (Also I don't quite have the time to keep repeating the same arguments. It's plain to see we disagree.) It's just the analogy which remains which I perhaps didn't explain enough.

And
last time it was Risk.... damn you - I'm better at Risk than Monopoly.... your analogy is unclear to me - I read that as the AGG:AI is the 10 year olds with the bigger armies and simplistic goals and the 20 year olds are the standard AI with varying goals and understanding of how to achieve them rather than all uniformly following the same strategy. Either you weren't clear enough there or you are arguing the other side?

All I was trying to say was that just because a game is easier to win doesn't mean it is more of a challenge. I know how flawed this statement looks but I think I can make sense of it. I guess my point is that challenge is not completely synonymous with difficulty. Challenges I generally believe to be things which are interesting in acheiving. Difficult tasks remind me more of things which are either unfair or unappealing.

The 10 year olds are meant to be the sandbox AIs. (The confusion is probably because the analogy is sort of reversed from my previous one involving risk.) The ten year olds are more likely to win in the game they're playing even though they are not very competent players compared to you. Yet when you play against more cunning opponents who also happen to be more likely to turn on each other (read aggressive girlyman AI), you find the game becomes easier, yet more enjoyable and more of a proper challenge.

Anyway, I think it was too obfuscated for it to really carry my point home.

So I guess the conclusion we've reached is this. ... ermm.... um.... what conclusion did we reach?

um... No one appreciates being belittled. lol

Have a good trip to the UK!

 

[Arlborn]

Can I ask what you are trying to illustrate with this?

I just meant what I meant
If you want to know more about how Blake thinks, or at least thought while making the AI, you should read the Better AI part of the Customization forum..
Some phrases and quotes can be completely misunderstood you know..

 

[Spearthrower]

Have a good trip to the UK!

Cheers - I'll look out for some 10 year old kids on the flight playing Risk or Monopoly and whoop their asses for you!

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Yes, AGG:AI doesnt change the values, it simply makes it more likely to occur because of the first point - it looks at the power graph and with AGG:AI those power differentials are massively more noticeable.

Let's use some random numbers to show what I mean....

Let's say a defensive troop of the age is worth 1 point.... and an offensive troop is worth 2 points.

Under normal AI.... I have 10 defenders and 10 attackers totalling 30 "points".

The AI has 20 defenders and 20 attackers totalling 60 "points".


Now under Aggressive AI.... I have 100 defenders and 100 attackers totalling 300 "points".

The AI has 200 defenders and 200 attackers totalling 600 "points".


Now, in each case everything is doubled, so if it was looking at it from fraction perspective, all would be equal, but it doesn't - it looks at differentials and sees that AGG:AI 300 point gap to be a lot larger than the 30 point gap before.....

Now to some degree that is right as sheer numbers do matter to some degree - but this is also amplified for the defender.... however, the AI is never able to bring these numbers to bear effectively, thereby ensuring both that a) even Friendly civs will go to war because you appear so much weaker and b) the AI will fall into the trap of not recognising that the balance is fractionally equal - i.e. it has roughly the same chances when everything is considered as in the 30 point differential when it would choose not to declare.

Add to that its inability to deal with the logistics needed for all those additional troops and it is massively over-judging its own potential. The human, with a vastly better logistic capacity can use a lot less troops for a much better effect.

Ack... I keep writing words that few people will even read! I should go and start packing instead - gotta fly to the UK tonight!

If it works like that (and I've been too lazy to start diving in to code as of yet), that would explain a few anomalies. I have also found though, that with agg AIs ( or really any AIs) a big enough stack, almost however out of date it is, IF it happens to be in the right place at the right time, is unstoppable. 60 units including maces, knight and trebs, will beat 6 rifles and 5 cavalry...

But whats the point?

At most its a large inconvenience, and will absolutely be taken back, without question. All it really provides, is a GG for the defender (at best!) never mind, the almost inevitable loss that will soon occur on the aggressor. THIS is where in particular agg AIs breaks down. Countless times, I've seen huge , huge stacks of outdated troops go on a (this is why I call it) Suicidal AIs rampage against me. It would in every possible aspect, be far better off, just disbanding the troops, rather than giving mine "free" xp and generals....

Anyhoo, I've presented my point, whether its really applicable to agg AIs, or just accenuated by agg AIs is a mute point. It exists.

 

[Arlborn]

@Spearthrower: Isn't the system of the diplomatic barrier more random? I think it is. I think if a CIV has 10% of chance of attacking in friendly, no matter if it is Agg. AI or not, or how much units it has. As long as the value is not changed, it will keep being 10% of chance only. At least I think hehe

And most of the AI won't attack you at all in friendly(so also not in agg. AI) and a lot won't attack you also in pleased.

And by the way, some of the warmonger AIs only build massive stacks AFTER they decided to go to war. Blake calls it 'dagger attack'. I just think that the timing of the attack should be improved hehe.

 

[DrJambo]

The 10 year olds are meant to be the sandbox AIs. (The confusion is probably because the analogy is sort of reversed from my previous one involving risk.) The ten year olds are more likely to win in the game they're playing even though they are not very competent players compared to you. Yet when you play against more cunning opponents who also happen to be more likely to turn on each other (read aggressive girlyman AI), you find the game becomes easier, yet more enjoyable and more of a proper challenge.

Now fully explained, lol, I think this is actually quite a good analogy.

Going to back to Warlords is also a good example of this. The game at the higher difficulty levels was definitely a challenge, but only ever from a AI teching perspective. Keeping up with the AI on tech was nigh impossible unless you took drastic actions during the course of the game, i.e early axes SoD. The AI meanwhile didn't have to war since they were always doing well enough on their own personal crusade towards the only victory, other than Score, that it could achieve - space race. Essentially, other than furious tech trading, the AIs didn't really interact with each other. I remember seeing those 'continents' map challenge games in the Strategy forum. The human's continent would inevitability end up in their control, meanwhile the other continent would consist of many equally sized civs all teching furiously to space race. The challange was then whether the human's now bigger empire could catch up the smaller AIs in time. Whilst there's no doubting these games were very much a challenge, overall I didn't find them very interesting from the AI perspective. There was no unpredictability from game to game and the process the human had to take to achieve victory was pretty much the same each time.

What Piece of Mind is trying to show through his analogy, is that playing Agg AI in BtS mixes the pot a little. The fact the AI will go to war with other AI throws an massive degree of unpredictability into each game. If there's a clear victor, that AI will be substantially better off and more powerful as a result. The dogpilling strategy really helps this since it increases the likelihood of having an outright winner(s). The bigger and more powerful an AI civ gets, the greater the tendency for it to war again. In my last game Joao nearly achieved a domination victory by beating up on his surrounding (AI) civs, something I'd never seen happen before.

This 'variability' from one game to the next is what offers the challenge, simply because it's more difficult to predict what's going to happen. Difficulty is only a part of the big picture - replayability through unpredictability is equally, if not more so imho, important in maintaining interest as well as the challenge.

 

[Thalatta]

If (as in my experience) they are almost as likely to attack you on pleased as on annoyed, with the only real clinching factor being if they think themselves stronger than you, then why make any effort at all with them? Just treat them as they appear to treat you, as enemies all, some of which you happen to be trading with. That is the fact that annoys me, Aelf and others more than any other.

I don't run into that at all. I've had pleased AI wardec me on normal AI, actually, but very rarely - and it's still unusual on aggressive AI. I play aggressive and normal AI settings about half and half - I like to mix up my playstyle and strategies. The wardecs made on aggressive AI actually seem more strategic and logical to me; on normal AI it often seems a matter of AI personality rather than any potential risk/reward, land or diplomatic situation. In some ways it's easier to predict that a war or conflict is going to happen on aggressive AI, but not necessarily when it will happen. It can make for some very unexpected situations - the game I posted the power graph from earlier ended up with Boudica's capitol being Mutal...and she never was at war with Pacal.


What I'd honestly like to see is better, smarter AI that plays aggressively without that necessarily meaning exclusively military aggression. The hyper-aggressive AIs still don't usually do very well on aggressive AI because they fall behind - I've run into the rare situation where Alex or Genghis have taken out their neighbor and become a monster, but they're usually only threats to themselves after about 1000 AD. I've actually seen the slightly less aggressive personalities that still are willing to war become large, powerful empires because they've managed their empires better, and they tend to have the best shot on aggressive AI and a good one on normal. However, turtles like Mansa, Gandhi and Lizzie often come out on top in normal AI if left alone. (Mansa's actually smart enough to defend himself decently, too...) I'd like a more middle ground, actually, with both a peaceful and an aggressive option; right now I think the aggressive AI is closer to where I'd like to see that middle ground in that it seems like the AI is actually willing to go for the win instead of hope it builds enough cities and trades enough techs to get lucky and be the first into space.


I'll make an analogy, seeing as football season is about to get underway...

Normal AI seems to me like a football team that's down by four points with time expiring that kicks a field goal that's pretty much a sure thing. In other words, I find that normal AI is good at keeping the game close, but not at winning.
Aggressive AI, on the other hand, seems to go for the touchdown. It may be very unlikely and it may not be executed very well, but it at least goes for it.
The AI I'd like to see should go for the win, but not have to rely on a hail mary for it.

 

[Spearthrower]

What Piece of Mind is trying to show through his analogy, is that playing Agg AI in BtS mixes the pot a little. The fact the AI will go to war with other AI throws an massive degree of unpredictability into each game. If there's a clear victor, that AI will be substantially better off and more powerful as a result. The dogpilling strategy really helps this since it increases the likelihood of having an outright winner(s). The bigger and more powerful an AI civ gets, the greater the tendency for it to war again. In my last game Joao nearly achieved a domination victory by beating up on his surrounding (AI) civs, something I'd never seen happen before.

This 'variability' from one game to the next is what offers the challenge, simply because it's more difficult to predict what's going to happen. Difficulty is only a part of the big picture - replayability through unpredictability is equally, if not more so imho, important in maintaining interest as well as the challenge.

You do of course realise that this also happens with the standard AI now in BtS right? You can't backwards compare against previous versions now - we are talking about BtS AI and without AGG:AI on, there are still plenty of wars and plenty of AI-AI conquests. All the AGG:AI does is add scale to the equation.

And personally, I find that there is plenty more variability in the standard AI which actively pursues alternate strategies in a way where it could win, as opposed to amassing a huge army and then being unable to compete in science/culture and leaving itself only the possibility of domination/conquest.

I'm not saying for a moment that the human can always beat AGG:AI - survival is definitely a watchword of that style... but I find the games much more predictable and easy to manipulate.

 

[Spearthrower]

I'll make an analogy, seeing as football season is about to get underway...

Normal AI seems to me like a football team that's down by four points with time expiring that kicks a field goal that's pretty much a sure thing. In other words, I find that normal AI is good at keeping the game close, but not at winning.
Aggressive AI, on the other hand, seems to go for the touchdown. It may be very unlikely and it may not be executed very well, but it at least goes for it.
The AI I'd like to see should go for the win, but not have to rely on a hail mary for it.

While I dont know the jargon of American Football (or Carry Lemon as it has been officially renamed!! ).... I would say that AGG:AI is more like a team that pursues victory very hard but ALWAYS without fail uses the exact same play -which, no matter how well executed, is still predictable and therefore counterable. Whereas the standard AI has a wider variety of possible plays, some of which are weak and easier for the master human team to beat, but which add the much needed variety to the game.

 

[Lars_Domus]

Yet when you play against more cunning opponents who also happen to be more likely to turn on each other (read aggressive girlyman AI), you find the game becomes easier, yet more enjoyable and more of a proper challenge.

But the aggressive AI isn't more cunning (actually I wouldn't characterize any AI in any game I've played as even remotely "cunning"). It's the same basic programming as the default AI with its priorities shifted a little bit. It might have a lower threshold for DoWing, but I can't really tell from my own observations. It seems the average number of wars going on have been the same in my aggressive AI games and my default AI games (that is to say, irregardless of whether aggressive AI is switched on, I'm seeing a lot of AI on AI action as compared to Warlords, where it was virtually nonexistent.)

It's kind of funny, actually... With aggressive AI I'll try to provoke them into DoWing on me, while with the default AI I'll try to prevent it, and of course Murphy's law applies itself accordingly

Now, I think what's gone wrong in this thread is that some of the participants seem to think they have some authority as to what Civ should or shouldn't be (that's not directed towards you, PieceofMind.) Funny, I haven't seen Sid Meier, Soren Johnson, Alex Mantzaris or John Shafer participating in this thread The distinction in what is "the real Civ" doesn't lie in whether the aggressive AI box is checked. The fact of the matter is that for many people Civ is a war game, and for them (but not them exclusively, as apparent in this thread ) the aggressive AI will provide a more entertaining experience. Seeing as both are options that shipped with the game, I can't see how the aggressive or default AI can be more or less authentic than the other. Should we discuss what map script, speed setting, difficulty level or graphics detail setting is the "real Civ" as well?

As to the diplomacy discussion I have to say: Nonsense! In my experience it's equally important on both settings.

Edit: D'oh! Mixed up who I was replying to.

 

[Spearthrower]

But the aggressive AI isn't more cunning (actually I wouldn't characterize any AI in any game I've played as even remotely "cunning"). It's the same basic programming as the default AI with its priorities shifted a little bit.

Well done for picking up on that - there are a lot of fallacies in the ideas supporting AGG:AI as if it is somehow of a better quality than the standard when it in fact has exactly the same capacities with simply some emphasis changes.

The distinction in what is "the real Civ" doesn't lie in whether the aggressive AI box is checked. The fact of the matter is that for many people Civ is a war game, and for them (but not them exclusively, as apparent in this thread ) the aggressive AI will provide a more entertaining experience. Seeing as both are options that shipped with the game, I can't see how the aggressive or default AI can be more or less authentic than the other. Should we discuss what map script, speed setting, difficulty level or graphics detail setting is the "real Civ" as well?

Agreed. The AGG:AI as Blake so eloquently put, is for those who would wish to act like wolves - i.e. for those who wish to pursue a military edge over the AI - it is there to offer players who like rushing etc an adequate challenge.

The standard setting is an open playing field much more adequate for those who do not exlusively follow the principles of rushing their neighbour etc and like the AI to challenge them across other portions of the game.

 

[DrJambo]

You do of course realise that this also happens with the standard AI now in BtS right? You can't backwards compare against previous versions now - we are talking about BtS AI and without AGG:AI on, there are still plenty of wars and plenty of AI-AI conquests. All the AGG:AI does is add scale to the equation.

And personally, I find that there is plenty more variability in the standard AI which actively pursues alternate strategies in a way where it could win, as opposed to amassing a huge army and then being unable to compete in science/culture and leaving itself only the possibility of domination/conquest.

I'm not saying for a moment that the human can always beat AGG:AI - survival is definitely a watchword of that style... but I find the games much more predictable and easy to manipulate.

Yeah of course I realise this and it's exactly because of this that my stance on Agg AI vs regular AI is by no means as clear-cut as some of the other posters in this thread.

Regards this perceived tech disparity, have any of those who're claiming Agg AI to be overly poor in comparison been using Solver's most recent unofficial patch? As much as anything else, I think these have improved the experience, and that goes for both Agg AI and normal AI.

 

[aelf]

Well, I guess these are discussion boards - join in if you like or not if you are put off by others. It's your prerogative. Just don't rise to the bait.

So be it, then. But there are some answers that I'm not able to give you on the boards.

I can deal with some brainless posters' trolling/flaming in these discussions. The problem is I'm not able to reply appropriately (not making direct insults, though) without getting hit by the censor's stick, which somehow manages to spare these people most of the time And if you don't give them a strong answer, they will just repeat the same rubbish over and over. So I really don't see what's the point in discussing such pertinent issues in this board. Some people just spoil the discussion and, at the end of the day, it's pretty one-sided here anyway.

 

[CivScientist]

So, if you have Agg. AI turned on and Ghandi happens to be playing in your game, will he become more aggressive? Granted, he will build a larger army to defend himself in this aggressive environment. Still, that's not being aggressive, just adaptive. Is a peacemonger like Ghandi noticably more likely to go attack another civ when Agg. AI is turned on than when you're playing in standard mode?

Basically, I'm wondering if there is in fact more diversity in the playing styles of the AI civs you play against when Agg. AI is selected. Obviously aggressive AIs will be much more aggressive (perhaps even to a fault). However, will a non-aggressive AI become equally more aggressive, thus shifting the average aggression of the civs you play against a couple points? Or is it that non-aggressive AIs are still quite peaceful (but not pushovers), thus spreading out the range of behaviours the player experiences when competing against the other civs?

 

[Lurking Liu]

Anyways, I don't do personal attacks, so please persuad me, that with agg ais, there really IS any point to diplomacy. I'm completely open to rational arguements, its just that I haven't heard any yet.

I think when people are talking about diplomacy, some of them are talking about the GAME of Diplomacy. You know, the one where you play as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia, or the Ottomans and backstab one another into a fine, red mist. The boardgame, I mean. And that's perfectly fine to want that--But when I want to play Diplomacy, I'll break out the board and call up six of my friends. I'm not going to load up Civ4 to play Diplomacy. I'm going to load up Civ4 to play friggin' Civ4.