CIV-4 Big picture thoughts

[sir_schwick]

A few thoughts on AI competativeness:

All nations compete for first survival, second domination. The main flaw with Civ 3 was that war is the only way to dominate. If they could make control an issue of developement and policy as well, it would solve many of this forums's complaints. In Civ 2 all the AIs were competative, but preset to fight you. They just need to make it a system where each player evaluates who they need to worry about the most, and assume it is not the human player unless it really is. As for diplomacy, I think SMAC had it best, although the trading table was much more intuitive to use. Combine the trade style and the SMAC optiosn and you have a winner, especially when it comes to war.

On the rise and fall of civilzations:

In civilization when you fall you lose. Historically all 'winning' empires fall at some point. I think the game should change so your responsiblity as a player is to make the greatest impact when you are up. Under this system your relative power and success are tracked along a curve. The faster the rise the faster the fall. the more intense the rise the more intense the fall. To encourage making a lasting impression, any civs that form from the remains of your society you can decide to control, even if you are still alive. Imagine the Romans are falling, but the Byzantines, succesors to your heritage, have emerged. YOu can switch to the Byzantines to try and form a new desitny. The winner is he/she who managed to change history.

 

[Sirian]

If I could see Civ 4 as a game, I would see it as three equal but distinct strategies. Becoming an economic powerhouse, becoming a cultural powerhouse, or simply dominating through military. Each would slightly interfere with one another. Instead of a race to see who can dominate, as in civ 3, the game would become a race to see who can win their respective goal.

Civ3 is already like that. Problem is, everything blends together in unintended ways. One can reach early domination, then pause in the killing and cruise to any victory type they like. One can build up an economic superpower, then start cranking military units post-industrial and swarm the battlefield.

As long as Civ remains as versatile as it is now, we're going to continue to see this kind of strategic blending. Thus in my view, compartmentalization of gameplay types appears unrealistic. If all gameplay remains of the competitive type, then the uber strategy will remain to eliminate rivals, the sooner the better. Only if player is FORCED to leave off war to open up other gameplay types will this problem be resolved. I think this means that cooperative gameplay types would be required. After all, you can't cooperate with those with whom you've eliminated or permanently alienated. The war path would remain open, but it would NOT be the end-all be-all "put your boot to their throat, then pick your type of victory" strategy.

All nations compete for first survival, second domination.

I disagree with the premise. Domination means rising above others by stepping on them, suppressing them, keeping them down, defeating them, lording over them. Not all nations live that way, despite what many may claim. Success can come at the expense of others, but it need not. Success can arise out of excellence, skill, work, creativity, and cooperation.

Nationalism is not the strongest aspect of human nature or human culture. We are all one species. Civ as a game is based on your premise, but life is not. Thus Civ is automatically tilted away from reality. Well, that's fine. It's only a game, after all.

If they could make control an issue of developement and policy as well, it would solve many of this forums's complaints.

No matter what hoops the player may be required to jump through, the fact will remain that a single intelligence will be in control of the game from start to finish. Logic dictates that the Civ4 designers must bow to this fact. They can design a "realistic" game on a much smaller scale, a slice of time lasting ten or twenty years, maybe fifty at most, and simulate what you are describing, but then that would not be Civ, would it?

Since we can assume that Civ4 will follow the lead of its predecessors in starting somewhere in the ancient age and aiming to finish somewhere near present time/technology, attempts to jiggle with the core game design seem unlikely. Yeah, it might be cool to pick a slice of history and play only a few hundred years on a different scale, but that would be a whole new type of game.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Sirian,

I think you raise a valid point. But it's a point I try to address. What I'm talking about is multiple divergent styles of gameplay. The reality is that in Civ 3, you have multiple victory paths that really can be tied together with one main overarching strategy.

In Civ 3, if you expand your borders and dominate, you're right, you can quickly cruise to a scientific, cultural, or military victory. Not to mention you probably have the most powerful economy. This is because culture and economy are these internal, domestic concepts. You can somehow have a beautiful culture without anyone in the world even liking you. You can somehow have the most powerful economy without anyone willing to trade with you.

What I'm proposing for Civ 4 is some exclusivity between strategies. Because economy will depend on international trade, you can't be a warmonger and still be rich. International war would really mess with economy, even if you weren't involved. War would close your imports and exports to the enemy. Not to mention that a nation at war would have burdened or closed trade routes, limiting contact between Civs. For a long time, durring the dark and middle ages, there was little contact between Europe and India, or Europe and China. Not because they hated each other, but because nobody could really move through the near East because of religious war / tension. A hostile Near East messed things up for everybody.

Same thing with culture. Sure your people can like your culture. But what makes cultural domination more compelling is when everyone ELSE likes your culture. Not that you assimilate everybody, but that everyone has a bit of your Civ in them. Isn't it pretty neat that some of our favorite games are Japanese? Isn't it interesting to consider that European suits are considered the attire of the well-to-do all over the world? Did you know the Greeks invented clapping? To transmit these value systems, rituals, and symbols, someone had to cross between borders. This is pretty much impossible if anyone crossing between borders is killed out of fear or hatred. Artists, philosophers, missionaries, explorers, and traders need these borders to be open to bring the glory of your civilization.

I think you really can pull the strategies apart with the right kinds of rewards / penalties. It's a matter of gameplay balancing.

 

[sir_schwick]

I disagree with the premise. Domination means rising above others by stepping on them, suppressing them, keeping them down, defeating them, lording over them. Not all nations live that way, despite what many may claim. Success can come at the expense of others, but it need not. Success can arise out of excellence, skill, work, creativity, and cooperation

I disagree with the sentiment life is not like this. Human competition is a natural and beneficial part of human nature. Some individuals manage to be content with what they have, but the normal human behavior is to want what one considers 'best'. Domination does not have to be military, and often the great empires could not maintain their empires through force alone. Being the leader means that you have to keep other competitors down, unless its more profitable enough if you do not. Economic warfare is a very real and present part of the modern world. Maybe one civ in 30 should have the cultural/religious/societal desire to remain content with what they have and not try to be the top dog, because these societies do exist.

I do not think a system that made the economy a battle-field would have to make the game only fifty years long. However, it would allow competition to occur in more than just one field.

 

[Sirian]

Being the leader means that you have to keep other competitors down

Activity of this sort is called "crime", at least in the United States.

Staying ahead of competitors can be done by keeping yourself up. Pushing others down is called sabotage, libel, theft, arson, racketeering, and more. Societies who tolerate, even encourage, the "pushing down" of competitors will reap what they sow, and it will be a barren crop indeed.

There's a woman in the United States by the name of Tanya Harding. Ever heard of her?


- Sirian

 

[sir_schwick]

My point was that if you want to be the leader, you must be the best. If you are not, you must make sure no one else is either. Competative edge does not necessarily involve malicious acts of sabotage, but it can as well. Of course all these actions must also be filtered through whatever system of Ethics is being used. Usually that system is established by the current leader, which is not always a competitor. This is why some(but not too much) government regulation is necessary in economic matters just as in political(government exists, not they control politics). Anarchy produces a system where the strong rule and economic anarchy rewards the most ruthless company. This was a real problem in the 1800s and early 1900s in the United States. Anyway, I went there for a second there. My point was that all players in a system usually play by the established rules of the system, which are established by the most powerful party in the system.

If this posts seems a bit disjointed and very poorly written any suggestions to improve my presentation would be appreciated.

 

[dh_epic]

I maintain that even with laws, there are ways to keep competition down. The world isn't squeaky clean, and it sure as hell wasn't 200 years ago either.

I also maintain that they COULD compartmentalize strategies much more. First off, cultural and economic strategy would absolutely require having allies. Secondly, someone who starts wars unprovoked would see that reflected in their people: "well sheez, if Caesar can backstab the Persians, then I can cancel my deal with farmer Quintus down the street."

But more on the cooperative tip -- because I think me and you, Sirian, are on the same page more than you can think.

A zero-sum game is a game where you take something that belongs to somebody else. Your friend has 5 apples. You steal 2 from him. You've gained 2 apples, and he's lost 2 apples, and there are still 5 apples in the universe. No net gain for the universe, hence zero-sum.

A non-zero-sum game is where you make gains but those gains were created "out of thin air" instead of taken strictly from someone else. Some people use the prisoner's dilemma to show how cooperation is more profitable than strict nihilistic self interest. I'll use the fisherman's dilemma:

There are two fishermen. They can fish by stabbing fish with a stick, or they can fish by using a net. However, it takes two men to use the net. Using the net will catch 10 fish in one day, whereas stabbing fish with a stick will catch 2 fish.
- If both cooperate, they get 10 fish, and split it 5 each
- If both refuse to cooperate, they work alone and get 2 fish each
- If one FALSELY cooperates, they get 10 fish and keep it for themselves

At first it looks like the last one is the most profitable. After all, you get to keep 10 fish, more than any other option. But compare two fishermen -- the Fisher Brothers -- to Khan and Caesar, over 7 days.

Khan and Caesar agree to fish with a net. Caesar then backstabs Khan and takes all the fish for himself, getting 10 in one day. Breaking the trust between the two, neither agrees to cooperate and continue fishing with sticks, getting 2 fish each for the remaining 6 days. Caesar ends up with 22 fish, and Khan with 12 fish.

The Fisher brothers agree to fish with a net, and even sign a contract that they will split the catch two ways. Over 7 days, they cooperate, getting 5 fish each. Each brother ends up with 35 fish, which is much more than Khan caught, and even more than Caesar got even though Caesar "cheated"!

The point of that thought experiment is to illustrate how I figured culture would work. Khan tries to spread his culture with a few missionaries and luxuries into Caesar's empire. In doing so, he gains points from having culture within Caesar's borders. Caesar decides to return the favor, sending his missionaries to Khan. Khan -- fearing he will lose the culture war -- kills Caesar's missionary. Missionaries and luxuries from other Civs have trouble making it to the at-war-Civs. It is only after centuries of war that they bury the hatchet.

But during those centuries, Greece and England handled themselves differently. England began sending its furs to Greece, making their furs world famous and increasing their culture score with English culture behind Greek borders. Greece recognized the economic and cultural benefits that England was trying to reap, but instead did one better: they sent repeated units (artisans, missionaries, philosophers) to England to transmit its ideals and values -- gaining them valuable culture points. Greece is now a worldwide cultural leader, with England on their tail.

What of Khan and Caesar? Their culture is far behind. Within their own borders, their people are proud. But around the world, nobody even gives a crap about Mongol philosophers or Roman furs. All the little population-heads wants to hear from GREEK philosophers and get ENGLISH furs.

Faced with a terrible predicament, the Romans go to war with Greece. Greece, not one to fight fire with fire, leverages its culture.

The Greek-loving population heads in Rome cry out for peace.

Even the population heads as far as China are saying "man, what Rome is doing to Greece is so uncool. Greece is so beautiful, it's a bastion of culture! We are big fans of Aristotle!" China declares war on Rome, much to the happiness of its people.

Greece asks England to stop trading furs to Rome, which would make the Roman people very unhappy and cause enough weariness that Caesar will end the war. Of course, where Greece sees tyrrany, England sees opportunity, and says "thanks but no thanks" to Greece. England begins transmitting much more furs to Rome, trying to get one up on Greece in the culture race!

Anyway, sorry for ranting. But I hope you can see the potential for gameplay balancing to open up some kind of divergent, compartmentalized strategies. (I hate the "expansionist platform to all victories" as much as you do.)

 

[sir_schwick]

I did not mean to say that unilateralism was a winning strategy, but a human one. I do agree with dh_epic that usually cooperation nets better results over time. The strategy decision is when is war going to be profitable and when is peace going to be profitable. No group is going to serve something then its best interest, and most of the time that interest is best served by cooperation.

 

[kryszcztov]

No, I think you're overlooking something fundamental. As long as the game drives each civ to view each other civ as an enemy or rival, Civ is going to remain a war game. The means of attack may change -- cultural attack, economic attack, diplomatic attack may all be possible -- but if the gameplay still involves ATTACKING in some form, to improve your situation at the expense of other civs, then nothing significant will have changed. And if that is going to be the case, then Civ should try to make itself into the best war game that it can, rather than trying to put on makeup or wear a mask to conceal its true nature.

Best quote about the Civ series I may have never read. I read it several times and I think it sums up what I somehow dislike about my favourite game. Yeah I play a bloody war game, period. But do computers like games where it's not about killing ? (Please don't talk me about SimCity (a good game), it's a simulator.) But Sirian, what about cultural wins in Civ3 ? What about OCC 20k games ?

Your comment is very clear and right, but now I'm feeling depressed about what Civ4 will be, instead of having high expectations...

 

[Sirian]

Your comment is very clear and right, but now I'm feeling depressed about what Civ4 will be, instead of having high expectations.

Don't fret. I'm far from a pessimist about Civ4. There is cause for hope, even with the recognition of how difficult it would be to improve the franchise.

Civ3 made huge strides in the right direction, in my view, and many of the gains came through the patching process. This showed that the team "got it" when it came to good civ gaming. That buys a lot of currency with me. I will get Civ4 right away, and even if it is not ideal, I will stick with it until the kinks are ironed out.

Will Civ4 be good? I'm sure it will. Will it be great? Can't answer that yet.


- Sirian

 

[Sirian]

I maintain that even with laws, there are ways to keep competition down.

For sure.

Laws are rules encoded by and enforced by a government. Rules have a letter and a spirit. Both must be enforced, thus the need for judges, to interpret the letter, and where ambiguous or unforeseen, or where discretion is left within the law for the judge, to judge the spirit and intent, within the bounds afforded by the letter.

Law is such a sticky practice, lawyers make big money. The purpose of a lawyer is to know the laws well enough to advise and guide you, or to represent you or your interests to law enforcement. Lawyers are supposed to work within the law, as well, but it just gets more and more blurry, the more complex the laws become.

Poorly written laws are all over the place. Many legislators have good intentions, but the letter is where the chief power lies, not the spirit. And even if they successfully write a law to stop one bad behavior, often it merely puts pressure on the next flaw or loophole, and the process begins anew.


Designing a good game is the same sort of pursuit: rule creation. Games can be a lot simpler, but still face the same obstacles.


Your fisherman example is well crafted and thought provoking. But it does not extend far enough. If Khan can come around with a pack of horsemen and demand half the catch of Russia, Greece, China, and Japan, and GET IT because its cheaper for them to pay tribute than to suffer war, Khan may get the most fish of them all. This is not reflected in any of the Civ games, where taking AND HOLDING territory is so easy. The cultural flip-back isn't the answer they hoped it would be.

Genghis Khan and his hordes were among history's most successful tribute collectors. Would be interesting if Civ could operate that way, or operate the way the European empires did. Instead, the only empire type we get is the Roman model, conquering neighbors and a civ expanding to cover lots of ground. That model, too, is worthy, but IN A GAME it is very difficult to try to include all these options and balance them. It's not that Civ designers never tried before. Rather, they have yet to succeed beyond a certain point.


Yes, dh_epic, we agree on much. The question is how to model the concepts, to encode them... How to write good rules.

The "real AIs" vs "flavor AIs" may be on the right track, but I'm not sure it gets there. Civ3 AIs are all flavor AIs. They follow the cash, rather than their own self interests.


The problem with game rules is that three types have been tried:

* Reward the successful. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

* Penalize the successful. Anyone who starts to lead gets dragged down.

* Randomize the rules. Luck dictates your fate.


These all suck.

We need something else.


- Sirian

 

[sir_schwick]

I believe that fundamentally all interactions between nations are competitions or conflicts of some kind. Unfortunately Civ only really simulates one kind, military. It completely neglects ideological, cultural, and especially economic conflict.

On Tribute:
SMAC was decent in this regard, especially since the enemy factions knew it was time to surrender. The current Civ AIs do not understand the concept of 'survival' very well. I do agree that control should be more about effective diplomacy and policy then just military strength. "The Pen is mightier then the Sword."

 

[Sirian]

I believe that fundamentally all interactions between nations are competitions or conflicts of some kind.

I respect your belief, but even a simple bilateral trade agreement contradicts your view. "We're good at growing rice, you're better than we are at making shoes. Let's trade."

This model follows the core principles in dh_epic's Fisherman example. The art of negotiation may always include competitive aspects, but negotiations that break down will benefit no one, so if both sides will benefit from cooperation, there's a very good chance they'll come to agreeable terms.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

I'm glad we're having a constructive discussion. I'm seeing where you're coming from Sirian, for sure. I think the whole "three approaches" is dead on.

Penalizing the successful sucks because you feel like you lose control.

Rewarding the successful sucks because you can run away with the game by the middle ages.

Complete randomization is no game at all. I know how realistic it can be in a football game to have random injuries, but when it is so powerful that it can ruin your game, it's very discouraging and frustrating. Makes a game not worth playing if in the end you lose because of something you had 5% control over.

Still, I think there are a few things they haven't tried, or haven't quite executed successfully:

1. Reward the unsuccessful with a "catchup" mechanism

Nothing too powerful, but maybe just an opportunity to turn things around. Ever play Mario Kart? Ever notice how if you end up lagging way behind, you always seem to get the Lightning Bolt or the Star? It's not enough to put you in first place, but it's enough to get you back into the heart of the race -- so you very seldom have people falling behind deliberately so they can get the lightning bolt.

I'd even be happy if they let the AI cheat. Not to give them a constant speed advantage at higher difficulty levels, but to give a couple of them "catch up" algorithms. This is what I mean when I distinguish between "flavor AI" and "strong AI". The strong AI would get the cheats that keep them from falling too far behind.

If you've ever played a racing game where you can lap the second place AI, you'll understand why a catch-up cheat algorithm is actually less frustrating then trying to find a constant speed for the AI that will make them not too powerful and not too weak.


2. Make the game into a series of dilemmas instead of "no brainer" choices.

In civ 3, if I told you 'I could speed up your expansion" you'd say "YES PLEASE". If I told you that I could get you a tech sooner, you'd say "YES PLEASE". If I told you that I could make your workers move and work efficiently without getting captured, you'd say "YES PLEASE". These are all no-brainer decisions that the player makes on a regular basis and that you could pretty quickly teach a monkey -- they are things you almost always do if given the chance.

What if expansion had a cost? What if discovering a military tech shaped your Civ's psyche in a way that it wasn't ready for socially, even though it made you a force to be reckoned with? What if you spent less time micromanaging, and more time deciding on that big vision -- be an economic powerhouse OR be a military powerhouse (emphasis on the "OR")?

Which is partially why I'm so into pulling strategies apart. Don't punish success, per se. But have different kinds of success come with respective prices. Pursuing that Artillery makes you a more dominating physical force, but centralizes power in the hands of a few, preventing a middle class from emerging, and keeping your economy slower.

These kinds of subtleties are what I've been trying to give examples of. Things you can slip into the game to force the player to make hard decisions, instead of the nobrainers. Civ 3 is kind of like a racing game where the questions you ask people are "hey, would you like to go faster?" The answer is always the same: yes.

To use another simple game as an analogy, think about Hearts (a card game). You want to get as few hearts as possible, because a heart counts against your score. But the exception is if you get all 13 hearts, in which case all the other players get 13 points against their score. What's great is the fact that you can't waffle and decide to change strategies -- the strategies interfere with one another.


Bringing me to the next question:

if the Mongols could demand tribute from everyone (which is a neat strategy that should be available) without conquering them -- sacking cities repeatedly and becoming immensely wealthy... then why were they only around for a couple centuries?

I'm no historian, so I don't have the answer. Although i think it had something to do with cultural assimilation.

As it should be in Civ 4: in demanding tribute from these other nations, they started to get various famous commodities. The Mongols became "civilized" and "cultured". Their people didn't want to go to war with China -- they regarded themselves as respectful equals of China, even cousins, and so the troops just lost that killer instinct. Some of their people even started to consider themselves citizens of the other more "civilized" Nations, and as such were assimilated.

That's one way that you can make it hard for the Mongols to run away with the game. Heaven knows if we think hard enough, we can come up with others -- better ones.

 

[Sirian]

why were they only around for a couple centuries?

They dominated utterly for a couple of centuries and were a force to be reckoned with for a long time. Why did their empire fade? Why does any empire fade? Resistance grew. Balances of power shifted. Other cultures emerged not to absorb them, but effectively to oppose them. The Russians in particular had to bow down to the "Tatars" for quite a long time but eventually united and threw off the yoke, more or less.

A key reason that empires fail is when they are built on the strength of powerful leaders, who age and die and are not replaced. Are great leaders made or are they born? Perhaps a bit of both.

The democratic system, the "four freedoms" of FDR, with universal suffrage and widespread embrace of human rights... This culture seems to have the potential for greater longevity, but it has not been around long enough yet to be sure, and we'll both be dead before it has the chance. We can assume that it will, assume that it won't, or admit we don't know, but a case can be made for why this system has a chance by contrasting it with the reasons that tore down preceding systems and noting the absence of these problems from the current best options.


Civ is fun in large part because it leads us to ask these questions. "What if" history had gone differently?


Rewarding the unsuccessful with a catchup mechanism should not be necessary, in my view. Civ3 has "catch up mechanisms" left and right. I'm less than impressed with them.

* There's tech deflatation, for starters. Please note that tech deflation started out very strong but has been toned down again and again in patches. Some might be OK or even useful, but the net effect is that players end up abusing the option. The AIs will ALWAYS buy tech if they can afford it, almost always sell to anyone who can afford it. Thus the AIs will quickly buy in, unless one of them is just that far ahead, economically. Players are wise not to rush. Wait and let all the AIs who are strong enough buy in first, then buy in at a much lower cost. Best of all, if the AIs spread out a bit, where some are ahead and some behind, buy one tech from a leader (not a monopoly tech, but any tech known by 2+ civs) and then trade it to a civ who doesn't know it but who knows another tech player doesn't own, and so on and so forth, picking up several techs, maybe even lots of techs, on the cheap. EVEN WITHOUT THE N-FER TRADING, though, just buying in at deflated prices lets players have a MUCH weaker economy than the AI and still be in the game.

Why bother with that? Get rid of the catch up mechanisms and then players CAN'T compete with AIs who have Diety and Sid advantages. HOORAY, says me. We can have more normal looking gameplay, instead of "dig yourself out of absurdly deep holes" as the only viable challenge.

* AIs are coded to grow tired of war over time, without regard to whether they obtain objectives or not. Realistic? Arguable. All it really means is that savvy players can fight hopeless wars, but have the AI dance its forces around in circles for a while, while the player makes gains, and then player can have peace on his terms, when he wants it, and can make peace when it would be to his best advantage.

* Popping military leaders that can rush great wonders... they got rid of that in C3C, but it allowed players to neglect building and actually pull more wonders than those who built their own.

* Espionage (tech theft) can catch you up big time in the late game, but it's a pure dice roll. (Or, if you have a mind to bother, a reload-until-you-get-the-result-you-wanted absurdity).

* Corruption. The corruption effects place diminishing returns on additional territory controlled, meaning that civs who swallow lots more land don't grow proportionally stronger. This serves as a huge catch up mechanism.


Why worry about some civs falling too far behind? That makes them easy pickings? So what? As long as some AIs are strong, the game goes on. It's only when player can isolate and pick on the weakest target over and over, absorbing their lands and resources with impunity, that weak civs disrupt the game balance. Well, making them stronger won't fix that anyway. (Does it help in Civ3? No.) Something else is needed to fix that.

If the AI is given catchup advantages that players are not, that's one sorry AI. Overall, I think the Civ3 AI is rather strong, actually. It expands like nobody's business, builds more than enough units, fights a decent war. It does all these things on fair terms, where the only true cheat it has in place is the trading rate. AIs on high difficulty charge one another less for making trades, buying techs, etc. There is something important missing from the AI, though, and catchup mechanisms won't supply it.

The AI in Civ3 doesn't need catching up. It races way out ahead and then devolves into pointless wars ON WHICH IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THROUGH, thus squandering its strength. Players can choose targets wisely, have peace when they want it, have war when it's to their advantage, buy allies on the cheap, or conserve their strength and continue to grow while the AIs are wasting their lead in random attacks on one another. The AIs do not lack strength. They just don't know what to do with it!

Catch up mechanisms papered over a lot of things in Civ3, but they also break other things. I'm not wholly opposed to them -- in measured doses, they serve useful purposes -- but I don't see them as solutions.


- Sirian

 

[kryszcztov]

I wanna add my 2 cents in this great discussion, maybe the best thread I've followed since ages.

dh_epic's fictional story about Romans, Mongols, Greeks, English and Chinese was very pleasant to read. It has that true feeling we can find out in many parts of History... Just to add on the Mongols : I think they didn't lose power like that, they just got various results in the different parts of the world they first conquered. Remember that people are the base of power... *hint* *hint* So in China for example, by the time Marco Polo arrived there, the Emperor was Kubilai Khan, one of Genghis's grandson. But he was just Emperor of the Chinese, while other members of the family ruled elsewhere (same goes for the split of Charlemagne's empire in 843). And of course Kubilai was not interested in taking over the world (though he would have done so if given the chance), but to unite China (get rid of resistance ?) and defend it against new threats. So after a few generations the Mongol Empire wasn't one anymore, because the motherland was too weak to compete with emerging Europe (gunpowder ?), and its "satellites" were melting its influence in the local cultures. And the Mongol culture wasn't a dominating one. The Khan was even kicked out of China at some point. Hard to model in a game, uh ? (sorry if I'm wrong on a certain point)

I also wonder if Civ2's AI was better for competing againt human players. I can't compare well with Civ3 because :
- I was younger when I was playing Civ2 ;
- I didn't have the Internet (CFC, competitions...) back then ;
- I wasn't wondering on such questions ;
- I'd find it hard to play Civ2 again !!
But it looked that I had a harder time to beat the AI on Deity than with Civ3. In fact there was no problem to get a running empire, but the end of the game was sometimes intense. While in Civ3 it's usually the other way round : trying to catch the AIs first, and then slowly but SURELY get ahead of them and sit and wait for the victory to come. Maybe it's because the AI didn't change much whereas new features were added (culture, resources, and many things that were changed) ? And I liked the way AIs didn't want to sell a tech because they were starting on a wonder related to the tech. Lastly about Civ1&2, there were very tiny kingdoms (at least in Civ1 ?), like the Babylonians (!) that would never build a settler ; those civs were doomed, but actually, look at what the Greek city-states achieved : an immense culture while living on a tiny mountain land, and then Alex came from Macedon, and took half of the known world. Will this be possible in Civ too ?

Also, about military aspects : it seems that big wars really took the whole empire's resources, so that all the country was devoted to the war effort (but then, Civ3's war-time economy is a fake attempt to model this, it goes in the other way). I find it hard to build a real army in Civ3 and wage a huge war, but it rarely stops my development when I don't achieve my goals. We should be heavily penalized when we lose big wars, and we shouldn't get much bonus when we win a total war ; in fact, the losing foe should be defeated and lose much power (but still have the opportunity to fight back). All in all, a war shouldn't come to "we both have 2 apples, I defeat you and take your 2 apples" but "I defeat you, take you 1 apple, and the other apple was lost in that bloody mess". Civ3 somehow tries to reach that, but really not enough for my taste. When I go to war, I don't feel that epic feeling going on, unless I play an always-war game. But once again, the AI is to blame for part of it, I guess.

 

[Sirian]

Civ2 was "harder" but it's not an impressive kind of hard. The AIs team up on the player, especially if player is the most powerful. Well, when is player NOT the most powerful? The Civ2 AI is anemic at expansion, so any strong player will almost invariably obtain more land and be the strongest civ in the game.

This is one of those "three approaches" I mentioned: the one where success is automatically penalized. In effect, it quite nearly turns EVERY game of Civ2 into an "always war" situation. That's cool in terms of "making it harder", but to me at least, that grows old really fast. It's gamey, sorely predictable, and a bit too simple to be effective.

Civ3 goes the other way. The AI bends over backward not to gang up on anybody. The flow of cash dictates who allies with whom against whom, and player has a fair shot at that. Skilled and experienced players can turn this to advantage, and this can make the game "too easy" for some. But I consider that a step up from Civ2. In fact, it's the chief reason I gave Civ3 a try. I was SO tired of the old AIs-all-gang-up-on-me dynamic, that I had quit playing Civ altogether and never even bought Alpha Centauri.

The problem is, "never" ganging up is nearly as bad as always ganging up. And ganging up entirely at random is no good either.

See? We're back to the "three approaches". We need something new.


- Sirian

 

[kryszcztov]

This is one of those "three approaches" I mentioned: the one where success is automatically penalized. In effect, it quite nearly turns EVERY game of Civ2 into an "always war" situation. That's cool in terms of "making it harder", but to me at least, that grows old really fast. It's gamey, sorely predictable, and a bit too simple to be effective.

Yeah, I remember those games where every fundamentalist civ would ally against me, or how they said : "X and Y sign a pact against [me] to counter his massive agression !" or something similar. At least there was something to do in the Modern Age, there would be a huge world war to deal with (I remember building dozens and dozens of those howitzers as the real effective solution), or the space race would be very tight (never the case in Civ3), and/or nukes would fall like no tomorrow (making fighting against pollution as vital as breathing, making ferrying of troops a tricky nightmare, and BTW I have never seen a nuke in any of my Civ3 games). At least there was something, but was it better than in Civ3, was it good ? On the long term, no, like you said, but I somewhat miss a bit of that Civ2 aspect.

Money rules in Civ3, everything can be bought, and there are very few STOP signs (like an AI refusing to ally against another AI no matter what, but that is rare). Why does that damn AI want to give me Military Tradition for Music Theory and cash (example already used) ? Money really is the most perverting thing on Earth for sure !! Would the damn AI care to consider the amount of cash I get every turn ?

"We need something new." Any idea or not ? What about science not being the ultimate element to describe the development of civilisations ? Of course science IS the most important one (and today there is no question about it !), but it can't be the only aspect ? We could split Civ's old system of technology into pure science, practical science and social enhancement (Civ4's civics ??). And what about some discoveries triggering mini-golden ages for certain civs, as a limiting factor ? The player would always have to take care of something new ( ) so that the game never becomes boring. Up to a debate to see if such additions would have to be pre-determined (and so known by the human player and the AI before being available) or be a random feature (like Gunpowder could give military bonuses to China in one game, and to France in another one).

 

[bambuz]

Sorry a bit that i'm sidestepping to an earlier post, but I think it was so good that it needs commenting.

Folks, after about a year of livin' clean, I'm back on CIV3, weakness during these hot summer months. I broke down and bought C3C - it's pretty good, certainly plenty of interesting tweaks. But I'm finding it still doesn't satisfy certain cravings, that I hope will be dealt with in CIV 4. Here goes:

...

Gameplay - As I think I once said, I usally either win, lose, or get bored by the middle ages - somehow we need more twists and turns in the game to keep it interesting longer. In 90% of my games, it's obvious where things are going by about 0 AD, and if I'm behind, there is no clear way to come back (obviously this is mainly at the higher levels, where we all know you are toast most of the time - but still).

...

Gameplay II - I'd like there to be more real decision making - I find that way too much of my time is spent doing things that do not involve interesting choices. It's mostly pretty obvious what to do next, so it gets very mechanical - what build orders, tech orders come next, etc. I usually find it makes sense to build most everything possible (more or less) or at least use the same pattern for every city. And it usually makes sense to build nearly all possible techs, with only minor variations in the order from game to game, regardless of what civ I play. It seems to me that with CIV 2 I needed to put much more energy into considering alternative build/research strategy options - but maybe I was just younger and stupider then... Maybe there could at least be some differentiation interms of what city improvements/techs are available to different civs, or when they are?

...

Enough for now. Overall I am rooting for the game to be well improved in its gameplay and AI - I'm hoping for much more than the kinds of little tweaks that seem to be mostly getting mentioned on these boards.

I've been thinking exactly the same - gameplay gets boring.

At some point most of the actual gameplay is just tedious worker management (automation doesn't work), and then at the enemy's turn watching them running in circles with some obsolete units. Every turn takes just so agonizignly long. You really need character to pick up a modern age save and enthusiastically play till the end.

So I then installed civ 1 again, to check what it's like. I was surprised how streamlined everything is. There are fewer techs and fewer units, fewer tiles to do all that worker stuff etc. Still most of the important decisions were there (although diplomacy is somewhat simpler), but the gameplay just was not so tedious. One big complaint in civ1 is the lack of hitpoints, so combat gets extremely random - although it lessens micromanaging (taking care of "wounded" units).

Basically there has been this great carrying idea behind civilization I, and just "adding stuff" to civ2 and civ3 hasn't but made it worse in many aspects.
After all, all these games are generalizations and conceptualizations, one has to just pick the level of detail right, so that it's both fun, makes sense and is somewhat realistic.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Sirian,

On the Game AI:

I can see what you're saying about catchup mechanisms for the player. But moreover, I still think an artificial cheating catchup for a FEW strong AIs is a good one. The flavor AIs lag and wane, while the strong AIs try to stay at 80% of the size and strength of the player -- minimum. ... unless they're at war with the player, in which case, their power wanes as fast as the player can push them.

Still, just to say that catchup mechanisms in Civ 3 are crappy doesn't mean that all catchup mechanisms will be crappy. I think you could come up with something that's not too unbalanced or stupid. But I'm comfortable disagreeing on this point though.

At least we agree that Civ 2's challenge is real but boring and repetitive. And that laying down for the player in Civ 3 is almost as bad. I still have to say: a bunch of flavor AIs that lay down under the right circumstances, and a few strong AIs that are as manipulative and backstabbing as the best player would make for an interesting dynamic. That way the strong AI would have to appeal to the flavor AIs to do a Civ 2 style gangbang, and as such, the player could try to pull the same thing. Much better than some kind of automated gangbang.


On moving the game away from war to new strategies:

I think you bring up an interesting point about great leaders keeping an empire together, only to watch as the empires come apart afterwards. I think this is HIGHLY relevant to gameplay balancing. kryszcztov is right though, this is hard to model in a game.

Bringing me to a few questions questions:

1) If Khan lived forever, would the Mongol Empire have lasted?

2) If so, how do we model the impact of great leaders into the game -- a temporary leap forward, but with extreme vulnerability afterwards?

3) If not, then what other factor CAN we model to temper imperialism?

I still think that tempering war and expansionism is insufficient, even if it might be necessary. You genuinely need to reward alternative behaviors. I know I'm biased, but I'm still into the idea of making culture a bigger victory type that's incompatible with war. As well as economics. The incompatibility is key, so you don't fall into the Civ 3 trap where war and expansionism is a launching pad to every victory.