dh_epic's AI Solution

[dh_epic]

You guys raise a good point -- is it realistic for mortal enemies to become friends in the face of a looming threat? It's been known to happen, but doesn't always happen.

I still think that this dodges the tougher issue...

If teaming up is realistic, is it fair, does it make for good gamplay?
If staying enemies is realistic, is it challenging, does it make for good gameplay?

I think the key is making realism an inherent part of gameplay. Not to the point where you need to follow China's path to victory, or where if you do anything really dominating you are penalized. But having realism a part of the gameplay. This thread talks about makign 80% of the AI civs play "realistically", regardless of competition.

But an alternative certainly is making realism competitive -- keeping allies and holding loyalties have equal rewards to backstabbing. Right now, backstabbing has obvious rewards, and they try to penalize you with a reputation hit. But it doesn't mean much if being hated by everyone isn't much of a barrier to victory. Not to say the penalty for backstabbing needs to be harsher, but maybe loyalty and honor need to have bigger rewards. One way of doing that would be increasing the value of reputation count for more -- have it boost trade, production, growth, efficiency, happiness in various ways, direct or indirect.

 

[Sirian]

an alternative certainly is making realism competitive -- keeping allies and holding loyalties have equal rewards to backstabbing.

That's the line of thinking that I favor. I hope Civ4 makes some bold leaps. The diplomacy in Civ has always been its most shallow element. If they could breathe more life into it, a lot of possibilities open up.

- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

I'd love to see it too, Sirian. But I'm not exactly optimistic. I suspect they'll keep Civ as a war game, plus a few meaningless frills. If Civ stays this way, then I'd definitely want them to pursue this AI split (Type A versus Type B). But if they managed to make diplomacy, peace, and loyalty profitable, then I'd easily throw out this entire thread.

 

[sir_schwick]

I've noticed almost all of the us veterans of the Civ 4 forum are being extremely cynical. We have almost lost faith that Civ 4 will be anything we want it to be.

 

[Jon Shafer]

That's because it's Firaxis' game, not the CFC Civ 4 ideas forum's game.

 

[dh_epic]

Hahaha, yeah, we are pretty cynical. But I have a few shreds of hope that they'd listen to reason, in combination with a little vision and sense of fun.

And Trip, if you truly believe what you're saying (not that what you're saying is false), then why are you even hanging out on these forums?

 

[Jon Shafer]

That's a good question.

 

[Zild]

I disagree with catch-ups for the same reason I disagree with it taking an AI civ half (or twice) the shields to produce something. And I think the poor AI has more to do with lack of resources (time and manpower) devoted to programming good AI.

But I still think the idea two sim types strikes me as an idea with good potential. What I would ask is that the player be given the option to choose how many AIs are of each type.

My prefered method for doing this would be either:

Each civ has a "Type" setting - A, B or random. The player selects whichever option. In the case of random, the players are never told - they have to find out themselves the hard way!

A slider is placed which the player can use to determine the number of type A and type B civs, with the obligatory "random" button if they're feeling daring.


This would allow players to play entirely "realistic" games, entirely "cutthroat" games, or one of a wide range of games in between. I feel that the second method of selection would be better, but for the most customisation the ability to have both would be ideal.

 

[Sirian]

I've noticed almost all of the us veterans of the Civ 4 forum are being extremely cynical. We have almost lost faith that Civ 4 will be anything we want it to be.

I wouldn't say that. No use being pollyanna here. The game is NOT going to have everything we want. It wouldn't have room for everything imagined here even if they tried to include it all.

That's got to be the main reason Firaxis says nada. The expectations game... If they raise expectations, they may lose sales. And yet how can they keep hopeful fans from raising their own expectations? Anything said will be seized on by hopeful fans -- including those who are pollyanna, expecting way more than is possible, and those who are embittered, who've expected good things from games before and been sorely disappointed. That's a minefield best avoided. The only way for Firaxis to win is to say nothing. At least for now.


If you notice, I only post in a few threads here. Certainly less than Trip. So one might conclude that Trip actually has higher hopes than I do. The cynical facade is just a defense mechanism, to try to keep those hopes in check and avoid the certain pain of disappointment should they grow too high.

Half Life 2 has gone gold. That will distract me a good bit, I expect. I've also been playing some other good games. Tropico is one I missed, but I'm playing it this fall. Lots of fun. Scratches my Civ itch better for the moment than Civ3 itself, but chiefly because I've run my course with Civ3 and there's very little newness left in it for me, even with wild and wacky variants.

Another good game, in fact a surprise of a gem, is Gothic II. The combat engine in that game is tough to master, and the difficulty is actually a little too high. (The number of reloads I've had to do is sickening). However, once I got to be decent with the combat mechanism and accepting of the number of reloads (and how much saving I have to do! Arrgh) the game itself has turned out to be a real winner. Great writing, some of the best AI I've seen in a long time, loads and loads of content, lots of interesting adventure. In fact, this game is actually scratching my Ultima itch -- and it's been a decade since Ultima Seven last scratched that itch at all.

If you don't have all your eggs in one basket, it's easier to maintain a steady outlook on Civ4. Sure I'm hopeful, sure I'm doubtful about some things. But I can avoid the twin pitfalls of pollyanna and cynicism by being somewhat detached. I can only control myself, right? Some things are out of my hands.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

Point taken, Sirian. By the way, I think Civ 4 would be great if it had a little bit more Tropico. I know a lot of people have an impulse to push Civ in the "Age of Empires" or "Rome Total War" direction... but Tropico really has a lot of depth and lets you play the same game with multiple pursuable strategies. Something sorely lacking from Civ -- with only conquest really worth pursuing, and the other strategies being something you can grab for at the last second if domination doesn't work out.

I can't say I expect Firaxis to use every single idea either.

But I'm optimistic that if you get enough people repeating something, and enough people putting their own spin on something, then that something has a high probability of being implemented in one way or another... even if it's not the way you or I anticipated.

I guess my hope in this thread is to either get people talking about Type A and Type B civilizations... or to get people talking about making realism (holding loyalties, holding grudges, hating a tyrant, loving a peacekeeper) a more rewarding gameplay style.

If Firaxis listened to either one of these demands, I think Civ 4 would be better by leaps and bounds. (If they didn't do anything else, I'd still be pretty damn happy.)

 

[sir_schwick]

Yes, I agree I would like to see the people you lord over having more significance then they do. Like I said before, history is basically the interactions between humans, whether it be leaders or populations. Tropico was a game about population control, which civ should incorporate more.

Also, Sirian, have you never played a Total War game?

 

[Sirian]

Total War? Not yet. A good friend was so totally into the concept before the first one came out... His enthusiasm alone had me looking at it. But the first one got delayed, fell off my radar... I'm not the biggest RTS fan.

I've got enough games to occupy me for the moment, but maybe I'll think about it later.

I'm optimistic that if you get enough people repeating something

Not me. I don't believe much in petitions. I believe in the power of single voices. Leaders, not mobs. The worth of an idea is not measured by the number of people supporting it. In fact, allowing "the polls" (so to speak) to sway design decisions has had near-universally bad results for developers. It's one thing to heed the call of fans in a wider sense, and another to become chained to numbers games of various kinds.

Great games aren't designed by committee. They require vision.

I should think that if Firaxis really knows what they are doing, they already have their own vision for the game. They shouldn't alter that just because twenty or even a few hundred fans manage to repeat something a lot. In fact, if I see that happening, I may lose confidence in what they are doing.

Maybe you're right, and noise will make a difference, but I'll put my bets on good ideas. In fact, it's almost a sign that an idea is a bad one if it starts trying to round up the backing of petitions, in one form or another. Because after all, if Firaxis doesn't recognize a good idea when they see it, we can forget about them acting on it anyway. Right?


- Sirian

 

[Jon Shafer]

I may not always agree with Sirian on the specifics, but I believe his philosophy is spot-on. To make a great game you have to come up with a great idea and impliment it. You can't simply take a previous idea and tack improvements onto it. I expect Civ 4 to be similar to Civ 3 in some ways, but the point is that it will be a completely new game that goes in a new direction. It won't be Civ 3 with a better AI, religion, civics and whatever else is new. It will be Civ 4.

If you notice, I only post in a few threads here. Certainly less than Trip. So one might conclude that Trip actually has higher hopes than I do. The cynical facade is just a defense mechanism, to try to keep those hopes in check and avoid the certain pain of disappointment should they grow too high.

Oh, and who are you to say what I'm here for?

 

[dh_epic]

Point taken, Sirian. But I don't think about repetition in the "yes i love that idea" sense. I'd hate to see design by committee, because if that were the case, we'd all have ice cream for dinner -- which might seem good at first, but would become very harmful in the long term.

I should have articulated myself better. Not so much repeating as getting people to use it as a part of their vocabulary, as a way of talking about other problems, applying it to other gameplay concepts... not so much to demonstrate its popularity, but to demonstrate its application. Its "gameplay power", the fact that with a few small changes you can impact a lot of different mechanisms in small ways that sum up to a big improvement.

Although getting lost in a sea of noise, a bit of repetition certainly helps.

 

[sir_schwick]

I am not an RTS person either, but TW breaks that rule. The combat has to be won with tactics. You can often win with the wrong type and lots less numbers by being the better general. Also, a lot of the game is planning war strategy to take into account administrative problems(your king is a good general but put him to far away from the center of your empire and you have disloyalty pop up), political issues(the pope will really **** up your catholic desires), and your generals. Also, you can autocalculate battles and concentrate on strategy, although beating back 5000 frogs with 500 elites in a 1 1/2 hour epic battle feels sooooo good.

 

[Sirian]

Oh, and who are you to say what I'm here for?

We always hurt the ones we love.

Er... Whoa. May have said too much there.