Does anyone use random personalities?
- Thread starter jonpfl
- Start date
I always play Random personalities for that exact reason. I don't want to know if Ghandi is gonna nuke me or if Shaka is going to culture-bomb me. It's more fun to have to see for yourself. Plus I got sick of fighting against isabella in her damned crusades.
mjs0
The 4th X
I tried using random personalities because that was the way I really wanted to play the game...but for some reason it just didn't feel right.
I think I would like to see two sets of Leaders/Civs
- one with historically accurate (well close anyway) appearance, names and attitudes
- one with totally fictitious names and traits and random leader heads.
This would make playing the random personalities feel less wierd and give me the option of a good old-fashioned game with the traditional civs/leaders when I'm in the mood.
I think I would like to see two sets of Leaders/Civs
- one with historically accurate (well close anyway) appearance, names and attitudes
- one with totally fictitious names and traits and random leader heads.
This would make playing the random personalities feel less wierd and give me the option of a good old-fashioned game with the traditional civs/leaders when I'm in the mood.
Admiral Willem
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 18
Random personalities + unrestricted leaders = good times.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Random personalities adds a fairly significant level of challenge to the game.... you have to treat everyone as if they're a Monty.... just in case! 
I've played a couple of games with Random Personalities/Unrestricted Leaders.... and it definitely adds endless variables of fun to the game. These options combined make for a truly unique game every time.
I've played a couple of games with Random Personalities/Unrestricted Leaders.... and it definitely adds endless variables of fun to the game. These options combined make for a truly unique game every time.
MarkM
Cow Herder
Me too, as hoopsnerd & others said it really helps to lessen the predictability of the game & give it an even greater sense of discovery.
I think a lot of people don't however because quite frankly it makes the game harder to play & they would get lower scores or have to play on a lower level. If it's random you can't know from the moment you meet a civ "oh that's mansa musa, better take him out early before his teching becomes a problem" -- or "oh there's mansa musa, cool I think I'll beeline to alphabet now since I know I'll have a willing & useful trade partner."
In fact I have been trying to push on the "AI sucks" thread to get an option added that you can have the type of AI (normal or aggressive) randomly assigned for each civ. The idea would be you would know even less what to expect from someone you just meet (just like in the actual world & history). A lot of the complaints on that thread boil down to: "I can exploit the normal AI by using strategy A, and the aggressive one by using (totally different) strategy B." You of course can't do that any more if you don't what kind of AI you're facing (and in fact could be facing both, different ones for different leaders).
I keep asking the posters on that "AI sucks" thread if so much of their great dominance that they brag about in the game doesn't just boil down to essential a "cheat," knowing in advance what is going to happen (something the AI could never have against the player obviously), and if they ever have even TRIED random personalities, but they don't answer.
I think a lot of people don't however because quite frankly it makes the game harder to play & they would get lower scores or have to play on a lower level. If it's random you can't know from the moment you meet a civ "oh that's mansa musa, better take him out early before his teching becomes a problem" -- or "oh there's mansa musa, cool I think I'll beeline to alphabet now since I know I'll have a willing & useful trade partner."
In fact I have been trying to push on the "AI sucks" thread to get an option added that you can have the type of AI (normal or aggressive) randomly assigned for each civ. The idea would be you would know even less what to expect from someone you just meet (just like in the actual world & history). A lot of the complaints on that thread boil down to: "I can exploit the normal AI by using strategy A, and the aggressive one by using (totally different) strategy B." You of course can't do that any more if you don't what kind of AI you're facing (and in fact could be facing both, different ones for different leaders).
I keep asking the posters on that "AI sucks" thread if so much of their great dominance that they brag about in the game doesn't just boil down to essential a "cheat," knowing in advance what is going to happen (something the AI could never have against the player obviously), and if they ever have even TRIED random personalities, but they don't answer.
Great points Mark, I love your ideas. I'm playing the "normal AI" for BTS hoping that "random personalities" will make some AI behave as if they were "aggressive AI", but its probably just wishful thinking. I totally agree that a lot of these "it's too easy to trick the AI" posts are from people that are finding it too easy to bribe Isabella to go to war with heathens or to milk Mansa for techs when they know full well ahead of time that these leaders are predisposed to doing so. I'm liking my religious Abe Lincoln in the current game... 
Bast
Protector of Cats
I haven't tried but maybe I should.
There is something nice about meeting a predictable historical figure. It adds a certain real world element to the game in meeting a pacifist Gandhi and religious Isabella and very aggressive Alexander.
There is something nice about meeting a predictable historical figure. It adds a certain real world element to the game in meeting a pacifist Gandhi and religious Isabella and very aggressive Alexander.
I always use random personalities.
I think people might be too quick to say that people ignore this option because it make the game harder. The reality is that there's a sizeable contingent that want to experience history as it happened and so don't want an Isabella who is indifferent towards religion.
I think people might be too quick to say that people ignore this option because it make the game harder. The reality is that there's a sizeable contingent that want to experience history as it happened and so don't want an Isabella who is indifferent towards religion.
Thedrin: average point, but it should also be noted that "experiencing history as it happened" isn't ever going to happen in the game, ESPECIALLY with Isabella in the game and random personalities off. I'm pretty freaking sure the Spanish Empire didnt found Buddhism.
I'm in complete agreement with you about the ability for CivIV to recreate history. CivIV plays nothing like reality. On top of that I don't quite understand the mentality of a person who wants to recreate history. History has already happened so the results are quite predictable and less interesting.
But that mentality does exist. Lots of people want Julius Cesar to be an opportunistic warmonger. A more recongnisable incarnation of that attitude would be the insistence that phalanxes be the strongest unit in the pre-praetorian age because 'that's how it was in real life'.
But that mentality does exist. Lots of people want Julius Cesar to be an opportunistic warmonger. A more recongnisable incarnation of that attitude would be the insistence that phalanxes be the strongest unit in the pre-praetorian age because 'that's how it was in real life'.
duxup
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Messages
- 385
I randomize personalities all the time. I just got tired of knowing how everyone was going to act from the moment I met them. I agree that it provides the user a distinct advantage. I’d rather have opponents who I can not predict. Surprises are fun. There’s nothing quite like Gandhi the ravenous warlord coming after you.
I think that Civilization's relationship with history is something more along the lines of "what would have happened in the history of the world if environmental variables were different." Obviously civilization is less of a "simulation" of what would have happened and more of a game that's extremly fun to play. If you play with randomized leaders, this throws in another "environmental variable" for you, as well as an added challenge. I can see it's value being on or off. For arguing random personalities being off, I would say the main benefit would be that the AI would play to their specific civs advantage -- Ghengis Khan doesn't get a lot of tech bonuses from his UB or traits, for instance, so if he randomly decides to be a tech whore hes not going to be as effective. random personalities plus unrestricted leaders leads to some crazy, random, and unexpected results... at least so far.
Welnic
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,057
The thing I don't like about random leaders is that their play won't necessarily match up with their traits. Monty is aggressive and spiritual, those traits match up great with being a psycho warmonger. But if you matched his personality with less warlike traits he just isn't going to work as well. Or if someone had Isabella's characteristics, but wasn't spiritual and didn't start with mysticism they would feel at a loss without founding that early religion.
Or you could have someone who was a total isolationist, who never got along with anybody or traded techs, but who didn't have any traits to help him tech by himself ... uh, never mind.
Or you could have someone who was a total isolationist, who never got along with anybody or traded techs, but who didn't have any traits to help him tech by himself ... uh, never mind.
Yes, these people are also so self-servingly subjective that it's ridiculous. Julius Caesar wasn't even war-like in real life -- he didnt want a civil war, he just wanted to take over peacefully but it didnt work out right, but he was a general so it's assumed. Phalanxes being the "strongest" unit? Based on what? As if a phalanx ever squared off against any kind of military technology of the time that wasn't located within 300 miles of Sparta
. I'm pretty sure the Indian civilization had tamed elephants by then... wonder how phalanx would fight a trained war elephant? If the game wanted to be historicly accurate in that regard, any mounted units would be 10x as strong as any melee unit, even pikemen. In REAL life mounted troops killed infantry as if they were unarmed.PS: What happened to the 50% melee bonus for elephants? historicly they should get it, but it does make them almost impossible to kill... just like real life?
I'm fairly certain one of the aspects of BetterAI was that AI leaders were less likely to base their actions on personality and more likely to base their actions on circumstances and traits. That's not to say that the Gandhi-like personality would choose to become a warmonger under the right circumstances but that, if paired with the aggressive trait, he would build more barracks and a greater proportion of his defenders would be melee units.
bonafide11
Worker
I have to agree with Welnic. I used to play with random personalities on, but I think it weakens the AI's strategy because they are no longer playing to their strengths.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me..... they get a randomly assigned AI character and use those strengths as they would if they were that character. They are just as likely to find new and interesting synergies as they are to find themselves with inapplicable behaviour.
For example a Gandhi with Monty's AI behaviour might provide a stronger economy to power his army through.
I can see how sometimes it might work out to be easier, but the chances are equally high that you'll get some powerful characters too.
That's the idea really isnt it? It provides a random element to the game rather than proscripted, pre-known AI. For the human that provides more challenge as you cant adopt pre-learned strategies when confronted with a new AI.
