Greatful Civs

[dh_epic]

So there is no point to argue. Well OK, the topic was to improve the AI's altruistic/loyality functions. It seems quite reasonable and rooted in reality in one way or another.

Yeah, sorry, if I sounded like I was taking an argumentative stance.

I think drawing lines through a complex combination could be interesting:

- current government
- geography-link
- culture-link (ethnicity)
- religion
- history

History would be pretty important. History has made two parties similar governments with similar religions and similar ethnicities hold tensions for a long time. History has also made parties with different governments, religions, and ethnicities seem absolutely unreconcilable.

Seldom will a country go from being allied to being absolutely furious. However, nations that have been at war hundreds of years ago can become the best allies now.

In general, attitudes tend to improve.

 

[superpelon]

I think drawing lines through a complex combination could be interesting:

- current government
- geography-link
- culture-link (ethnicity)
- religion
- history

History would be pretty important. History has made two parties similar governments with similar religions and similar ethnicities hold tensions for a long time. History has also made parties with different governments, religions, and ethnicities seem absolutely unreconcilable.

Seldom will a country go from being allied to being absolutely furious. However, nations that have been at war hundreds of years ago can become the best allies now.

I agree... geography SHOULD be very important... there are plenty of real world examples. The closer the civ, how it feels about you should be more intense. Same with current government... of course, history should be the most important factor

"The ____ have been selling me oil, so attacking them isnt a very smart move"
"They returned the city of _____ after the evil _____ took it from us"
"We have had a RoP and MPP for over 40 turns, and have saved our cities a couple of times"
"They give us tech and gold, since we are still in the Dark Ages"
"They are our only neighbor, and are one of the most powerful civs on the planet"
"They fought the _____ tanks for years, and we only sent 2 rifleman to help...
we should declare peace"

these are the kind of things that should be incorporated... actions like this should make the smaller civ your unquestionable ally. Besides, if Andorra suddenly declared war on France and Spain, how long would the government last?? The population would topple the gov and give the French and Spanish the leaders heads...

 

[sir_schwick]

I think drawing lines through a complex combination could be interesting:- current government
- geography-link
- culture-link (ethnicity)
- religion
- history

I do agree, but I will try to put a more technical and simplistic theory on it. I call this phenomenon "Us vs. Them". It is one of the few priorities that on the most basic level determine the actions of nations.

The question always is, who is Us and who is them.

Us is anybody who shares a common something that the them do not. Often that is ehtnicity, religion, realtive geography, maybe even a history of being a former colony. The them is those who threaten whatever the Us is.

To make it a little less abstract, example pre-Alexandrian Greece. The Greek city-states were very independent and often fought between each other. At that moment, the Us was the particular city-state and its allies(econmic and historically) and the Them was those whose resources and power Us wanted. For here, the Us and THem are Athens and Sparta.

Now Persia mounts an invasion of Greece. Another set of Us and Them emerge. The Us is Greek peoples of the Greek religion. The Them is the Persians, who are of a different religious and cultural and historical background.

The Us and THem of Athens and Sparta still exist, but alongside the Us and Them of Greece and Persia. Now both Athens and Sparta have to decide which Them is a greater threat. In history they said that Persia was a stronger them then each other. Once Persia was defeated at Salamis, they were no longer as great a threat. Athens and Sparta are now on opposite sides again.


Civ AIs forget that their people hold their unique cultural and religious heritage very closely. So they should try to protect any threats to those values. That may mean helping out a hated enemy of the same background because that attack will eventually hurt your background. The states of Europe during the middle ages hardly had any love between them. HOwever, Islam was considered a greater them(for profit reasons) then each other.

This is a hard model to impliment, so pick my argument at will. As well as my atrocious spelling and grammar.

 

[dh_epic]

Sir Schwick, I couldn't have put it better myself. Right down to the beautiful historical example.

I think good AI could be made to play this way. The real problem, however, is putting this into a multiplayer, heavily competitive context. There's no reward for loyalty, no reward for constructing any kind of cultural identity of "we have more in common than they do" (Us vs Them).

Which is why I think the "historical victory" thing could be so cool (as I linked to in an earlier post). It could give bonuses for these kinds of things:

- bonus history points for lasting alliances
- bonus history points for taking a distinct side in a world war
- bonus history points for altruistic behavior

Key, to me, would be mobilizing all the Fascist countries around the world to fight all the Democratic countries. I think Civ should reward that kind of behavior, and give much fewer points for fighting for random fun and profit.

 

[Punda The Panda]

I think that again follows under "better AI"

For example, you are a powerful and gracious ally, superpelon, and the computer would be stupid to break an alliance with you and declare war after you've been babying it for so many years. But the computer does a lot of stupid things, and doesn't have a memory (i.e. "Ally with them = prosperous.. War with them = bad")
So, for the AI to have a 'memory' of sorts, and some basic reasoning ability. But computers aren't like that.

 

[sir_schwick]

It probably wouldn't work for MP, but you really can't expect ultra-competative MP players to want to play historically either. I think it would really add a simulation edge to the computer, plus lead to more realistic conflict causes. Plus I always like models that have simple principles and formulas, but produce a myriad of sometimes unpredictable results.

 

[Sark6354201]

Remember the bonus you got for peace in Civ2 for your score? I always liked that.

Grateful civs would be nice, even if they copied everything that they used in Alpha Centauri to implement it I would be happy. They should of put it in Civ3.

 

[crimson238]

Definitly the AI should be friendly with it's friends as long as it suits them. This would require the game to remember who it's friends are and why, which could concivibly be done in the game. I'd say keep it simple, give a numerical value to reasons for firendliness vs reasons for war. Example, you give Rome lots of iron for a long time, but now they need oil, arabia offers them oil and gold. it no longer suites them to be so devoted to you.
This woudl require a bit of programming finess, but if the AI could remember things, then it could "learn" what not to do.
Example: Ai attacs your southern border and is tremendously beaten, next time the Ai attacks you to the west or such, or increases the # of units used in the attack.

 

[dh_epic]

You always have to keep multiplayer in the back of your head.

And while I think some players would NEVER play for a historical victory, because they're too concerned with domination...

If historical victory were available, some people would win by it. While one player is dominating, going to war randomly, and breaking their alliances one by one as it is convenient... The other player is invading other nations and giving them back -- liberating them, and trying to maintain a few strong alliances to make them a nation of legendary justice.

In the end, it's neck at neck, infuriating both players up until the point where a winner is declared!

The only way civs would be altruistic and grateful is if it was rewarding to do so. It is in real life because the world never ends, and there is never a decisive winner. In Civ 4, you have to genuinely give people a motive.

 

[Longasc]

I always liked the Klackons. Production powerhouse.