You say that a game should/must be done in a certain way without providing any justification for that.
No, I said that players in the game should play that game, and not a different game entirely. In situations where players not playing the game is desirable for some reason from a design standpoint, that's a strong clue that something isn't aligned properly in the design.
All the artwork and voice acting aside, major civ AI is still defined as a player. Why is making it play poorly on purpose, game throw, or self harm considered positive? These are childish behaviors that would not be tolerated against people. If the game's historical theme really meshed with its design, the motivations the AI uses in its algorithms would be reasonable to history. "This landlocked civ has no navy so I'm going to attack them with my naval based civ for that reason only" is not good design, is not historical, and is often the opposite of self serving. It's a burden on the game and a design flaw. The game might succeed in spite of it, but it's still poor design.
It's worth pointing out that historical motivations relied on the anticipation of some conferred benefit...the exact opposite of what a lot of this "role play" stuff causes in practice. That someone would intentionally do something against their benefit from a historical perspective is *absurd*. Only the true crazies in history did things while believing a bad outcome would be the result. The position that this is "role play" or "historical" isn't even consistent. Perhaps I didn't make that clear earlier.
You systematically say my "immersion" argument is a non sequitur, we'll have to disagree. To me, it is the only thing that matters.
We obviously disagree regardless, but you're wrong on this one. Using "immersion" as an argument is ducking presenting an actual argument. It is literally no different from saying "my preferences are the only thing that matters". It seems that you're okay taking that argumentative position, but it's unsound. No single individual's preferences hold water as the basis for design unless you have a 1 man development team, and even in that scenario the developer will do a lot better by considering how the game will play out for the players. Even the people who made this game themselves didn't operate on such a premise, not even on some of the more obvious design mistakes.
So yes, "immersion" is non-sequitur and non-argument. "This way is better because I like it" gives no useful information beyond simply stating "this way is better".
You're dodging the point. You pretend I can role play playing settler
Because you *objectively can*. In fact you can role play *at any difficulty*. But that's not your standard, is it? You seem to be implying that you should be able to role play exactly how you like, despite that such is necessarily different from how other people role play, and that your rule set is the only one that matters. I have nothing nice to say about that position. It isn't worth giving the time of day.
And I am the one supposed to be intellectually rude?
Yes, even now.
You give them bonuses = they don't play by the same rules. The game mechanics may remain the same, but the rules do change.
Rules change between difficulties. Rules change between civ choices. Rules change by pre-game setting. But once the game starts, you still have rules and victory condition(s). You have a game with a defined set of actions that are allowed and a win condition. My position is that in the framework of the advertised game, its participants should by default play that game, not another game. Your position is that some of the players should deviate from that game, in a way that you like, and that way needs to allow you to play as you see fit. Your enjoyment of that experience is the only thing that matters to you, *per your own words*.
I don't know what "role play" you seek that you can't do if the AI declares on you when you're near victory. For that matter, if you're role playing why do you even care about victory, unless operating on self imposed constraints? If you're doing that, why do you care if the AI tries, and why should it be credible to anybody if the definition of role play and immersion you use are relevant only to you?
These are not the facets on which a good civ title relies. Civ 4, 5, and 6 each have different rule sets that define their core gameplay. The choices allowed within those frameworks are what makes the strategy aspect of the game interesting. The players of the game ignoring that strategy entirely to play a different game at random, self-inconsistent whim will not and has not made any of the games better.
.
