Leader traits may be exploited!

Albow said:
sorry to be off topic: but Gaians peaceful? What the?? They are a bunch of crazed greenies on a rampage ...

No, that's the Cult of Planet. Gaians were intended to be fairly pacifistic, along with Morgan and the Peacekeepers.
 
Yep, otherwise known as 'The Believers' (Sister Miriam I believe). Trust me, they ALWAYS end up ticking me off because of their zealotry and militancy, so I always end up wiping them off the map. I confess though that, in this instance, I have not had any difficulties with her. Anyway, I realise that I am totally dragging this thread off-topic, and I apologise. My original point stands, though, which is that AI personalities won't necessarily be exploitable if they are done in a similar fashion to SMAC. In fact, they can make dealing with other civs MUCH more fun than the randomness of Civ3!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
AI personalities shouldn't dictate AI behaviour. If that is going to be the case, then it will be exploitable. But as many before me have said, there are a lot of other things that influence AI behaviour. It would be a huge mistake of Firaxis if they wouldn't balance this and made the personalities the major factor in AI behaviour at any point in the game. I personally don't think they will make such a mistake, but we'll have to wait and see. If they made such a mistake, it can probably still be changed in a mod.
 
sk065 said:
As I understand it, leaders are to have distinguishable personalties based on predifined traits. Although i agree that all leaderheads should have seperate personalities to a certain extent, It is inherently obvious that this kind of feature could be easily exploited.
For example, knowing from the beginning that ghandi is passive will allow the player to develop a strategy against the AI (going to war).
The way around this is to introduce random leader attributes as opposed to predefined traits. This would force the player to "suss out" the type of AI player he is facing thereby adding some dynamic gameplay into the mix also.

PLease Discuss
What's the point?

Civ is about options: if want an easy game, you don't need that: you just choose warlord, small world and low agressivness, pangea, Persians :p
If want an easy game, you may also choose AI Leaders more to your liking.

If not... go Warmongering Genghis Khan!!! :evil:
 
apatheist said:
There's a Simpsons quote for every situation.

For sure. Where would Western Civ be without the Simpsons (that is probably an Off Topic thread in itself)?
 
I like leaders with distinct strategies and personalities. Thought it is important to balance the civic choices and those different strategies.

A warmonger can indeed attack pacifistic Ghandi but Ghandi shall most likely have much better relations with the other civs then the warmonger and he shall have the cash to bride other empires to his side. As long as he has some defensive army to survive the first attack can he simply out produce and out diplomacy his enemy. This off course depends on how the AI works.
 
I'm sure it has been said before, but in my opinion, the two leader system adds a simple, perfect twist. You may know you are against the Americans (ie. when the 'Happiest civs' list comes up, if it is still in the game), but which leader? You won't know until you meet them. I hope it is easy to mod to have 2 leaders (or more) for every civ.
 
I don't like these traits, I would like AI acts how you react with them not with "allready made" opinions. I know who will fight with me, I know who will be peace with, blah boring.

I would prefer more like in Civ2, only difference between nations is color and city names.
 
In the original civilization the leaders had personalities, but you could randomize them, by pressing some keys. Alt+R I think it was. I like the idea of the personalities, but it would be nice to have a neat little shortcut to screw things up if you wanted.
 
I love that 777. You claim that Leader Personalities are 'boring', yet the system you describe in Civ2 was the most boring of all! I mean, if the only difference which existed between civs was colour and name, then where is the real point in choosing ANY particular civ? To me, thats, how did you put it? Oh, thats right-blah, boring. :rolleyes:

Plus, if you had bothered to read any of the posts which I wrote earlier about Leader personalities and agendas in SMAC, you would know that AI personalities won't actually tell you, instantly, who is going to fight you or fight with you-it is merely a guide to possible future behaviour. If you know a civs leader is militant, then you will know to treat them with kid gloves, and to always keep a close eye on them (yet possibly end up never having to fight a single war with them), wheras a pacifistic leader is one who you know you can more easily do business with, and who you can reasonably assume will be trustworthy (but who can, and sometimes does, stab you in the back and declare war). To me, knowing a leader's personality and using that to 'second guess' their behaviour towards you is what will make the game exciting, far more than the 'oh, you're getting too powerful now so all of us AI civs are going to gang up on you now' system from Civ2 or-possibly worse-the 'sure we have been friends for 2000 years, but I've decided that I hate you now and I am going to declare war on you' system from Civ3. To me, the Civ4 system sounds like it sits very nicely between these two very extreme systems.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
I love that 777. You claim that Leader Personalities are 'boring', yet the system you describe in Civ2 was the most boring of all! I mean, if the only difference which existed between civs was colour and name, then where is the real point in choosing ANY particular civ? To me, thats, how did you put it? Oh, thats right-blah, boring. :rolleyes:

Heh, funny how you got so upset about that. It was just my personal opinion :D And seems that you don't have any kind of ***** idea what I talk about, don't roll your eyes now!

Anyway, I don't like the idea that you know how you have to play against certain leaders and by that way all of them aren't at same line. I can't put my thoughts very good way to english but I tried.
And for me choosing a civ does mean that I want to lead my OWN civ to victory, so I would like to have option where you could choose country what you want. I don't want to lead America, I don't want to lead India or africa countries. I'm not being racist or anything BS like that, tho I bet you could easily now pick me. I would just like to imagine Finland being ruler of the world :D

I know that most of people wants fancy leader heads and etc etc etc, but I just would like to have all the frikkin countries in the whole wide world in game and nothing differences than city names and nation colours. It would be even then.

I don't ***** about game, I love it and I'm very eager to get it. Yhis was just my silly little idea.
 
@Yuri2356 Glad to see I'm not the only one who still remembers UHF! :lol:

I think that in most 'historical' contact between civilizations (be it war, diplomacy etc), both sides have at least an idea of each other's strengths and weakness, if only at a basic level. Interaction sin civ and life, however seem to be a lot more complex, as pointed out by Aussie Lurker and I_pity_the_fool, among others...
 
maybe you can choose to turn those special personality traits off or randomize them - like a few features in the games options menu in Civ3.
 
I don't get why Gandhi is not spiritual. Anywho, I think that these traits will proffer significant oppurtunity for exploitation.
 
Why does everyone immediately assume that 'traits' equals 'fixed behaviour'. Did civ traits in Civ3 lead to fixed types of behaviour? If so, then I can't recall it. As I have stipulated above, they have Leader Traits and personalities in SMAC, and let me assure you that though the behaviour of the other factions is a LOT less erratic-in their behaviour and relationships-than in Civ2 or Civ3, it does not mean that they are a walkover, or completely predictable. I get a feeling that all those people smugly proclaiming how 'exploitable' the traits of AI leaders are going to be are the very same people who will get their backsides caned by the AI in their first dozen or so games ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Good point, Aussie. I remember how exploitable Yang's relentless stomping of any neighbors weaker than him was ;)
 
Krikkitone said:
Well you could rename your Civ+Leader to be Finland+777 (or your actual name) Hopefully that will be in.

That would be cool ! But what about cities, oh christ what a job :( I want somebody to do it for me.
 
777 said:
That would be cool ! But what about cities, oh christ what a job :( I want somebody to do it for me.

Oh no, you have to do a google search for city names in Finland and write down 50 of them one single time so you have them readily available. The horror :rolleyes:
 
Also, that shouldn't require a mod, you would just have to rename the cities as they were founded (now if you actually live/lived in Finland that should be easy for at least the first 10 cities or so)
 
Top Bottom