Leader traits may be exploited!

[sk065]

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

 

[Warman17]

Same as if you were in civ3 and you knew your opponet was religious, so you wouldn't attack in anarchy like you would a normal civ. Makes not that big a difference.

 

[Trajan13]

I personally like the leader traits. You have to remember that your interaction with Gandhi is not solely based on him being a nice guy. It depends on whether you are the same religion, how differing your civics choices are, what each of your reputations are like, what your relative military, cultural and economic strengths are, whether one of you has resources the other wants, and so forth.

I'd say the sheer number of variables that we've gathered from the released info that will effect You-Gandhi relations means that though Gandhi is a nice guy generally(though don't tell that to the CivIII Gandhi, he might sneak attack ) You will simply not be able to always anticipate and thus exploit him in every game. Now if through playing you were to account for all the variables and Gandhi's personality correctly you could probably anticipate his actions and react, but that's strategy IMHO, not an exploit per se.

 

[sk065]

I personally like the leader traits. You have to remember that your interaction with Gandhi is not solely based on him being a nice guy. It depends on whether you are the same religion, how differing your civics choices are, what each of your reputations are like, what your relative military, cultural and economic strengths are, whether one of you has resources the other wants, and so forth.

Some good points here! I didnt realise that so many factors were considered. Although I would still feel less inhibited if the leaders were less predifined. Maybe I want to play an alternate history were ghandi is a bad ass SOB!

 

[Mr. Hyperbole]

Some good points here! I didnt realise that so many factors were considered. Although I would still feel less inhibited if the leaders were less predifined. Maybe I want to play an alternate history were ghandi is a bad ass SOB!

Then play Civ III...in my games only Joan was a more cut-throat, back stabbing warmonger!

 

[dennis580]

I like leader traits it makes the game more historical, and realistic. I hope Civ 4 is able to find the perfect balance between randoness and history.

 

[Volstag]

Some good points here! I didnt realise that so many factors were considered. Although I would still feel less inhibited if the leaders were less predifined. Maybe I want to play an alternate history were ghandi is a bad ass SOB!

I don't think you have to worry on that score. In Civ III he could be a ruthless bastard, and I don't see it changing that much in Civ IV. As noted by an author above me, the AI evaluates several factors before deciding on a course of action -- be it passive or aggressive.

-V

 

[I_pity_the_fool]

I'd say the sheer number of variables that we've gathered from the released info that will effect You-Gandhi relations means that though Gandhi is a nice guy generally(though don't tell that to the CivIII Gandhi, he might sneak attack ) You will simply not be able to always anticipate and thus exploit him in every game. Now if through playing you were to account for all the variables and Gandhi's personality correctly you could probably anticipate his actions and react, but that's strategy IMHO, not an exploit per se.

And of course, AI Gandhi might have

(i) numerous allies among the smaller civs.
(ii) a huge culture lead from focusing his efforts on building - we've been told, haven't we, that builder civs have it easier in Civ IV. I believe there was some talk of a defence bonus for cities with high culture. Also, there has to be some quite significant tangible advantage to choosing the Pacifism social choice (Gandhi's favourite, I imagine) - otherwise your aggressive neighbours would cut you to shreds.

I think that the guys at Firaxis have probably been playing this game for quite a few months and are aware of the more obvious exploits.

 

[warpstorm]

I don't see how this is an exploit, just an obvious part of having player styles. Would you consider it an exploit to take advantage of the weakness of an MP player's play style?

 

[Yuri2356]

Maybe I want to play an alternate history were ghandi is a bad ass SOB!

Next Week, on U-62, He's Back.

And this time, He's mad.

==Ghandi II==

No more mister passive resistance, he's out to kick some butt.

This is one bad Motha' you don't want to mess with!

"Don't move, Slimeball."

He's a one man wrecking crew!

But he also knows how to party.

"Give me a steak, medium rare."

"Hey, Baldy!"

There is only one Law... His law.

==Gandhi II==​

 

[sk065]

I don't see how this is an exploit, just an obvious part of having player styles. Would you consider it an exploit to take advantage of the weakness of an MP player's play style?

The point here is you dont know at the beginning what play style a real player will have until later in the game. Thus, u cannot take advantage of a player weakness in this respect. However, by knowing how an AI player will respond to your actions because of its hard-coded 'personality' the AI may become predictable in its actions and hence it is exploitable.

 

[apatheist]

The point here is you dont know at the beginning what play style a real player will have until later in the game. Thus, u cannot take advantage of a player weakness in this respect. However, by knowing how an AI player will respond to your actions because of its hard-coded 'personality' the AI may become predictable in its actions and hence it is exploitable.

There's a difference between "personality" and "leader traits" (for better or for worse). You might not know what play style a real player is going to use in a game, but if he's playing an Expansionist/Militaristic civilization, well, you have a clue. Some predictability does not mean total predictability, and it certainly does not mean an exploit. Nor does knowledge of overall statistical trends serve as a perfect predictor of action at any given moment.

 

[warpstorm]

The point here is you dont know at the beginning what play style a real player will have until later in the game. Thus, u cannot take advantage of a player weakness in this respect.

I know how my brother is at every game we play. Explain how this is different than knowing how Ghandi is?

 

[Sirian]

Next Week, on U-62, He's Back.

And this time, He's mad.

​

​

 

[sk065]

I know how my brother is at every game we play. Explain how this is different than knowing how Ghandi is?

Your brother can adapt or change his gameplay if he wants to. Ghandi's playstyle is defined by his traits (although now i know the model is a bit more complex), therefore he may be restricted in his choices.

 

[warpstorm]

Your brother can adapt or change his gameplay if he wants to. Ghandi's playstyle is defined by his traits (although now i know the model is a bit more complex), therefore he may be restricted in his choices.

He can try, but he's still my bro' and I've got decades of playing experience on many different games to know his traits by now. "Good ol' rock, nothing beats that!"

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Trust me, having had some recent experience with SMAC-a game with AI personalities-I can attest that personalities may not be as constrictive/exploitable as people either fear or hope (depending on your outlook).
Take my most recent game. I am playing Gaia's Stepdaughters (Pacifist Environmentalists) and I came into contact with the Spartans (Militant Survivalists). Now, if traits/personalities were constraining, the Spartans would have gone to war with me almost immediately and wiped me out-but she didn't. Why? Well (a) because I was very nice to her, and even helped to call off The Peacekeeper's Vendetta against the Spartans, (b) because I wasn't a direct threat to her and (c) because we had a common enemy in The Believers. However, when I met Lal (Peacekeepers) he was increasingly belligerent and nasty towards me-and we are on the verge of a war. Why? (a) Because I won't join in his most recent Vendetta againt the Spartans and (b) Because I wouldn't vote for him for the UN Planetary Council.
So, you can see how the behaviour of other civs towards a particular AI might alter the way they behave towards you-something which I would like to think will happen in Civ4. On a similar note, though, Pacifism for The Stepdaughters equates to a higher support cost for my units. However, if I had a really strong economy, then I could still field an effective number of units, it just means I have to work that extra bit harder to have a large standing army (and most likely good trade relations with a large number of my neighbours). Under those circumstances, anyone who attacks me expecting a walk in the park is in for a nasty suprise. I get the same will be true of Gandhi in Civ4-especially if there is a difference between 'Offensive' and 'Defensive' War Weariness.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

"Good ol' rock, nothing beats that!"

There's a Simpsons quote for every situation.

Trust me, having had some recent experience with SMAC-a game with AI personalities-I can attest that personalities may not be as constrictive/exploitable as people either fear or hope (depending on your outlook).

Personality doesn't mean "stupid," in other words. I just hope it's driven by what makes sense for the trait. i.e., a militaristic leader is more likely to go to war, and a militaristic leader is more likely to gain from a war, with those two things being roughly in balance.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, if it helps Apatheist, according to the rule book for SMAC there are definite advantages for certain leaders making choices which are in line with their 'philosophy/attitude'. For instance, I think the Spartans do get a natural bonus to their unit support and promotion chance, a fact which is 'enhanced' when they select their preferred Social Engineering option. Yes they can go against the grain (up to a point) but this may well negate one of their natural bonuses rather than enhancing it (depends on the situation).
To refer back to my current game again. The Gaian's get a natural bonus to their 'Planet Rating' (their 'ecological footprint') and Efficiency. Now, when I select a Green Economy and a Democratic government, I get bonuses to my Planet rating and my efficiency, but at the cost of unit support (already low) and Growth Rate. Now, I might find myself in a situation where I am at war, and I need to swap to a Police State, or a Planned economy because I need the population-but I probably won't stay there for long because it is not to my long-term benefit. The Hive, OTOH, actually PREFER to be in a Police State, because it enhances their natural bonuses, and are unlikely to change their government setting even in Peacetime. Admittedly it was a bit more crude in SMAC, because there is always one Social Engineering choice each faction can NEVER make (Free Market in the Case of the Gaians), but aside from this I am assuming this is how it will work in Civ4.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Albow]

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