MC's AI Personality Idea

[Mongoloid Cow]

This is probably far too late. Pity I didn't notice this sub-forum here before...

Introduction
One thing that kinda pissed me off in the Civ games is that the AI Civs have no distinct personality. Since Civ 2, you could set how aggressive a civ was, and if they prefered several small cities or a few large cities. In Civ 3, there was at least differing diologues. But disappointingly, the AI civs essentially played the same with almost the same exact strategy. They would always backstab you, meaning there was little point in ever maintaining peace or a good reputation, and playing a peaceful was far harder and more frustrating than playing a war-mongering game.



The Idea...
My idea is to change that by using a system of personality-based sliders, editable in the editor. There are probably more options than what I have thought of. But enough dilly-dallying. Here's what I've got...

Each trait would have a rating of 1 to 5. A value of one in said trait means that the AI Civ leader would express very little of the trait. A value of 5 means that the civ leader would almost always be like that. A value of the 3 would mean that the civ leader has some of that trait. The traits could be as follows...

Aggression: Obviously how aggressive the civ leader is. A value of 1 means that the AI leader is disinclined to start warfare, while a value of 5 means that the AI leader is the cause of every war known to man.

Perfection: This would cover how much the civ leader chooses to develop their cities. A value of 1 means that the AI leader would care little for thriving, bustling cities (akin to something like the Mongols who were nomadic), whereas a value of 5 means that the AI leader is always improving their cities to their full potential.

Manipulation: This would cover how much the civ leader is out to manipulate and black-mail, back-stab and all manner of things of this nature. A value of 1 means that the AI leader is always honest and honourable, whereas a value of 5 means that the AI leader is the most vile and manipulative monster since Hitler.

Commercial: This would cover how much the civ leader wants to trade. A value of 1 means that the AI leader does not want to trade in anything, whilst a value of 5 means that the AI leader can never trade enough.

Trusting: This would cover how much a civ leader trusts another civ leader. A value of 1 means that the AI leader is ever vigilant against the outside world, while a value of 5 means that the AI leader is foolishly trusting.

Forgiving: This would be the inclination of the civ leader to forgive another civ leader for previous transgressions. A value of 1 means that the AI leader would never forgive you and would forever be seeking your doom, whilst a value of 5 would mean that the AI leader would almost always forgive you (except in extreme circumstances like the use of nukes or genocide)

Isolation: This would cover how much the civ leader wants to deal with the outside world. A value of 1 means that the AI leader is always seeking out new civs and exploring, whereas a value of 5 means that the AI leader is solely interested in their own civ and their own civ's development.

Scientific: This is obviously about how cutting-edge the civ leader wants to be. A value of 1 means that the AI leader wants to be in the middle of pack in terms of technological achievement (so to speak), whereas a value of 5 means that the AI leader is always investing in new sciences and is forever upgrading.

Some of the aforementioned traits are pretty similar (like Commerce and an inverted Isolation) but they all cover slightly different aspects of personality. There are probably more which could be added and so forth.

Initially this would seem aukward and cumbersome, but I think it is more of an expansion of the present system rather than a whole new concept. It would be perfect for mod and scenario makers (it would be the best way to create the necessary different personalities of civs. For example Athens and Sparta, Greece and Persia, CSA and USA, France and England, China and Mongolia, etc.)

 

[dh_epic]

I think the problem with this system is that obviously some strategies are better than others, simple and plain.

A very scientific or a not scientific at all civ is the most profitable. (Hence the number of people who win the game with their slider at 0, or their slider at 80).

Exploring is profitable.
Perfectionism isn't.
Aggression is profitable.
Manipulation is so profitable that I'd not only say that trust is not profitable, but that forgiveness IS profitable.

In other words, for all the energy you'd put into giving the AI interesting and compelling personalities, you'd end up with a very un-challenging game, because most of the interesting AIs would also be the easiest to conquer.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

We know that Civ 3 had really poor balancing and was plagued with problems with corruption, ADM values (tank versus spearmen anyone?) and so forth. In Civ 3 there was really only one way to play... build up an army and take over the world. There were no real alternatives whether you wanted them or not. This system would work well if those flaws were eliminated, and I'm assuming that Firaxis would fix them. It would then give people ways to go for other paths to victory with differing results.

If the corruption and balancing problems were fixed, Perfectionism could be profitable and advantageous. Aggression could be a real disaster if you get big and plagued by corruption and revolts and secessions and so forth, as well as being surrounded by unforgiving civs. Manipulation could be profitable, but you could only do it once before an untrusting civ catches on and never gives you a second chance. Not only that, but they might even turn around and team up with a couple of other civs and punish you severely. Or alternatively, that civ leader might manipulate you back with great results, even before you had a chance to put your scheme into place.

 

[dh_epic]

Now you're speaking my language!

Yeah, I'd like to see equal benefits and drawbacks to any strategy:

Aggression Pros: Great for conquest
Aggression Cons: Harms trade and culture

Perfection Pros: Higher quality of life, more unity, promotes culture
Perfection Cons: Reduces conquest

Manipulation Pros: Great for conquest
Manipulation Cons: Boosts corruption, crime, and disarray when your Civilization takes to betrayal as a way of life.

Commercial Pros: Trade gets you resources you could not acquire any other way, and gets you cash you could not get by yourself
Commercial Cons: Trade gets resources and money bonuses to potential enemies

Trusting Pros: Reacts patiently to cultural and economic threat looming, preserving peace, and thus allowing culture and trade to spread and grow
Trusting Cons: Reacts patiently to cultural and economic threat looming, which could quickly turn into a military threat

Forgiving Pros: Allows you to make peace with a former enemy when another target is more sensible
Forgiving Cons: Allows you to make peace with a former enemy when they might just want some more time to go after you

Isolation Pros: Great for conquest -- who gives a crap about trade or culture
Isolation Cons: can deprive you of valuable resources that cannot be easily obtained by conquest, can result in a vastly inferior culture

Scientific Pros: own the tech, sell for money
Scientific Cons: sometimes it's better to get the money, and buy the tech


Key assumptions:

1) Cultural victory depends on peaceful intercourse between Civs, instead of what you build domestically.

2) Quality of life is more important. Either as a victory condition of its own, or as something that could cause your empire to collapse if it gets bad enough.

3) There are many resources in the world, with a large enough variety that no single nation can have everything they need within their own borders (unless they're, like, the size and range of the Soviet Union AND aren't gluttons for resource consumption).

- Subpoint of 3: It's possible to have the largest economy within the smallest borders?
- Subpoint of 3: Economic victory is available?

 

[microbe]

CIV3 has aggression. Germany is more aggressive than France, for example.

Don't worry about being late, none of those ideas in this forum will get into the game.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I know Microbe. At least Firaxis can't say that there weren't people giving alternative options and suggestions for improvement. Besides, they need to do stuff like this to really help scenario makers get exactly what they want / need. The system is also very simple, and easy to add more traits to.

 

[Xanthippus]

Here, here! More options for those who don't want to just run around killing everything! This is an excellent suggestion.

CIV3 has aggression. Germany is more aggressive than France, for example.

Don't worry about being late, none of those ideas in this forum will get into the game.

It's still not the same, the agression system is simple.

And that's not necessarily true, game developers DO listen to their consumers.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I guess a theoretical example is in order here...

This suggestion is about the actual leaders' personality (what they like and don't like, and how they deal with building their empire), and how they interact with other civs and the player, not what the Civ Specific Abilities are. Combinations of the values set to these traits govern what they would do and how they would react in certain situations. For example, someone with a 1 in Manipulation, a 5 in Isolation and a 5 in Commercial is someone who is interested in trade in their own empire, and controlling their own resources. They are fairly honest in their dealings, and although they would not want to trade for resources, they would do it if need be. However, another civ with a 5 in Manipulation, a 3 in Isolation and 3 in Commercial is someone who is rather untrusworthy. If another civ has something they want, this leader would either trade for them (and try to rip them off or screw them around), or would sign an alliance with other civs and take want they want by force.

 

[warpstorm]

The game developers do listen to what is said here. However (you knew the shoe would drop) Soren said a half a year ago at the GDC that they were already playing the game MP. Development would have to be fairly far along by now. Major changes to the current design (whatever that may be) will be harder and harder to get into the game.

On the upside, he said he started his design on Civ4 by collating all the suggestions and complaints on on the major Civ3 sites.

 

[warpstorm]

Back on the main topic. I like the idea of personalities. I think some personalities would lead to weaker gameplay for the side, but I'd rather see that than having Ghandi shore bombard my coasts.

 

[Scuffer]

I reckons it's a great idea, so long as the game plays itself. You would be able to balance up all the factors and have a really well-matched, exciting game. As soon as you put a human in there, able to see and exploit every facet of the AI, you disrupt that completely. If you know your neighbour is a backstabbing maggot, you don't have anything to do with them. If they are trusting, well, they won't last long with me as a neighbour. Each game would turn out similar anyway.

What can you do about it? Either randomise the characters and don't let the human look at them, or force the human down behaviour paths based on the civ chosen. The first idea gets rid of civ identity, the second would be irritating

 

[dh_epic]

I think that if there are true personalities that actually weaken gameplay (e.g.: some civs are more sitting ducks than others), then that's more reason to have multiple leaders per Civ. You pick France, and have the choice between Napoleon, Louis, and De Gaulle -- each with their own personalities. Or you pick Rome and you have a choice between Caesar, Medici, or Mussolini.

This way, when you encounter the Romans, you're not sure if they'll be ruthless expansionists, or savvy commercialists. Keeps the game in suspense.

Off topic, Warpstorm, do you know at what point he collated all the ideas from the sites? Or was that a long time ago?

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Well, I suppose there could always be the option of randomising personalities of leaders when you start the game, as well as different personalities for various leaders of the same civs. Despite knowing someone is a manipulative *****, sometimes there is no alternative other than dealing with them peacefully, and watching them screw you. As for forgiving, if they never forgive they could miss out on excellent trade opportunities, which would not happen if they do forgive. Also, I would consider a value of 1 or 5 to be extreme (say, 5% and 95% expression of the trait). A value of 2, 3 or 4 would be far more realistic (say, 30%, 50%, 70% respectively).

PS: I don't think the personality should change the absolute fundamentals. Therefore, all leaders whether Ghandi or Genghis Khan would have a standing army and would not be a walk-over. If you pose a direct threat to them (or have started a lot of wars), they would wisen up and team up against you. If you had a resource they need (or merely just want), they would try to get that resource, but would do it through different means.

 

[dh_epic]

Again, the key assumption there is that trade is an absolutely necessary part of the game for Civ 4.

Unlike Civ 3 where it's kind of a bonus and a matter of convenience. Or Civ 2 where you can throw caravans at nearly anybody, whoever's around.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Off topic, Warpstorm, do you know at what point he collated all the ideas from the sites? Or was that a long time ago?

Long, long time ago...

Certainly before this particularly forum opened up in mid-February.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

DH Epic, trade has always been an important part of Civ. The Civ 1 and Civ 2 style Caravan trade will never be coming back (thank you! Micromanagement to the extreme) and in Civ 3 there are resources and commodities to be traded. There are also other forms of trade, like technology, land and maps.

Off topic, really that long ago!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Fairly great idea in principle, MC! One way in which it could be improved is come courtesy of Warlords III. In that game, you could set map parameters (forests, cities, mountains etc). If you wanted to keep things 'interesting' though, you could set one, many or ALL of these settings to 'random' (by clicking a question mark next to each parameter). That way, as DH suggested, you simply won't know what to expect when you meet each civ-will Rome be a bunch of war mongering empire builders, or peaceful, egalitarian traders? You simply WON'T KNOW! Of course, if you're not too interested in that level of challenge, then you can still set all of the parameters manually to set values!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Yeah, I reckon that they could be randomised at start-up by choice too. Not only that, but each civ might have two or three leaders (we don't know at this point) and each one could have their own personality.

 

[dh_epic]

DH Epic, trade has always been an important part of Civ. The Civ 1 and Civ 2 style Caravan trade will never be coming back (thank you! Micromanagement to the extreme) and in Civ 3 there are resources and commodities to be traded.

Just because it's been a part of Civ doesn't mean it's been an important part of Civ.

The only thing important about caravans was that you could exploit them and eventually prosper without even taxing people.

And the kinds of trade you talk about in Civ 3, well, those aren't important parts of Civ. You can basically win the entire game without once trading a resource or commodity. The game needs to avoid adding a feature and saying "well, if people want to us it, they'll use it" -- there's more to importance than just implementing it.

But if trade truly were an important part of Civ, then other aspects of the game would fall into place. You could be a prosperous nation without huge borders. The person with lots of allies would prosper more than the person who isolates themselves. And loyalty and trust would actually matter.

Otherwise there's no sense on giving the AI any personality at all, particularly at the highest levels. They should play ruthlessly, manipulatively, and keep allies only as a matter of convenience -- work alone as much as possible, and cooperate only when they have to.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

In this idea, it gives the AI the predisposition to trade, or to do it alone. So I don't know what you're arguing about. At higher levels, it should be strategy and not personality which makes the game harder. Working together does make the AI tougher also. When they duke it out alone in Civ 3, they are a walk over.