New Info

[Krill]

The proposed method in CiV is making the AI more duplicitous, as Shafer said he wanted it to be. It makes it more human, which I think is better than creating an AI that is nothing more than a mathematical problem to solve. I'd rather play against Psychopaths all day long.

The only reason to give the +/- on the AI is to make it easier to manipulate, because either the +/- mean something constant (so it is a mathematical problem to solve) or they don't mean anything at all (ie threshold values change every game) in which case there is no point in having them there anyway.

So the +/- values are self-defeating properties to have in the game.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I bet the music in the video will be in the game. Maybe the title music? It sounds pretty cool too and would love it to be in. It might be intro music too.

 

[Ahriman]

If you look at the screenshot with Rome-for instance-it has a population of 12, but its science output is +11

It has 11 citizens if you look at the shot, so yes, its most likely 1 beaker per citizen.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ah, ok, it is 11 (so why does it say 12 under the City Name?!?!)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The proposed method in CiV is making the AI more duplicitous, as Shafer said he wanted it to be. It makes it more human, which I think is better than creating an AI that is nothing more than a mathematical problem to solve. I'd rather play against Psychopaths all day long.

OK, on this score at least I do partially agree with Ahriman. The one thing I hated about Civ1 to Civ3 was the utterly irrational AI-& I'd hate to see a return to those days. So I want the diplomatic bonuses & penalties to still apply, just in the background.
What I would also like to see, though, is where both human & AI players are *strongly encouraged* to behave in a rational fashion. So whilst, *yes*, you can back-stab your ally of the last 1,000 years-there should be some kind of in-game penalty for doing so. One penalty could be diplomatic penalties with other civs (your duplicity is legendary), another could be happiness penalties in your cities! I think this is a completely reasonable compromise to reduce the gaminess of the international relations in Civ5!

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

(so why does it say 12 under the City Name?!?!)

Dunno, I'm wondering if a size 1 city can't work any tiles (and doesn't require any food support)??

The problem I have with "duplicitous" AIs is that it makes them feel like death-match bots, rather than countries. Which breaks immersion.

And it makes alliances meaningless.

 

[edpovi]

I agree it does look like one beaker per pop, but I don't see any clear science buildings or specialist in the city. It's a safe bet that there will be Buildings and Wonders that improve science.

Also, if you can spend money on rushing buildings, then you can use your gold improve research by buying libraries and universities.

The "12" may be the defensive strength of the city you see from the main view.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Although I understand why they got rid of the science slider, I do hope that nations can pour money into things like research-directly from your coffers-in order to speed things along. After all, nations in the real world can prioritize research in their budgets, & so I feel it should be in the game.

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

The "12" may be the defensive strength of the city you see from the main view.

Hmm, an interesting guess. Quite possible.
I could imagine that each citizen gives a +1 strength to the city, there could be a base strength of 1 (or from one of the buildings??), and then then various others could boost it further.

I do hope that nations can pour money into things like research-directly from your coffers-

Buying research (at a large efficiency penalty) doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[Vygramul]

This is weird. I think its very odd to have social policies improving military and commerce. This is what tech should be for.
Also, if social policies are these kinds of things, then what has happened to actual governments policies?

FWIW, a lot of cultural assumptions go into weapon systems, and so this actually makes a lot of sense to me. Culture is one of the chief reasons US weapons underperform in the hands of other countries.

 

[seasnake]

Okay, here's my thoughts on the diplomacy modifiers: I'm fine with them being invisible.

First, it wasn't too hard to tell in Civ IV who was your friend, even without the modifiers visible. When Pacal is screaming and saying look at what the cat dragged in, it's a pretty good indicator he doesn't like me and may wish me dead. If we have a more advanced, nuanced system where the leaders have wide variety of expressions and greetings depending on what they think of you, it won't be too hard to figure out Bismarck is your buddy.

Second, I have a pretty good memory. I know who I've been trading with, who I've been at war with, with whom I share a religion, and if I'm competing with someone for choice spots on my continent. This by itself gives me some idea of who likes me without crunching the numbers.

Third, it was imbalanced. If you have the same religion as Izzy you can be in a war with her and make arrogant demands, have your spy get caught and you're still "cautious." On the other hand, if you and Izzy are different and share land, you WILL fight no matter how good you are to her otherwise.

Finally, the numbers were often meaningless. I had a game where I was Troy and my neighbor was Alexander of Greece (Ironic, huh?) and, well, he was pleased with me. Fair trade relations, open borders, same religion, supplying resource back and forth. Meanwhile, my neighbor Izzy was a different religion so I stacked up all my troops on her border. Alexander declared war on me. What's the point of knowing who likes me to a mathematical certainty if it isn't an accurate predictor of what's to come?

 

[Krill]

OK, on this score at least I do partially agree with Ahriman. The one thing I hated about Civ1 to Civ3 was the utterly irrational AI-& I'd hate to see a return to those days. So I want the diplomatic bonuses & penalties to still apply, just in the background.

Duplicitous is not the same as irrational though. The AI should be able to act against a human player, and in it's own interests instead of the players, regardless of what the modifiers would be. All of the AIs, in all of the previous versions, have been irrational in this regard. Having all AI declare on the player when the human sends out the space ship is, for instance, fair - you think the human wouldn't declare on the AI if the AI was going to win the race, regardless of friendship? The duplicity, and the ability to disregard previous (and current) deals when it is the AIs favour is a critical step on the way to a more human opponent.

And IIRC, the information that has been released has stated that the modifiers are hidden, not removed from the game entirely. Could be wrong on that, I'm not exactly keeping up to date on this stuff.

What I would also like to see, though, is where both human & AI players are *strongly encouraged* to behave in a rational fashion. So whilst, *yes*, you can back-stab your ally of the last 1,000 years-there should be some kind of in-game penalty for doing so. One penalty could be diplomatic penalties with other civs (your duplicity is legendary), another could be happiness penalties in your cities! I think this is a completely reasonable compromise to reduce the gaminess of the international relations in Civ5!

Aussie.

This is where the diplomacy in SP states to be similar to all human games, which makes me hope that the AI remembers all past diplomacy with a human (and other AIs, obviously). Got back stabbed on a previous deal? Ask for something up front as insurance.

 

[Buccaneer]

On the other hand, if you and Izzy are different and share land, you WILL fight no matter how good you are to her otherwise.

WILL? As in always? In the dozens of very long games that I have played in which Spain was present, I have found them to be rather docile and inept, as well as an easy target. Only once have they declared war on me and that was when they were cornered and got a tech lead. Otherwise, when they do fight, it was with the usual inept piecemeal attacks.

Sorry for the threadjack.

 

[Buccaneer]

The proposed method in CiV is making the AI more duplicitous, as Shafer said he wanted it to be. It makes it more human, which I think is better than creating an AI that is nothing more than a mathematical problem to solve. I'd rather play against Psychopaths all day long.

But in actuality, it is still all mathematics knowing that it is programmed based on calculations with a measure of RNG (dice-rolls). You either increase the randomness (or the second-order randomness = random was to how to scale the randomness), or you don't.

 

[Nicolas10]

The "12" may be the defensive strength of the city you see from the main view.

Very unlikely. Look at all the screenshots and you'll see different strengths, but on the Rome screenshots, the math adds up. I commented on this on another thread, but you see 10 hexes worked & two specialists worked for Size 12 Rome.

Ahriman's correct in saying that it appears that a size 1 city only works it's own square... which, actually makes sense, rationally, even if it's a departure from previous versions.

 

[Krill]

But in actuality, it is still all mathematics knowing that it is programmed based on calculations with a measure of RNG (dice-rolls). You either increase the randomness (or the second-order randomness = random was to how to scale the randomness), or you don't.

Reading Comprehension.

The proposed method in CiV is making the AI more duplicitous, as Shafer said he wanted it to be. It makes it more human, which I think is better than creating an AI that is nothing more than a mathematical problem to solve. I'd rather play against Psychopaths all day long.

When you play against humans, they are not all cold, logical and predictable. The fact that the current AI is designed on 4 separate levels, so it should be able to figure out that it needs to kill the human, means that you have to watch your back. This is a change from knowing that once you got the CIV AI to +X diplo modifier, it would not declare on you.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

Has there been any info on the possible inclusion of "events" (hopefully triggered; not completely random)? Thanks in advance

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Although I understand why they got rid of the science slider, I do hope that nations can pour money into things like research-directly from your coffers-in order to speed things along. After all, nations in the real world can prioritize research in their budgets, & so I feel it should be in the game.

Aussie.

If you have Gold in your coffers and want science then....

1. Take citizens focusing on producing gold and start making them produce science
2. Use Gold to rush buildings that will produce science
3. Buy Tiles that will allow you to support more science producing population
4. Pay for a Research pact with another civ

Keeping them Separate, ie Long term planning converts one to the other, would be the best.



I think

1 Research per regular population
5 Research per research specialist population (enable by Libraries/Universities, etc.)
would be reasonable.

so a Size 3 city with a Library allowing 2 specialists could outproduce a size 9 city where they are all working the tiles

Some Social Policies could increase the amount from ordinary population, some would increase the amount from specialists.

The problem I have with "duplicitous" AIs is that it makes them feel like death-match bots, rather than countries. Which breaks immersion.

And it makes alliances meaningless.

Which is why diplomacy modifiers should be applied to BOTH human and AI players, to increase immersion and make alliances useful.


And moving back to the Social Policy.... I think amorphous 'gpvernments' is Definitely preferable to having to choose particular governments/civics.

ie in WW2 all major powers had the effective benefit of a 'command economy' and 'mass propaganda' even without a revolution first. Some did not also have the benefit of a 'market economy' (ie USSR) or 'free speech' as well.

I think some of the social policies might be like Nationalism or Slavery, they give you the ability to DO something that has a cost... ie 'command economy' gives you the ability to 'mobilize' increasing production at the cost of commerce.

In this way strategic choices are preserved (whip or not whip) But the Ability to whip is acquired as culture develops.

(I do think a Revolution should allow you to Give up social achievements in one Branch for another)

 

[Stormbolt]

I was a bit concerned before E3, but I actually like where they're going with this now.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

My point, though, Krikkitone, is that if I were running a government of a real country, then one of my roles would be determine the allocation of the budget to things like Defense, R&D, Education, Health, The Arts etc etc. So rather than the old science slider-which primarily divvied up your commerce, I wanted a system where you determined how much GOLD (i.e. cash) went into each of these areas. It was just a personal preference, not a game-breaking thing for me!

Aussie.