New Player Dimensions

[acd]

Specific victory conditions aside, the ability to approach the game from multiple dimensions is inherent within its detail, i.e. City Production, Trade Relations, and Warfare to name the most fundamental. What is missing is the ability to develop relationships within the AI. When as a single player, if one could engage the other nations in more dialogue it would be fun, and especially if it were OPEN as compared to CANNED interaction. Secondly, the game's AI is in dire need of LOGIC. Given that one could develop relationships within the AI, it is not logical that a nation which has received the brunt of your magnanimity would declare war on you, and especially when it would result in that nation's certain destruction. Moreover, it is not logical that any nation declare war on another when the odds are so far in favor of that nation being destroyed that its comparable to suicide.

In short, develop the AI for Foreign Relations. Lets get it on with the Whore of Babylon, baby.

 

[acd]

Subnote: were it that Relationships, as a venue of play, were to be developed, virtual reality would be anchored within the game in that some nations, if not most, would be geared toward PEACE, and with war as last and most dreaded option.

Some possiblities for this VR:

Interaction with the City Governors.
Ability to generate Leaders and Officials on a more systematic level.
Constructive advice from your Generals prior to and while engaged in Warfare.
Courting the Princess.
Messangers from other nations, i.e. Harold the Herald, Ambassadors, etc.
Emergence of Civil Leader's from civil movements.
Greetings from Plutarch, the Alien.
And on and on...

 

[sealman]

Specific victory conditions aside, the ability to approach the game from multiple dimensions is inherent within its detail, i.e. City Production, Trade Relations, and Warfare to name the most fundamental. What is missing is the ability to develop relationships within the AI. When as a single player, if one could engage the other nations in more dialogue it would be fun, and especially if it were OPEN as compared to CANNED interaction. Secondly, the game's AI is in dire need of LOGIC. Given that one could develop relationships within the AI, it is not logical that a nation which has received the brunt of your magnanimity would declare war on you, and especially when it would result in that nation's certain destruction. Moreover, it is not logical that any nation declare war on another when the odds are so far in favor of that nation being destroyed that its comparable to suicide.

In short, develop the AI for Foreign Relations. Lets get it on with the Whore of Babylon, baby.

I agree 100% and have stated so in many of the threads that deal with improving the AI.

 

[dh_epic]

The problem with relationships is it makes you weak. It's better to have "business partners" and "marriages of convenience" than long-term friends... even enemies.

If the AI started trusting any player who traded with them graciously, or any player with a spotless reputation for the first era or two, they'd be WAY too easy to backstab. The game is already easy enough.

The best players are ruthless. You don't look at an AI and say "I don't like him or trust him, therefore I will not trade with him". You trade with him anyways. Heck, you might even ally with him. And you don't look at a weak nation and say "they could use my help". You look at a weak nation and say "I should help myself to their land!" This is just intelligent. Caring about realism is unfortunately a weakness, and could make you lose.

 

[acd]

I understand dh, but the original point of the post is to make the wargame venue more of an option, and as compared to the all pervasive theme. If there were a developed artificial intelligence, then you could play the game on an intricate level of diplomacy, management, etc. and all the way down to role-playing. The point being, if the leaders are more developed, and more characters are introduced, and which are logical, substantial, and open ended as compared to canned personalities, then there is the possiblity of playing the game just for the sheer fun of playing with its intelligence. Personally, I'm a long-time wargamer, but if there is going to be that aspect to the game, why not make it a functional and dynamic dimension. Do you have to capture the princess? If she were a detailed personality you could get a BJ. Now that's a Small Wonder worth working on. Just kidding.

 

[dh_epic]

But my point is that the artificial intelligence improvements you're talking about would potentially hurt the game for many other players. Giving them a personality can make the AI weak.

Giving them a personality of "I'm a very trusting guy" means they'll be a victim of opportunists.

Giving them a personality of "I shun nations who didn't grow up on the same continent as me" will mean they might pass up huge opportunities for trade, or strategic alliances, or that they might prioritize their enemies in the wrong way.

I agree that the ability to form relationships with the AI would be awesome. But the AI changes you're talking about hurt the game, despite some of the benefits they add.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, as I have said before, the genuine solution is to make the HUMAN player more 'responsive' to the AI which comprises his OWN civ. Obviously HOW responsive will depend on the number and influence of factions within your society, as well as how democratic your society currently is. For instance, just because YOU want to backstab the French, whom you have had a fantastic and trusting relationship with for the last 1000 years, doesn't mean that your people are going to go along with it. At best, going against your peoples wishes could result in far worse levels of War Weariness than normal or-at worst-could result in the collapse of your government or the breaking up of your civ (depending on other extenuating circumstances).
So, how DO you backstab the French. You could do it in an underhand way-via espionage or third party warfare, or you could manipulate public opinion, via a number of mechanisms (both fair and foul !) to make your people feel much more distrustful of the French and, therefore, more willing to go along with your 'war of vengeance'.
Sure, you still get to backstab the French (maybe) but this is a much slower route and, if those trusting French aren't TOO trusting, perhaps they will smell the breeze and realise whats coming !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ledfan]

fab idea Aussie Lurker, basically coming down to the fact that your nations populace should have their own opinions, and not listening to them causes problems. With advanced civics implemented in the game, you might not need to manipulate them. i.e. give the player options to give your people freedom of speech or not, human rights or not etc. each option gives its own disadvantages and advantages. basically allowing war-mongers to make war, but with a) increased war weariness + risk of revolution or b) with much decreased freedoms for your people so less war weariness but economic (or other) penalties. Have I got it right?
I definately support that!

i relaise this has been discussed before, but I hadnt applied it to consequences of 'trust' backstabbing and foreign relations before....

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, you are definitely on the right track, Ledfan, but I would extend it even further. For instance, you can 'manipulate' your peoples attitudes by adjusting their militarism and nationalism levels (or, if France has a different religion, their Theism levels) thus breeding militant xenophobia amongst your population. This can be even more successful if some of France's cities were either held by you at one point, or have a very strong cultural link/large population of nationals (basically think of Hitlers attempts to restore the 'Prussian Empire').
All of these things could be used to get what you want, but they often require patience and have the power to backfire on you!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sealman]

dh_epic:

Please explain how changin (I would use fixing) the following "idiotic" AI behavior will hurt the game.

Situation: I am a large civ and more advanced than my small two city civ neighbor, England. For reasons of my own choosing, I have never taken over the English lands and have traded extensively with England over the years, gifted techs here and there plus gold loans. Years later, I am at war with France but still have the ability to wipe out England in one turn. Despite this, France gets England to sign a MA agreement against me. Sure enough, England is wiped out on my next turn.

So my question is, how would changing the AI so it would realize that its actions will result in its destruction hurt the game?

 

[Kosez]

We all agree AI needs to be improved, and probably it will. But it should be improved in a way, that it will be a harder nut to crack, and not the opposite.
AI should behave in fashion, that all Civs are aiming to win, and not in the fashion, that AI`s primary task is destruction of human player with all legal and illegal means necessery.
Diplomacy definitely needs to be improved. VERY improved. More options, more threaties, more intelligence,..., more fun.
Because on the end of the day, fun is what it counts. Isn`t it?

 

[dh_epic]

sealman, that's something I think is a pretty good improvement. But it has nothing to do with how nice you were to England and has everything to do with the fact that you're a large and advanced Civ that can take them over in one turn.

That's not a relationship like what acd is suggesting. That's just good old fashioned fear.

Be that as it may, what I was getting at was something like what Aussie_Lurker suggested. It's not enough to change the AI. To some extent, you need to change the game to give players a reason to cooperate with one another, not just compete.

 

[acd]

A lot of interesting and provocative ideas here, and thank you all. Neverless, the crux of the idea that I was attempting to convey was that the possibilities are endless, and only limited by the general public's computer memory ability. If anyone remembers, CIV is not an original idea. The original game that inspired CIV is Populace. What Sid Meier did was quite ingenius, in that he obviously took the concept of Populace and developed it into a much more dynamic and entertaining game. But Civ was not possible 19 years ago at the time of Populace. The average computer memory was 1 MB, and what the hell was a Pentium processor? So, picture this EXTREME scenario example for the sake of portraying the idea that I'm posing.

There are no victory conditions and there are no turn limits. There is only an ongoing score that works much like the histograph. There are three major modern nations. I'm one of them as Egypt. I have no interest in warfare and the last major conflict of my country was 1000 years hence against the Romans. They lost and we grew into a powerful yet peaceful society. America is the second, and France is the third. I've been invited to visit the President of America and take a Virtual Tour of the Capital and meet many of its dignitaries. During that time I can actually travel in first person to the city and interact with its population. I change the itinerary and visit another city or go horseback riding in the countryside of Philadelphia. But, France has ordered an assassination, and I get my brains blown out while frolicking around the country.

There would be random virtual personalities that once encountered are permanent fixtures of the landscape and whose identities can be assumed as a player character, and there are predetermined player characters. In Civ 1000, you can host your own game and any number of people can be a part of it as a King, a general, a economist, a doctor, lawyer, bartender - whatever, and you can interact with them virtually, and they all have the ability to exist in some dynamic fashion within your CIV world at whatever level. You can befriend them or betray them or never even meet them. You can make friends or get your ass kicked, or get thrown in the slammer and electricuted, if your society permits the death penalty. As a leader, you can even lose your nation by coup de tat, or you can bequeath it to your heir. People are able to come in at anytime and join the Civ.

Again, its an extreme example. But, the idea that I'm presenting is to develop the AI such that one does not necessarily consider it a wargame alone. Dh, if you've read this far, a dynamic personality is not a static-canned personality. If some nation likes you and treats you good and you betray them, do you think that they would stay trusting? And, there is no such thing as a sucker all of the time, just as trust is something that is earned. No, I disagree with your reasoning. Dynamic personalities would only strengthen the game, and it would lead to the ability to engage the game upon mulitiple dimensions. As one of war, or diplomacy, or role-playing, and that at both a macrocosmic level of play, as in the mode of international activity, and at a microcosmic level, as in the mode of national and/or regional activity, and if not local activity. It would be a game of adventure all around. The extreme example I posted is not realisitic. Its not going to happen for a while, if ever. However, this concept is in play already within the Civ genre, but in an infant form. However, cleary its an aspect that can only bring greater enjoyability and realism to the game were it to be developed along the line of RELATIONSHIPS.

 

[acd]

Of course, this implies that TIME is a variable, too. If I'm developing my culture, I may want to set the turns to 10 years each. If I'm engaged in war, the turns are 3 months max. If I'm off role-playing, its hourly.

 

[rhialto]

I think the best way to make AI personalities isn't to alter their priorities wrt to alliances and foreign trade, but to their build queue and research priorities. This is how civ2 gave different AI personalities. Something similar to civ2, but more developed (more dimensions on which the AI could decide to priooritise something), would be good.

 

[dh_epic]

If some nation likes you and treats you good and you betray them, do you think that they would stay trusting? And, there is no such thing as a sucker all of the time, just as trust is something that is earned.

Of course they wouldn't stay trusting. But the damage would be done, and you could have an insurmountable lead by that point. My point is that a smart AI would be nice to you only to the point that it's convenient, and it would expect you to backstab them. Why? Because the game is about WINNING -- and if the other guy is dead, then he can't win. He expects the player -- as most players are -- to be a jerk. And in anticipating your jerkness, the AI would try to backstab you first. And even if you weren't planning on backstabbing the AI, the AI gets a smart advantage by backstabbing you anyway.

That's the personality that pure competition competition breeds.

I do want a greater variety of personalities in the AI, though... but the point I'm getting at is that it's not as simple as creating the AI personalities. If I were playing against a number of human personalities -- one a King, one a general, a economist, one a doctor, one a lawyer, one a bartender -- I would be the most ruthless general. I would kill the King, kill the economist, kill the doctor, and kill the lawyer. I would do it one by one, smiling at the rest of my so-called allies while I conquered my latest foe. Once I had a huge lead, I would easily kill the other general too. And then I'd win.

If you want to add new personalities to the game, the key is making it profitable for the HUMANS to play with any kind of personality. Then the AI will fall into place:

How will I profit from taking a city from the greatest King if my new subjects refuse to acknowledge my leadership, and make it nearly impossible to govern them?

How will I profit from attacking the greatest economist if every other nation's trade depends on them, and suddenly I find everyone allied against me?

How will I profit from backstabbing the greatest lawyer, if it sets a horrible example for my citizens at home -- that you can break a deal whenever you feel like it?

How will I be able to successfully attack the greatest bartender, if he keeps all my citizens drunk?

My point is for personalities to be a good addition to the game, you'd have to make those personalities profitable. For example, an awesome economy with a decent army would need to be as effective as my decent economy with an awesome army.

The problem, right now, is that an awesome army beats everything. It's the highest trump card. Not to mention that an awesome army is best used in the most dastardly way possible. One ideal strategy, one ideal personality.

 

[acd]

Unless I'm imagining things, dh, you seem to think there is something that says that you can't play a game without being in competition with someone. Life doesn't have to a battle. Granted, if I were playing with you in the fictional CIV 1000 scenario, I'd be looking over my shoulder all of the time.

 

[dh_epic]

Not necessarily, acd, and that's what I'm getting at. If Civ 1000 makes it profitable for us to cooperate, then we will cooperate. Are you familiar with the prisoner's dilemma?

The Prisoner's Dilemma

Imagine you are a master thief, taken prisoner by the police. You have a partner in crime, who is also captured. The two of you are isolated and interrogated. The police realize they don't have enough evidence to nail you with grand larceny, but they can nail you for tax evasion, a sentence of 2 years each.

Of course, the police apply pressure in the most dastardly way. If you rat your partner out, they'll let you get off with a 1 year sentence. ... of course, your partner will get a 10 year sentence.

To make things even more dastardly, they've offered your partner the same deal! If he rats you out, you get a 10 year sentence, and he gets a 1 year deal!

And as the ultimate trump card, the police have a good shot at nailing both of you. If you both rat each other out, then the police can put BOTH of you in jail for 5 years each.

In summary, here are the possible outcomes if you trust your partner:

Both Cooperate: 2 year sentence
Get Screwed: 10 year sentence

And here are the possible outcomes if you rat him out:

Screw Your Partner: 1 year
Both Defect: 5 year sentence

In other words, by ratting your partner out, you minimize the worst case scenario, and maximize the best case scenario. Why wouldn't I rat my partner out?

The Prisoner's Dilemma -- Iteratively

The prisoner's dilemma doesn't always reward being a jerk. What happens if we played the prisoner's dilemma ten times in a row?

Imagine I ratted you out on the first game, while you trusted me. I'd get a 1 year sentence, while you got 10 years. Then, because neither of us would trust each other, we would both rat each other out for the remaning 9 games. I'd end up with 46 years, and you'd end up with 55 years in prison.

Now imagine we co-operated every game. We would get 2 years in prison each game, with 20 years each. We're both better off!

Co-operation is good! But there has to be value to that relationship.

The Problem with Civilization

Here's the possible outcomes in Civilization 3 if you trust your neighbor:

Both Cooperate: Have someone who might help you out.
Get Screwed: Lose multiple cities in a single turn, and eventually the game.

Here's the possible outcomes in Civilization 3 if you backstab your neighbor:

Screw Your Partner: Take multiple cities in a single turn, and eventually conquer him. Take a reputation hit.
Both Defect: Have a tough war. Take a reputation hit.

Let's see will I go with the option that MIGHT give me an ally, but might lose me the game? Or will I go with the route that might WIN me the game, or, at the very worst, will prevent me from losing the game?

The Solution

Again, it's not a question of changing the AI. As you can see, two humans would fall into the same trap, unless they were just really nice guys.

The solution is:

- make it less profitable to screw your partner than it is in Civ 3
- make it more profitable to cooperate than it is in Civ 3
- make it less dangerous to get screwed than it is in Civ 3
- make it more dangerous to take a reputation hit, or have a long, drawn out war...

I think we both want the same things here. But AI is not enough. The key is recognizing how you win in Civ 3, and broadening that for Civ 4 (and Civ 1000).

 

[acd]

I do understand, dh. Its the premise we are not connecting on. In the context that I'm describing, "winning" isn't everything. Indeed, "winning" is not arbitrated, rather its entirely subjective.

 

[dh_epic]

Winning IS subjective.

Of course, Sid Meier decided that winning means World Domination. There's no escaping that subjective decision, at least in the Civ series so far.