Personality Archtypes

Thunderbrd

Thunderbrd

C2C War Dog
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
29,922
Location
Las Vegas
There's something I'd like to work on here but I'd need some serious help in fleshing it out.

Currently our leaderhead profiles are... enormous. We have entries for each leader that look something like this:
Spoiler :
Code: 
		<LeaderHeadInfo>
			<Type>LEADER_RED_CLOUD</Type>
			<Description>TXT_KEY_LEADER_RED_CLOUD</Description>
			<Civilopedia>TXT_KEY_LEADER_RED_CLOUD_PEDIA</Civilopedia>
			<ArtDefineTag>ART_DEF_LEADER_RED_CLOUD</ArtDefineTag>
			<iWonderConstructRand>0</iWonderConstructRand>
			<iBaseAttitude>0</iBaseAttitude>
			<iBasePeaceWeight>8</iBasePeaceWeight>
			<iPeaceWeightRand>3</iPeaceWeightRand>
			<iWarmongerRespect>0</iWarmongerRespect>
			<iEspionageWeight>120</iEspionageWeight>
			<iRefuseToTalkWarThreshold>12</iRefuseToTalkWarThreshold>
			<iNoTechTradeThreshold>5</iNoTechTradeThreshold>
			<iTechTradeKnownPercent>80</iTechTradeKnownPercent>
			<iMaxGoldTradePercent>5</iMaxGoldTradePercent>
			<iMaxGoldPerTurnTradePercent>10</iMaxGoldPerTurnTradePercent>
			<!-- BBAI Victory Strategy -->
			<iCultureVictoryWeight>25</iCultureVictoryWeight>
			<iSpaceVictoryWeight>25</iSpaceVictoryWeight>
			<iConquestVictoryWeight>25</iConquestVictoryWeight>
			<iDominationVictoryWeight>10</iDominationVictoryWeight>
			<iDiplomacyVictoryWeight>65</iDiplomacyVictoryWeight>
			<!-- BBAI Victory Strategy -->
			<iMaxWarRand>200</iMaxWarRand>
			<iMaxWarNearbyPowerRatio>130</iMaxWarNearbyPowerRatio>
			<iMaxWarDistantPowerRatio>0</iMaxWarDistantPowerRatio>
			<iMaxWarMinAdjacentLandPercent>4</iMaxWarMinAdjacentLandPercent>
			<iLimitedWarRand>200</iLimitedWarRand>
			<iLimitedWarPowerRatio>100</iLimitedWarPowerRatio>
			<iDogpileWarRand>100</iDogpileWarRand>
			<iMakePeaceRand>120</iMakePeaceRand>
			<iDeclareWarTradeRand>40</iDeclareWarTradeRand>
			<iDemandRebukedSneakProb>20</iDemandRebukedSneakProb>
			<iDemandRebukedWarProb>10</iDemandRebukedWarProb>
			<iRazeCityProb>20</iRazeCityProb>
			<iBuildUnitProb>35</iBuildUnitProb>
			<iBaseAttackOddsChange>4</iBaseAttackOddsChange>
			<iAttackOddsChangeRand>8</iAttackOddsChangeRand>
			<iWorseRankDifferenceAttitudeChange>0</iWorseRankDifferenceAttitudeChange>
			<iBetterRankDifferenceAttitudeChange>0</iBetterRankDifferenceAttitudeChange>
			<iCloseBordersAttitudeChange>-4</iCloseBordersAttitudeChange>
			<iLostWarAttitudeChange>-1</iLostWarAttitudeChange>
			<iAtWarAttitudeDivisor>-5</iAtWarAttitudeDivisor>
			<iAtWarAttitudeChangeLimit>5</iAtWarAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<iAtPeaceAttitudeDivisor>60</iAtPeaceAttitudeDivisor>
			<iAtPeaceAttitudeChangeLimit>1</iAtPeaceAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<iSameReligionAttitudeChange>1</iSameReligionAttitudeChange>
			<iSameReligionAttitudeDivisor>10</iSameReligionAttitudeDivisor>
			<iSameReligionAttitudeChangeLimit>2</iSameReligionAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<iDifferentReligionAttitudeChange>0</iDifferentReligionAttitudeChange>
			<iDifferentReligionAttitudeDivisor>-5</iDifferentReligionAttitudeDivisor>
			<iDifferentReligionAttitudeChangeLimit>-1</iDifferentReligionAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<iBonusTradeAttitudeDivisor>50</iBonusTradeAttitudeDivisor>
			<iBonusTradeAttitudeChangeLimit>2</iBonusTradeAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<iOpenBordersAttitudeDivisor>25</iOpenBordersAttitudeDivisor>
			<iOpenBordersAttitudeChangeLimit>2</iOpenBordersAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<iDefensivePactAttitudeDivisor>12</iDefensivePactAttitudeDivisor>
			<iDefensivePactAttitudeChangeLimit>2</iDefensivePactAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<iShareWarAttitudeChange>1</iShareWarAttitudeChange>
			<iShareWarAttitudeDivisor>8</iShareWarAttitudeDivisor>
			<iShareWarAttitudeChangeLimit>4</iShareWarAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<iFavoriteCivicAttitudeChange>1</iFavoriteCivicAttitudeChange>
			<iFavoriteCivicAttitudeDivisor>10</iFavoriteCivicAttitudeDivisor>
			<iFavoriteCivicAttitudeChangeLimit>2</iFavoriteCivicAttitudeChangeLimit>
			<DemandTributeAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_CAUTIOUS</DemandTributeAttitudeThreshold>
			<NoGiveHelpAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_CAUTIOUS</NoGiveHelpAttitudeThreshold>
			<TechRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_ANNOYED</TechRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<StrategicBonusRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_ANNOYED</StrategicBonusRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<HappinessBonusRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_FURIOUS</HappinessBonusRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<HealthBonusRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_FURIOUS</HealthBonusRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<MapRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_FURIOUS</MapRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<DeclareWarRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_PLEASED</DeclareWarRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<DeclareWarThemRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_ANNOYED</DeclareWarThemRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<StopTradingRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_CAUTIOUS</StopTradingRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<StopTradingThemRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_ANNOYED</StopTradingThemRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<AdoptCivicRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_CAUTIOUS</AdoptCivicRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<ConvertReligionRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_CAUTIOUS</ConvertReligionRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<OpenBordersRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_ANNOYED</OpenBordersRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<DefensivePactRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_PLEASED</DefensivePactRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<PermanentAllianceRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_PLEASED</PermanentAllianceRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<VassalRefuseAttitudeThreshold>ATTITUDE_PLEASED</VassalRefuseAttitudeThreshold>
			<iVassalPowerModifier>50</iVassalPowerModifier>
			<iFreedomAppreciation>10</iFreedomAppreciation>
			<FavoriteCivic>CIVIC_ENVIRONMENTALISM</FavoriteCivic>
			<FavoriteReligion>RELIGION_SHAMAN</FavoriteReligion>
			<Traits>
				<Trait>
					<TraitType>TRAIT_NOMAD</TraitType>
					<bTrait>1</bTrait>
				</Trait>
				<Trait>
					<TraitType>TRAIT_HUMANITARIAN</TraitType>
					<bTrait>1</bTrait>
				</Trait>
				<Trait>
					<TraitType>TRAIT_HUNTER_GATHERER</TraitType>
					<bTrait>1</bTrait>
				</Trait>
				<Trait>
					<TraitType>TRAIT_NOMAD1</TraitType>
					<bTrait>1</bTrait>
				</Trait>
				<Trait>
					<TraitType>TRAIT_HUMANITARIAN1</TraitType>
					<bTrait>1</bTrait>
				</Trait>
				<Trait>
					<TraitType>TRAIT_HUNTER_GATHERER1</TraitType>
					<bTrait>1</bTrait>
				</Trait>
			</Traits>
			<Flavors>
				<Flavor>
					<FlavorType>FLAVOR_MILITARY</FlavorType>
					<iFlavor>5</iFlavor>
				</Flavor>
				<Flavor>
					<FlavorType>FLAVOR_GROWTH</FlavorType>
					<iFlavor>2</iFlavor>
				</Flavor>
			</Flavors>
			<ContactRands>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_RELIGION_PRESSURE</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>500</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_CIVIC_PRESSURE</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>1000</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_JOIN_WAR</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>20</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_STOP_TRADING</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>50</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_GIVE_HELP</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>1000</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_ASK_FOR_HELP</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>1000</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_DEMAND_TRIBUTE</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>25</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_OPEN_BORDERS</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>20</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_DEFENSIVE_PACT</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>80</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_PERMANENT_ALLIANCE</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>80</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_PEACE_TREATY</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>20</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_TRADE_TECH</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>10</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_TRADE_BONUS</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>10</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
				<ContactRand>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_TRADE_MAP</ContactType>
					<iContactRand>20</iContactRand>
				</ContactRand>
			</ContactRands>
			<ContactDelays>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_RELIGION_PRESSURE</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>50</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_CIVIC_PRESSURE</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>50</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_JOIN_WAR</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>20</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_STOP_TRADING</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>20</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_GIVE_HELP</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>50</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_ASK_FOR_HELP</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>50</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_DEMAND_TRIBUTE</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>50</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_OPEN_BORDERS</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>20</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_DEFENSIVE_PACT</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>20</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_PERMANENT_ALLIANCE</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>20</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_PEACE_TREATY</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>10</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_TRADE_TECH</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>30</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_TRADE_BONUS</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>20</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
				<ContactDelay>
					<ContactType>CONTACT_TRADE_MAP</ContactType>
					<iContactDelay>50</iContactDelay>
				</ContactDelay>
			</ContactDelays>
			<MemoryDecays>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_GIVE_HELP</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>200</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_REFUSED_HELP</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>100</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPT_DEMAND</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>50</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_REJECTED_DEMAND</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>150</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPTED_RELIGION</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>100</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DENIED_RELIGION</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>50</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPTED_CIVIC</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>100</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DENIED_CIVIC</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>50</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPTED_JOIN_WAR</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>150</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DENIED_JOIN_WAR</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>100</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPTED_STOP_TRADING</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>100</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DENIED_STOP_TRADING</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>50</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_STOPPED_TRADING_RECENT</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>30</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_MADE_DEMAND_RECENT</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>20</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_CANCELLED_OPEN_BORDERS</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>10</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_TRADED_TECH_TO_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>100</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_RECEIVED_TECH_FROM_ANY</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>20</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_VOTED_AGAINST_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>10</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_VOTED_FOR_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>10</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_EVENT_GOOD_TO_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>50</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_EVENT_BAD_TO_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>50</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
				<MemoryDecay>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_INQUISITION</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryRand>25</iMemoryRand>
				</MemoryDecay>
			</MemoryDecays>
			<MemoryAttitudePercents>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DECLARED_WAR</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-300</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DECLARED_WAR_ON_FRIEND</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_HIRED_WAR_ALLY</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-200</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_NUKED_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-200</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_NUKED_FRIEND</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_RAZED_CITY</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-250</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_RAZED_HOLY_CITY</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-200</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_SPY_CAUGHT</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_GIVE_HELP</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_REFUSED_HELP</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPT_DEMAND</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_REJECTED_DEMAND</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPTED_RELIGION</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DENIED_RELIGION</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPTED_CIVIC</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DENIED_CIVIC</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DENIED_JOIN_WAR</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_ACCEPTED_STOP_TRADING</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>50</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_DENIED_STOP_TRADING</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_STOPPED_TRADING</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_HIRED_TRADE_EMBARGO</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_MADE_DEMAND</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_TRADED_TECH_TO_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>5</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_VOTED_AGAINST_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-200</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_VOTED_FOR_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>200</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_EVENT_GOOD_TO_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_EVENT_BAD_TO_US</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_LIBERATED_CITIES</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>150</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
				<MemoryAttitudePercent>
					<MemoryType>MEMORY_INQUISITION</MemoryType>
					<iMemoryAttitudePercent>-100</iMemoryAttitudePercent>
				</MemoryAttitudePercent>
			</MemoryAttitudePercents>
			<NoWarAttitudeProbs>
				<NoWarAttitudeProb>
					<AttitudeType>ATTITUDE_ANNOYED</AttitudeType>
					<iNoWarProb>50</iNoWarProb>
				</NoWarAttitudeProb>
				<NoWarAttitudeProb>
					<AttitudeType>ATTITUDE_CAUTIOUS</AttitudeType>
					<iNoWarProb>90</iNoWarProb>
				</NoWarAttitudeProb>
				<NoWarAttitudeProb>
					<AttitudeType>ATTITUDE_PLEASED</AttitudeType>
					<iNoWarProb>100</iNoWarProb>
				</NoWarAttitudeProb>
				<NoWarAttitudeProb>
					<AttitudeType>ATTITUDE_FRIENDLY</AttitudeType>
					<iNoWarProb>100</iNoWarProb>
				</NoWarAttitudeProb>
			</NoWarAttitudeProbs>
			<UnitAIWeightModifiers>
				<UnitAIWeightModifier>
					<UnitAIType>UNITAI_CITY_DEFENSE</UnitAIType>
					<iWeightModifier>100</iWeightModifier>
				</UnitAIWeightModifier>
			</UnitAIWeightModifiers>
			<ImprovementWeightModifiers/>
			<DiplomacyIntroMusicPeace>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_PREHISTORIC</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_ANCIENT</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_CLASSICAL</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_MEDIEVAL</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_RENAISSANCE</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_INDUSTRIAL</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_MODERN</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_TRANSHUMAN</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_GALACTIC</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_FUTURE</EraType>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
			</DiplomacyIntroMusicPeace>
			<DiplomacyMusicPeace>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_PREHISTORIC</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_EARLY</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_ANCIENT</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_EARLY</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_CLASSICAL</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_EARLY</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_MEDIEVAL</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_MIDDLE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_RENAISSANCE</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_MIDDLE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_INDUSTRIAL</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_MODERN</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_TRANSHUMAN</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_GALACTIC</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
				<DiploMusicPeaceEra>
					<EraType>ERA_FUTURE</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_GERONIMO_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicPeaceEra>
			</DiplomacyMusicPeace>
			<DiplomacyIntroMusicWar>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_PREHISTORIC</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_ANCIENT</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_CLASSICAL</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_MEDIEVAL</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_RENAISSANCE</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_INDUSTRIAL</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_MODERN</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_TRANSHUMAN</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_GALACTIC</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_FUTURE</EraType>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
			</DiplomacyIntroMusicWar>
			<DiplomacyMusicWar>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_PREHISTORIC</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_EARLY</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_ANCIENT</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_EARLY</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_CLASSICAL</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_EARLY</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_MEDIEVAL</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_MIDDLE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_RENAISSANCE</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_MIDDLE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_INDUSTRIAL</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_MODERN</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_TRANSHUMAN</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_GALACTIC</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
				<DiploMusicWarEra>
					<EraType>ERA_FUTURE</EraType>
					<DiploScriptId>AS2D_DIPLO_WARDRUMS_LATE</DiploScriptId>
				</DiploMusicWarEra>
			</DiplomacyMusicWar>
		</LeaderHeadInfo>
It occurs to me that this is a hell of a lot to define for EACH leader (and we have a LOT of them!)

Some of the problems I have with this current setup:
  • When you want to change something about the foundation of any one of these elements, we have a LOT of leaders we need to overhaul to do so. For example: I'd like to add some new Flavors but there are so many leaders, this would be extremely daunting regardless of how badly the system may need that update.
  • It's a LOT of information to be defined over and over and over and over for all the very many leaders we have. A system that eliminates some of this drag could be very helpful for making room for more new content.
  • This makes the design of new leaders extremely laborious this way.
  • Tons of definitions are used over and over repeatedly and shouldn't have to be.
  • Some of these tags that use multiple entries should be using many entries that have been overlooked (this is why we have a lot of diplomatic modifiers that come into play and are NEVER forgotten - because most leaders fail to define the chance for erosion of those values.)
I'm sure there's more reasons we could find to harp on this as being problematic.

What I'm proposing we do is boil leaders down into Archtype personality definitions primarily.

I create one or more LeaderPersonality xml infos and equivalent tags for the leaders that draw on those personality files to replace their own definitions (where missing) with as defaults. Then we can tweak leaders individually from the archetype templates by including what tags we want that leader to vary on in the leader personality profile of the leader himself.

In short, we'd be able to erase nearly all this information on nearly all leaders, leaving only what would deviate from their selected Archetypes and containing those predefined archetypes in another file.

When the game calls for a given tag's info on a leader, it would check to see if the tag carried any non-default definition and if it did not, it would seek the information from the tag corresponding to the leader's personality archetype instead.


We wouldn't have to only have one Archetype definition file either... we could break up some of the tags above into various categories then allow leaders to be defined as mix and matches of the various archtypal categories. So long as we can figure out some rational divisions in the above list of definitions, this could be a good approach.

So what do y'all think? This would simplify our leader edits and leader design processes enormously don't you agree?

I'm not sure I'm putting this in terms anyone from the non-technical side can understand, nor in terms the technical side can understand, since I tend to exist in a strange land between the two. So if you guys have any confusion you'd like me to sort out on this proposal, please hit me with any questions you have!

I'd need some of you who may understand what I'd be doing here to jump in and really help me define the various archetypal definitions, based on our current leader profiles of course. Is this effort available? Would anyone out there be willing to help? Current team modder or no? This could be a good way for someone to get started who wanted to help but didn't know where to begin or how to ask... The enormity of the initial switchover is pretty rough but once done, leaders would become SO much easier to work with!!! (And a number of pending goals would benefit from that a lot!)
 
I am not sure if this will help you but Spore had an interesting Personality Archtype system.

Basically you had 3 points on the triangle. Red, Blue and Green. Each of the 4 stages of the game (not counting the space stage) would pull you to one of those 3 choices. And by the end you fit into one of 10 archetypes.

- Warrior
- Knight
- Ecologist
- Shaman
- Diplomat
- Trader
- Bard
- Scientist
- Wanderer

http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/Philosophy

However someone made up a 4 point system which includes a more Criminal archetype.

Spoiler :
spore_archetype_chart_by_dragonkingzero-d46txsa.png



In the original game each stage was broken down into these factors ...

| Red | Blue | Green
Cell|Carnivore|Omnivore|Herbivore
Creature|Predator|Adaptive|Social
Tribe|Aggressive|Industrious|Friendly
Civilization|Military|Economic|Spiritual
 
How about instead of redoing this from a game perspective (which would be a pain, there is so much stuff involved there) you write a separate program in which people can enter in numbers for general personality traits and select archetypes, and it spits out usable XML from that?
 
hmm... some interesting concepts...

I had a bit of an idea today that was somewhat inspired by feedback here but I'll explain that later. (if I can put it into words quite yet.)

That's not a terribly bad idea ls612, although it sounds equally as involved. From a coding perspective what I was looking to do there was quite simple really. The way your concept would work would be an interesting xml interface through the dll loading process, defining some xml tags for various personality values and having it translate into the personality tags via some filters and coded interpretations. Something like that was done for Ultima IV for character creation so I'm following what you mean and I do think its kinda a cool idea. But the setup for that would be quite complex and not the least bit daunting. I'm looking to do something here that won't take up a lot of time since there's a lot of other things yet to accomplish and I'm hoping to make this a blip on the task list overall.
 
Ok, so as stated, I'd come back and explain more...

The method I'm thinking of would be something like this:
  • Divide up the tag list into appropriate sectional divisions and give each section its own new Archetype reference tag in the LeaderHeadInfos. This way leaders can be mixed and matched.

  • Base the archetypes on the traits themselves. Each trait has its own archetype and the primary definition OF the archetype is a new tag for 'Favorite Trait'. The traits are already neat archtypical definitions as they are. Even the negative traits may be given their own archetype header.

    What this means is that there would be an personality archetype defined for every leader trait defined. For the primary leader archtype definition, it also means that this trait will (almost always) be the first trait the leader will select and that leader would also immediately pick any further development tier of that trait when he goes to trait selection. It wouldn't be an automatic selection of that trait so much as it would add a heavy weight bonus to that particular trait, thus if the corresponding trait was not in use in a particular game, despite the archetype being applied to the leader, we wouldn't have a problem. And it wouldn't override any situational modifying factors in trait selection determinations that have and have yet to be included in the AI considerations there.

    It wouldn't automatically command any further trait selections, but since the flavors the leader picks up from the archetype would match just about perfectly with the flavors of that trait, it would certainly guide leaders to pick very harmonious trait selections thereafter.
  • Leaders could still have an override Favorite Trait selection by defining the tag on the leader itself. This would mean that the next selection (or possibly even first) would almost always be the Archetype defined trait since the Flavors would be a near perfect match to weight towards that trait. This allows us to vary some of the leaders that seem they would all be the same archetype like the pirate set (Almost all would have Seafaring by archetype but some may have Deceptive or some other Trait set as their personal Favorite Trait, thus very likely both that selection and Seafaring would end up being their first picks.)
  • Then base the rest of the Archetype categories on the same kind of mentality represented by that archetype. Other archetype categories would include:
    • Diplomatic Archetype
    • Warfare Archetype
    • Game Strategy Archetype
    • Trade Archetype
    etc... where the various elements of the basic leaderhead tags are lumped together and defined then in separate classes so the differing groups can be called into the leader personality profile individually.

This makes leaders much more manipulable and although it may seem like it limits our options with leaders, it really doesn't since we can override any given tag by simply defining that tag on the leader itself. Thus we can get into the micro-definition of any leader as deeply as we want while having some guidelines for them all that are also easily updateable.

As a whole this would make our leader structure much much much more manageable and by limiting ourselves to somewhere around 60 archetypes with well defined personality concepts equating to one trait's personality outlook, we should be able to have fun with mix and matching to redesign our leaders.

But the best thing about it would be that leaders wouldn't have to all be completely redefined overnight. They could be simplified but wouldn't HAVE to be as the current leader definitions would NOT require redefinition, only benefit from any additional definition.

This makes the structure something that can be very gradually worked on which fits in perfectly with the desire to make this a brief stop along the way towards other goals, leaving behind a structure that allows our leaders to be touched up at any time.

The one thing I'd need to do right away is update our leaders to the archetypal 'Flavor' definitions to make it much faster to update to a more detailed Flavor mechanism.

This last bit is necessary to make the trait selection process much more refined.


Now additionally, down the road, what I'd LIKE to do is deepen the way these Archetypes define the Leader by making the differing categories BLEND values with a Primary Archetype category that then 'tints' the rest of the category selections.

This is all very similar to how Astrology works when analyzing the deep Astrological profiles on a person so it should work pretty nicely to create very diverse leaders while simplifying the system overall.
 
All 60 would be unique but while you can mix and match segments of it, each Archetype would be a full definition in just one added class file (info.xml). Thus we'd have basically 60 or so leader definitions predefined and the individual segments of those would be combined uniquely in each leader.

There's a few leader tags that wouldn't go into the Archetype file (I can think of the starting 3 trait definitions for when not using Developing Leaders and No Positive Traits on Gamestart as an example) that would only be suitable for definition on a specific leader. But a lot of the tags could be made more generically bundled and accessed by defining a set of Archetypes on the leader.

And again, this sets me up to eventually blend an overriding primary archetype definition with all the sub-category definitions in an average between the two values to find a more unique leader with a rather simple set of decisions.

Now, that said, there's certainly going to be a fairly smooth blend of similarities between many Archetypes such that one could actually chart them out into a system. I have a method for that but its really unnecessary to express it... its based on a color wheel (you inspired me to do a lot of thinking on that today) alignment system I developed for an RPG I was designing. It doesn't stay 100% true to the definitions of that system but with a few tweaks I was able to see some very interesting patterns of that system matching up with patterns in the traits definitions and by overlaying the two I was able to see how this stated plan could work.

My point on that is... you'd see some similarities between say, Spiritual and Pious (and the other religious archetypes) in their definitions, and between other traits that have relateable elements, but the differences would still be just as critical.
 
Well I think your zodiac idea is a good idea. In the Sims they used a zodiac system designed upon what personality traits you gave your Sim. Your system you showed before with the positive, negatives and parallel traits seem like they would fit well.

chinese%20zodiac


Note that zodiacs like the Chinese Zodiac have an interesting system with compatibility. Within the chart there are 3 animals that are linked. Which are ...

- Dog / Horse / Tiger
- Rooster / Ox / Snake
- Sheep / Pig / Rabbit
- Dragon / Monkey / Rat

However each also have their worse matches. Which can bee seen here.

Thus you may want to think in terms of compatible groups and uncompilable groups. For instance Timid and Cowardly would be within the compatible groups but Aggressive would be in its incompatible group. Or what you said in your document as "Parallel Mirror", "Positive Mirror" and "Opposing Mirror".
 
Thunderbrd said:
hmm... some interesting concepts...

I had a bit of an idea today that was somewhat inspired by feedback here but I'll explain that later. (if I can put it into words quite yet.)

That's not a terribly bad idea ls612, although it sounds equally as involved. From a coding perspective what I was looking to do there was quite simple really. The way your concept would work would be an interesting xml interface through the dll loading process, defining some xml tags for various personality values and having it translate into the personality tags via some filters and coded interpretations. Something like that was done for Ultima IV for character creation so I'm following what you mean and I do think its kinda a cool idea. But the setup for that would be quite complex and not the least bit daunting. I'm looking to do something here that won't take up a lot of time since there's a lot of other things yet to accomplish and I'm hoping to make this a blip on the task list overall.
Click to expand...

I just don't want to go and change the inner mechanics for Leaderheads, given how much AI work there is to do, as that would create a lot more work. The program I suggested would just be a dev tool. This way the game would not change and LHs would continue to function in the same manner they do currently, and the code workload would be about the same. I don't really care beyond that how it works, but I would be strongly against making these sorts of changes in the game code.
 
Well, we aren't talking about changing the mechanisms that are based on the tags at all. That's the beauty of it... just changing HOW the tags are set to make it easier for us all. I wrote up some proxy code earlier and I'll share with you what the method should be for this - the blending concept is actually a bit easier to implement than I'd thought too so that wouldn't take any longer to setup than doing any of this at all.
 
Thunderbrd said:
Well, we aren't talking about changing the mechanisms that are based on the tags at all. That's the beauty of it... just changing HOW the tags are set to make it easier for us all. I wrote up some proxy code earlier and I'll share with you what the method should be for this - the blending concept is actually a bit easier to implement than I'd thought too so that wouldn't take any longer to setup than doing any of this at all.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll look at the code. The underlying algorithms would be the same, the difference would be that the front end would be a Windows Forms app, as opposed to something in the DLL.
 
My point is it wouldn't change the AI at all. The ONLY change would be that the ai values are defined in xml with a method that makes leaders easier to create and edit and would make them more interesting blends. There seriously would be zero need for such an application unless you wanted to create an interesting way to come up with the Archetype definitions by answering a series of questions that would then apply the xml definitions of the archetype to the leader you just answered the series of questions for... THAT would probably be helpful as a side-app.
 
Anything from now on, MUST be approved by Koshling for any and all changes to the AI, point blank, if he says NO thats it, NO, but then if he has reservations, it will be up to him, how does this sound guys??
 
Well, sure, but to be clear, I'm NOT proposing any changes to the AI routines in the dll at all. This would simply be a way to streamline leader design and editing.

I suppose in this discussion I am also proposing to expand on the leader Flavor selections as well.

And I say all this but I certainly wouldn't mind some input from Koshling on these matters if he has anything he'd like to say here.
 
Thunderbrd said:
Well, sure, but to be clear, I'm NOT proposing any changes to the AI routines in the dll at all. This would simply be a way to streamline leader design and editing.

I suppose in this discussion I am also proposing to expand on the leader Flavor selections as well.

And I say all this but I certainly wouldn't mind some input from Koshling on these matters if he has anything he'd like to say here.
Click to expand...

But it would change the AI though to have these new effects of Archetypes. You even said that it would influence AI trait selection, which should be entirely based on what the AI's situation is, not what the personalities are. I'm just saying that while I like the idea, I'd much prefer to see it done as an external program for making LHs, as that would be a safer change than adding more new mechanisms to the DLL.
 
Given that I've designed the Trait selection mechanism in the first place, I feel pretty well within my rights to determine HOW the AI selects their traits without requiring approval.

I do agree that in some rare circumstances, the current situational factor should be an additional consideration for weighting various AI choices in this regard but surely we'd rather have leaders with personality over all being absolute strategists (who tend towards all the same selections as result).

I've given a lot of arguments for this personality based method that you've made no comment on, many of which were intended to highlight how the AI would naturally make better trait determinations under a personality based structure, and I've made some concession to some of the points you've made so its not like I'm not listening to what you're arguing, It's just that I simply don't agree with it all. No disrespect intended here... we will naturally have regions where we disagree. Once I've got a far more refined mechanism under the vision I'm heading towards and you can point out where leaders are making really bad decisions, at that point I'd be more inclined to adjust the method.

As for the coding involved in this proposed adjustment to how we program the leaders in xml, which is basically all it amounts to, I do intend to share the coding method with you but it really should not be potentially 'dangerous' for the dll any more than any other adjustment there.

I realize I will need to make sure I fully understand the number ranges expected on each of the leaderhead info tags before leaping to any conclusions about what they mean or how they are used though so it will take a bit of patience to make sure it can all be safely blended properly.
 
Thunderbrd said:
Given that I've designed the Trait selection mechanism in the first place, I feel pretty well within my rights to determine HOW the AI selects their traits without requiring approval.

I do agree that in some rare circumstances, the current situational factor should be an additional consideration for weighting various AI choices in this regard but surely we'd rather have leaders with personality over all being absolute strategists (who tend towards all the same selections as result).

I've given a lot of arguments for this personality based method that you've made no comment on, many of which were intended to highlight how the AI would naturally make better trait determinations under a personality based structure, and I've made some concession to some of the points you've made so its not like I'm not listening to what you're arguing, It's just that I simply don't agree with it all. No disrespect intended here... we will naturally have regions where we disagree. Once I've got a far more refined mechanism under the vision I'm heading towards and you can point out where leaders are making really bad decisions, at that point I'd be more inclined to adjust the method.

As for the coding involved in this proposed adjustment to how we program the leaders in xml, which is basically all it amounts to, I do intend to share the coding method with you but it really should not be potentially 'dangerous' for the dll any more than any other adjustment there.

I realize I will need to make sure I fully understand the number ranges expected on each of the leaderhead info tags before leaping to any conclusions about what they mean or how they are used though so it will take a bit of patience to make sure it can all be safely blended properly.
Click to expand...

I have listened to your arguments about personality based AI, and understand what you are trying to do. However, you and I don't play that way in a game, so even if you do a lot of balancing work on this it will still make the AI not as good as it could be. I don't really understand what your objection to that point is.

As for the trait mechanisms, yes you did design them. But that does not mean that you have exclusive domain to do whatever you want without asking advice of others on the team. We need to work together on stuff, not be overly territorial.
 
I have listened to your arguments about personality based AI, and understand what you are trying to do. However, you and I don't play that way in a game, so even if you do a lot of balancing work on this it will still make the AI not as good as it could be. I don't really understand what your objection to that point is.
Click to expand...
So, from everything you've said on this subject so far, I would presume you are saying a few of the following things:
  • You would never take the Aggressive trait if you weren't planning for a war in the near future.
  • You would never take the Protective trait if you weren't being invaded.
  • If peace was prevalent, you'd be more than happy to consider taking traits that don't enhance your units like Scientific or Philosophical.
  • You would prefer that the AI play in the same way, making all those who are at war begin to develop more warlike traits and only those who've been able to maintain peace taking the more civil traits.
Here's a few problems with this approach:
  • Leaders have personalities that determine for them whether they would prefer to attack on a whim or maintain peace, whether they want the strength to bully others or whether they'd prefer to develop their society in hopes of powering ahead on achievements and allowing the rest of the world to fight themselves into oblivion. Without basing the trait selections on these factors already present on leaders, you'd have leaders making trait choices that are less optimal to their overall pre-determined strategies.
  • The most important detail to consider when choosing traits is the synergy that exists between the trait(s) you have and the one you are selecting. Some traits work better in combination with each other than they do in combination with others. Usually this is a matter of gaining combinational bonuses, such as what happens when you've got additional % research and are also enhancing your base commerce, or how powerful your troops can become when you blend some free promotions out of the gate with a reduced xp requirement for leveling your units, or with an enhanced Great General production rate. These are just a few examples of synergy. Those enhancing their units with some free promotions but also trying to enhance their % research are gaining absolutely no synergistic benefit between their selections. They can do well with those bonuses alone but the bonuses don't play into each other to gain them a larger overall benefit.

    A personality based mechanism is the easiest way to ensure that synergies will emerge as leaders play to and seek to enhance the strengths they intend to use to make them overall more competitive.

All in all, where I disagree is the very statement that a current situational evaluation will make the leader more effective. If they are being reactive to the current state rather than planning long term based on an overall game strategy, they may be able to increase their short term survival ability but would impede their overall game and in the long run make them far less competitive to a player.

Additionally, the personality based method is best to establish an overall game scenario that makes things even more challenging to a player because every leader is utilizing (to the fullest) a differing game strategy. This means that while you may have to make certain choices to trump the strategies of one opponent, the same strategies set you up for potential failure against another who's strategy trumps the one you're using to counter the first.

Example: One neighbor is extremely aggressive and is constantly declaring war on you and hindering your development with fairly strong armies marching across your border. So, to fight fire with fire you select traits that help you to face that opponent and eventually you overcome him. Unfortunately, now that he's vanquished you're beginning to realize that your other neighbor has, in the meantime, become an even more dangerous threat because due to his enhanced research and commerce, he's now far ahead of you in the tech race and his units are outteching yours severely. You'd love to just attack him... you have some good units in terms of exp and bonus promos, but his tech level makes a war prohibitive and at this point he's tearing away from you in research. This could be bad...

These strategy variations have been making the game challenging since vanilla and I see no reason to hinder it with making all leaders play the same style game for the purpose of trying to make them all pick 'the best' selections from a long list of what SHOULD be balanced out to be equally good selections, provided those selections are made with the overall game strategy of the leader in mind.
 
Thunderbrd said:
So, from everything you've said on this subject so far, I would presume you are saying a few of the following things:
  • You would never take the Aggressive trait if you weren't planning for a war in the near future.
  • You would never take the Protective trait if you weren't being invaded.
  • If peace was prevalent, you'd be more than happy to consider taking traits that don't enhance your units like Scientific or Philosophical.
  • You would prefer that the AI play in the same way, making all those who are at war begin to develop more warlike traits and only those who've been able to maintain peace taking the more civil traits.
Click to expand...

No, here would be my analogies for that.

  • I wouldn't take the Aggressive trait unless I have a considerable number of expansion targets or people next to me who hate me.
  • I wouldn't take Protective unless I'm surrounded by people who hate me (but they may not be at war with me now).
  • I woudn't take 'peaceful' traits if there was a more pressing military concern.
  • Yes I would prefer that the AI think this way.

The AI can realize when it has long-term issues and take traits for that, not for short-term issues.
 
Well... some leaders would consider the whole world their expansion target and would not be worried about whether another civ hates them or loves them as all are subject to eventual invasion.
Others might be wary of all leaders whether it appears their neighbors love or hate them and understand that they WILL eventually be attacked at some point in the game and may as well be ready for what they know they cannot predict (On that note, there are leaders programmed to appear like their happy with you despite merrily preparing for backstabbing you as soon as they feel your guard is down due to the appearance of being pleased with you.)

And there's always a pressing military concern as long as there are other civilizations in play. Even if you haven't met them yet - you will.

You've said that as players we don't think this way. I very much disagree. I base my overall game strategy on my strengths, which in a scenario where leaders come with their predefined set of traits means that strategy plays around those traits. In a scenario without that predefined set of strengths, I get to choose my own, and its going to be based on my personality as to what I choose. No one path is better than another but all have their strengths and weaknesses and its about understanding how to overcome the weaknesses and play to the strengths of whatever strategy has been chosen that determines the strongest players.

Only by basing the traits on the personality of the leader, enforcing that the traits suit the personality styled approach to the game as a whole, will any approximation of that be done for our artificial intelligence driven civilizations.

Some modifiers could be effectively derived from the scenarios you're discussing however.

So lets see if we can't come up with something that works to both personality AND situational. If we root in personality first then modify by situation, that's probably going to admittedly come up with a best scenario. Surely you can agree with that.

I'd ask you to make a very detailed list of all the situational influences you can, particularly for each and every individual trait. The above is a good start and some of it does hold somewhat true to an improved strategy.

It would not hold true, however, if situational analysis was all we relied on, as the point that a leader that selects traits in contrary to their predefined personality based strategies would also greatly hinder a leader. Ghandi (or rather, the settings that define Ghandi) would NOT play well as an Aggressive leader as he'd rarely ever declare war in the first place, even if he had 'a considerable number of expansion targets or people next to him who hate him'. He'd still try to maintain peace unless he had a VERY decided overwhelming advantage and some diplomatic pressure to do so.

Then, once we have that list, we can start looking into how to turn all that into additional coding modifiers to the personality driven selection engine as a base.

I'm not against harmonizing with the team, and its not a matter of being territorial - but where there is no ability to find a middle ground it seems only fair that the original designer has the right to veto what another suggests (or even insists on) unless there is a fair consensus of the rest of the team. So far you've been the only one fighting on this point aside from some commenters supporting the idea in equal ratio to those supporting the personality based AI. I'm not against trying to find a compromise here. Can you accept a compromise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Animated leaderheads?
Replies
4
Views
903
DecoyPS2
D
T
Narrative Event Suggestions
Replies
7
Views
527
luca 83
luca 83
sTAPler27
The Civ/Leader Pairings Could Use Some Tweaks
Replies
5
Views
341
Ryansinbela
Ryansinbela
V
Custom AI Leaders championship
Replies
12
Views
917
Thrasybulos
T
TheSpaceCowboy
I just want cool hats
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
RedCourtJester
RedCourtJester
Back
Top Bottom