Play like a nation or play to win?

[KrikkitTwo]

Then they'll start reloading untill they get the cow start or quitting once they no longer have 'fun'

 

[Akka]

No, I'm not finished with my endless posts

I used semantics because they serve my point of view : nowhere does Civ have the arrogance to simulate History like you're dreaming of. That's just what is written on the game box. But as you play the game, it feels very abstracted. Hence why I made a point about "nations" in RL and "civs" in the game, which are a very abstracted version of nations. Hell, by a simple modding, you could change civs into an abstracted version of a family...

Of course it's abstracted. That's not a problem. What counts is that it's abstracted in a way that doesn't hamper, and even increase, the immersion.
Like the population of the cities. It doesn't mean that there is no rural population and just a few cities in the middle of the wildlands. It abstracts the rural population and the cities in the form of vast agglomerations.
You can, of course, find a better abstraction. But this one is already doing a good job at both gameplay and immersion.

I see. I myself don't feel the need to go into such details and realism. For a start, it would always feel the same to imagine a riot in Ancient Times. Or I lack imagination for that. But it would be like watching the same movie over and over. I like to stay on the abstract layer, only focusing on important things, and not on that single soldier who died while I captured a foreign city.

I don't need to do that. I just do. Using my imagination is what makes the game alive, and the game helping me in that regard (by increasing immersion) makes it more interesting.
And yes, you perhaps lacks imagination

Don't. I don't do this for games but for other things. In fact, I don't want to imagine things in video games, I want to see them on the screen. And that is the trend of video games, for good and worse ! If Civ doesn't want to display the dying soldier at the gate of the enemy city, then be it. I'll see him in Age of Empires.

You don't know what you miss.

Different nature, I guess. For you it's about feeling the achievements of your nation. For me it's the satisfaction of playing well and beating the hell out of my opponent.

Not just the achievement of my nation. Crushing my opponent is also quite good, sometimes, as long as it's done in an, well, again, immersive manner.
It's about being immersed, plain and simple.

Yet true.

Only for blasphemers !

I won't deny that what makes immersive games interesting is the history part of it. It's just that I don't play such games ! And for me Civ isn't such a game either. Games for me are superficial time-killers per se in a way : they won't learn a lot about myself, etc... Only when they lead to more interesting things related to RL are they not superficial : social contact, new centers of interest...

Well, I agree, which is why I don't see the need to play only for improving myself at them

I clearly don't put the best of my personality into the games I play, and I don't know about you.

Mmh, depends what you mean by "putting the best of a personnality into a game".

Don't know if you're interested, but you might enjoy some places where some people played some Civ3 games very well while at the same time telling a story around it. I'm thinking of Sullla and Dwip's websites, with their RBCiv epic games. I know there are a lot of stories at CFC, but those are top players who know how to write, so...

I sometimes read them, but that's quite not as interesting as actually playing the game, or reading an actual book.
Some of the ideas are really great, though (like the "improved Sid difficulty" or "winning without building a single military unit"), but then it's, on the contrary, more the "gameplay" that is interesting, not really the immersion.

Yeah, I just pointed out that you don't necessarily get more pleasure by being sucked in it.

Of course you does. I mean, being sucked into something obviously PROVE that you were passionnate about it. You don't get sucked into something boring of your own will.

I partially agree that humans do well because Civ tries to simulate History (though on a very abstract way). And I think that Civ will stay on this abstract level, at least Civ4 doesn't seem to pretend to be deeper in this regard at all.


I want to know all the freaking rules. Just like when I'm playing chess or Risk. Civ for me is a social experience (all the more since I play multiplayer) rather than an inner experience.

I like to know the rules, too. I may be an "immersive player", I'm also plagued by a desire perfectionist mind which pushes me to minimaxing a lot. But I don't necessarily want (ie : sometimes, but not always) to know every little rule, because it just cry for abuses later.

And don't you want to improve a bit more in order to lead your nation even better ? What will you do when the AI is unbeatable in Civ 10 ?

Well, by playing, you improve naturally, even if you don't thrive for it.
And if the AI becomes truly unbeatable without cheating, I'll be overjoyed, as I'll be able to actually scale the difficulty on my level of play with a world that will STILL works the same for everyone.
But no, I won't even try to practice only to beat the hardest level. What would be the point ?

OK, sorry about that. In fact, a bit after I posted last night, I came to the same conclusion as Commander Bello just above : you'd be better off with some kind of SimCiv. I know some people have some projects on such a game. I myself would be tempted to see what it is. But AFAIK it's a very difficult kind of game to create, as you can imagine. I think it's a sub-genre of games yet to set up.

No, SimCiv would be quite boring, unless very, very well done.
Having other civs in competition with themselves is actually half of all history, and probably even more. Removing the "ennemy" aspect remove a big part of interest in the game. "immersion" doesn't mean "passivity" nor "builder-only" (even if I'm definitely more of the "builder" type). The pleasure to wage war and crush the ennemy under superior military units/command is a very big part of the immersion, you know ? Even more, building a huge empire that you can imagine putting dread into the heart of its ennemies

It looks like the concept of victory conditions, or to be more general, the concept of Game Over, is a barrier between us. Otherwise we'd have much closer wishes about the AI. I think someone (maybe you) said here that he likes to continue a game after it is technically won. That impresses me too, because I hate doing so, I really do. Once it is over, there's nothing left to do but milking the game and I'm not a farmer. No goal, no motivation : as in RL I'd get bored.

Nah, it wasn't me.
Me, I usually do the opposite, I quit BEFORE I win
But what I do, is to remove several victory conditions, to not have the dreaded "you won !" box appearing too soon (usually, I only leave spaceship and conquest conditions open). Having a goal is important, of course. But sometimes, the goal can be as simple as getting as high in the history graph as possible. It means that there is not a turning stone that suddendly says "you won, game over", but that you simply play until the game bores you, and then you stop.

I like to take C3C's plague as an example. It is just a meaningless and artificial thingie that does nothing but annoy you a little before getting lost. It adds nothing in terms of strategy (hey, a word we haven't used yet in our little conversation !), it is totally random, ie. it is there just for the sake of realism. Well, if you want to penalize me because my cities are overpopulated, do it in a smart way, not with this thing at par with Civ-pollution. It looks like Civ4 is doing a very nice job of getting rid of such things, for example, the health system sounds good.

Well, I'm not fan at all of the "suddendly, in a totally random way, you are just striken with disaster", so I won't contradict you here

 

[frekk]

That's the main difference between "powergamers" and "roleplayers". The former see mainly, and have fun mainly by using, the game mechanics. The latter see and have fun mainly with the game feel, ambiance and immersion.
Not to say that, of course, both ideas can't be mixed (I'm quite a powergamer when it comes to the need of having the strongest character/civilization/whatever), but there is usually a general tendancy (for example, a game that is unable to immerse me in itself, that can't make me dream, that doesn't make me feel like if I "was here", usually doesn't hold my attention

Well, don't forget national leaders are "power gamers". They don't sit about and dream of the ambience ... they look for advantages. So in the context of a strategy game, "power gaming" is very much more realistic than roleplaying. Roleplaying is fine, for roleplaying games that involve your control of just a single character or whatever.

In the same sense as chess, strategy games are about wracking your brain for solutions, playing dirty tricks on your opponent through clever maneuvers, and so on, a battle of wits against an opponent. Dreamy ambience is for games like Myst.

 

[mastertyguy]

Then they'll start reloading untill they get the cow start or quitting once they no longer have 'fun'

4000 BC "The Zulus aren't satisfied of their start, and decided to reload"
Mid-game "The Mayans have nothing to do, and started a new game"
industrial "The French are sure to win, and decided to end the game"
Any-time "The Americans were not lucky this turn, and decided to reload the turn so they don't lose their army"

 

[Akka]

Well, don't forget national leaders are "power gamers". They don't sit about and dream of the ambience ... they look for advantages. So in the context of a strategy game, "power gaming" is very much more realistic than roleplaying. Roleplaying is fine, for roleplaying games that involve your control of just a single character or whatever.
In the same sense as chess, strategy games are about wracking your brain for solutions, playing dirty tricks on your opponent through clever maneuvers, and so on, a battle of wits against an opponent. Dreamy ambience is for games like Myst.

My, you completely missed the point. Despite it being repeated again, and again, and again...

The AI should act like a nation leader. It means that it should do things that make sense AS A NATION LEADER. The AI shouldn't act like a PLAYER. That's what is roleplaying for an AI.

It doesn't means that the AI should start to imagine itself at the place of the little soldier on the beach during the landing, and I really don't get how you could come with such an idea (an AI dreaming and imagining ? ).
It also doesn't mean that the AI shouldn't try to do what's good for itself.
It just mean that the AI should do what's good for itself, AS A NATION LEADER, and not AS A PLAYER.

It means, for example, that an AI shouldn't declare war on a player just because this player is about to "win". Especially if the player is more powerful : "winning" is only a GAME CONCEPT, not a REAL NATION concept.
Getting every advantage that the civilization can get, on the other hand, is a totally REAL concept. As such, the AI should, in fact, do something that is beneficial for its civilization.

 

[kryszcztov]

No, I'm not finished with my endless posts

I was wondering about it, but you are French like me after all. (no need to explain, it was just silly)

But...

Your latest reply basically killed the conversation (for good, maybe) because the large majority of your stanzas just say "I like to be immersed", so I guess the debate is almost over.

Still...

Of course you does. I mean, being sucked into something obviously PROVE that you were passionnate about it. You don't get sucked into something boring of your own will.

I'm sucked into playing the game, not into the game's atmosphere itself. I can play this game 12 hours straight and never imagine what my people are doing... Only focusing on the strategy, the figures and the goal.

I like to know the rules, too. I may be an "immersive player", I'm also plagued by a desire perfectionist mind which pushes me to minimaxing a lot. But I don't necessarily want (ie : sometimes, but not always) to know every little rule, because it just cry for abuses later.

I have a personal behaviour that prevents cheats and exploits. I started to hear from that at the RBCiv site. I will never ROP-rape an AI, but I will always set up a settler factory if the situation calls for it.

No, SimCiv would be quite boring, unless very, very well done.
Having other civs in competition with themselves is actually half of all history, and probably even more. Removing the "ennemy" aspect remove a big part of interest in the game. "immersion" doesn't mean "passivity" nor "builder-only" (even if I'm definitely more of the "builder" type). The pleasure to wage war and crush the ennemy under superior military units/command is a very big part of the immersion, you know ? Even more, building a huge empire that you can imagine putting dread into the heart of its ennemies

SimCiv could also have wars in it. Let's say you are the Eternal King, but have much less control over your civ...

Nah, it wasn't me.
Me, I usually do the opposite, I quit BEFORE I win
But what I do, is to remove several victory conditions, to not have the dreaded "you won !" box appearing too soon (usually, I only leave spaceship and conquest conditions open). Having a goal is important, of course. But sometimes, the goal can be as simple as getting as high in the history graph as possible. It means that there is not a turning stone that suddendly says "you won, game over", but that you simply play until the game bores you, and then you stop.

Aren't you bored playing on Regent all the time ??

 

[kryszcztov]

It means, for example, that an AI shouldn't declare war on a player just because this player is about to "win". Especially if the player is more powerful : "winning" is only a GAME CONCEPT, not a REAL NATION concept.

Really, the more I read you, the more I feel that the only thing which divides us into playing differently and into wishing a different AI is the goal of the game. Apart from aiming at the goal, what are your AI and yourself different from my AI and myself in terms of playstyle (not immersion, but your actions in the game) ? I know a goal can make you play differently from the start of the game, but maybe there is something else ?

EDIT : Oh I forgot. Since we started our debate, the percentage of people voting for "like a player" has increased a lot.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

My, you completely missed the point. Despite it being repeated again, and again, and again...

The AI should act like a nation leader. It means that it should do things that make sense AS A NATION LEADER. The AI shouldn't act like a PLAYER. That's what is roleplaying for an AI.

It doesn't means that the AI should start to imagine itself at the place of the little soldier on the beach during the landing, and I really don't get how you could come with such an idea (an AI dreaming and imagining ? ).
It also doesn't mean that the AI shouldn't try to do what's good for itself.
It just mean that the AI should do what's good for itself, AS A NATION LEADER, and not AS A PLAYER.

It means, for example, that an AI shouldn't declare war on a player just because this player is about to "win". Especially if the player is more powerful : "winning" is only a GAME CONCEPT, not a REAL NATION concept.
Getting every advantage that the civilization can get, on the other hand, is a totally REAL concept. As such, the AI should, in fact, do something that is beneficial for its civilization.

I disagree
1. The AI should behave like a Player
2. The game should be designed such that a Player (human or AI ) will behave like a National Leader

Behaving like a Player may not necessarily mean trying to win but trying to do as well as you could. Imagine a Regent level Human player being forced to play on Sid difficulty. Assuming they didn't quit in disgust, they might try to do as well as they possibly could, even if they knew they could never win. Surviving till the end, or maximizing their score, getting Wonders, etc. would give them possible reasons to go on.

That is how the AI should play like a Player, if they probably can't win, they try to go for a strong second..or seventeenth depending on what position they are in as the game draws to an end.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey Krikkitone. Not only have you very succinctly brought together how the desires of both sides of this debate can be brought together, but I also think you have hit upon how leaders are actually going to work in Civ4-based on all that we know so far. I know I keep banging on about 'how things work in SMAC', but this is kind of what you see happening in that game. Both AI and human player alike are 'trying to win'-after a manner of speaking-but all sides are also trying to 'be true' their faction's ideology and traits. If it works in a similar, or better, fashion in Civ4, then I will be very happy indeed!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[nicae]

That is how the AI should play like a Player, if they probably can't win, they try to go for a strong second..or seventeenth depending on what position they are in as the game draws to an end.

but thats how a nation would play!
nation: do the best possible - if cant be 1st, try 2nd.
player: be 1st because you have to win to.. umm.. win. be it domination, culture, diplomatic, space race, etc. if cant be 1st, destroy world, use nukes, etc, beacuse 2nd is loss.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

but thats how a nation would play!
nation: do the best possible - if cant be 1st, try 2nd.
player: be 1st because you have to win to.. umm.. win. be it domination, culture, diplomatic, space race, etc. if cant be 1st, destroy world, use nukes, etc, beacuse 2nd is loss.

No that depends on the player... if you have a Human player once they see they Can't win most likely they will quit. But imagine a Human player who can't quit (and somehow enjoys playing)... If they know they Can't win, then they would probably try to improve their score. [The thing is distinguishing an AI player from a Human player is that the AI is forced to play the game no matter what... so they need to have some goal if they can't win (which the AIs rarely do, even for those of us playing on Sid 8 players the AIs have only a 1 in seven chance of winning.)]

 

[nicae]

No that depends on the player... if you have a Human player once they see they Can't win most likely they will quit. But imagine a Human player who can't quit (and somehow enjoys playing)... If they know they Can't win, then they would probably try to improve their score. [The thing is distinguishing an AI player from a Human player is that the AI is forced to play the game no matter what... so they need to have some goal if they can't win (which the AIs rarely do, even for those of us playing on Sid 8 players the AIs have only a 1 in seven chance of winning.)]

imho if the pc cant win and plays to win, he will join with the rest of civs (as they too see they cant win) and gangbang the leader with nukes or whatever they have to stop him. if it was a fight for a 2nd place, they would feed on eachother instead.
if you are a player that enjoys just gaming and getting the best score possible, you are acting like a nation who fights for his interest, but wont trash everything to be 1st. if you do so after you see you cant be 1st, you have passed from player to nation in ambition.

imho.

 

[Naokaukodem]

imho if the pc cant win and plays to win, he will join with the rest of civs (as they too see they cant win) and gangbang the leader with nukes or whatever they have to stop him. if it was a fight for a 2nd place, they would feed on eachother instead.
if you are a player that enjoys just gaming and getting the best score possible, you are acting like a nation who fights for his interest, but wont trash everything to be 1st. if you do so after you see you cant be 1st, you have passed from player to nation in ambition.

imho.

So its that, play like a nation or to win would be the AI to gang up or not?
I would prefer the AI able to withdraw instead. They civ would be absorbed by a neighbour, human or AI, if they see they don't have many chances. But well, this is not very realistic/well sensed. On the contrary, play like a nation would make them continue until the end. But it's not that unrealistic to withdraw after all, as they would not even have to do it, as the nation formation would naturally eliminate, if the game would be realistic, the weaker nations in profit of the bigger, with some exceptions like Switzerland, Luxembourg, Tibet... in fact the weakest nations should withdraw under menace, in this continued "simulation of bacterias" I mentioned before. (or maybe in another thread? can't remember as this one it so long )

 

[Naokaukodem]

Note to some of the respondents, I wasn't talking about how you play, I specifically asked how you prefer the AI to play. I've played enough MP games of Civ to know that your opponents are actively trying to win the game. Do you want the AI to actively try to win the game? This is not a rhetorical question since Firaxis has said that the AI will be modifiable.

Well, I think that the two things are linked. Because if you want the AI to play like a nation, it is not for the sake of it: you will be more free in your own actions and could consider playing differently as well. Civ, is a game of discovery, not of divination. (like being surprised by another civ and having to start it all over taking care to develop your army even without any threat.) It must propose the player a time of adaptation. Rule a civ is about compromises, events, adaptation, not dominating the whole from A to Z. (only God does it, and still ) That is the specifity of civ not to be a 'full gameplay' game, I mean you don't play within a sphere of roughly pre-determined gameplay like in puzzle games for example. You have some margin in order to be able to discover the game on your own, on the same way you can make a war with the civ X and not being attacked by the civ Y some turns later. [But wait, THAT could be some kind of feature after all: the AI would have a constant level of spying, and according to it, it would be able or not to see the size of your army. It would depend of what you let him see also, for example if you have a big army you will have interest to show it in order to discourage the potential attackers, and if you develop secret weapons in order to surprise a future defender or even attacker you will tend to want to hide your forces, or only to hide your weakness. (>double edge question: weak or secret weapon? not considering the efficiency of one information service) The AIs would be able to see if you are at war of course, as this would be internationally official anyway. But they could see, if their spying skills are adequate and well coordinated, how turns your war on the front, if you have heavy loss or not. If you have not, the AI would not inevitably attack you, as it would be scared of the kickback of your powerfull army, even if this one arrive some later after the cities catching. Of course, you would have the same spying system.]
In multiplayer, with a "AI" playing for winning as this one is actually players, it could be however like "become big building units in the smallest amount of turns possible", with "become big"= grabbing land, and "building units"= use them in order to offer a good strategic defense and/or strategic attack. It has been specified at some point in the game (after a patch) that the multiplayer experience would differ from the solo one, and according to me, it differs actually extremely. First off you have to be aware that you may be invaded as soon as the first turns, and be carefull about building a military even with no visible threat. Many players have been frustrated by this, and i'm not different. Second your starting conditions let you no chance about the issue of the events: if you are in the middle of a land end, you will be threatened by many foes and may not make it until the end, and will be limited in your expansion as you would have to defend your territory from many directions. The solution would be to raise up the number of starting civs so their frontiers would touch each others quite soon, and put the majority in the same situation of multi-directional threating and adapt the difficulty according to that: the difficulty would not be only to survive, but to survive within the survivors. (>"simulation of bacterias" idea)
This to prove that: 1) the AI playing like a nation or to win influences our own way of play, and 2) play like a nation is preferable than play to win.

 

[kryszcztov]

An AI that isn't scripted to win the game makes for a boring game. In Civ3 the AIs could take the lead with their insane (but needed, in the end) bonus, but they usually didn't have the clue on how to win the game and tended to fight each other when there was no point in that. This allowed the player to catch back quite easily and possibly win the game. What I want to see in Civ4 is leading AIs making everything they can to win the game, so that the difficulty is increased for the human player. I bet that, by doing so, the AI will act like a nation a lot more than in any previous installement of the series, thanks to well-designed rules.

When I hear some people here, it feels that they want the AI to not put everything they have into a space race, for example, at a point in the game when it would be the last way to win. This would result in the human player winning the space race easily, as is the case in Civ3. I don't know about you, but I find it frustrating to have survived through a difficult game, only to win the game without doing anything stunning. Where is the final, big boss of the game then ?

 

[Naokaukodem]

In the other hand, losing a real space race VS the AI can be very frustrating. But I agree that as soon as you fill in the conditions to achieve a space race victory (have a good advancement, trade/conquer ressources..), the game until then becomes a no-brainer. (you just have to build it) But well, in some cases you can just enjoy your overwhelming advance. Also, I already enjoyed true space races with the AI in Civ2, but in Civ 3 that's more anecdotic as you don't see what they build in real time: the race is much less intense. (and i think it was less agressive also)

 

[kryszcztov]

Franky, if you can't stand losing to an AI, just don't play games, or end your games before you lose, like some people here do. Getting beat helps you to improve and take your revenge later. It's no surprise that some top players keep repeating that losing an intense game teaches them a lot more than winning. Enjoying the fact of being ahead is one thing, but if you know there won't be any competition left until the end of the game, and if you know that it can be repeated all the time with the same conditions, then it's getting boring indeed. That's what the space race is in Civ3. And it's less enjoyable and intense that the one in Civ2 also because of something else : the space victory is much less complex than before, you just have to build your 10 components. In Civ2 the spaceship was more detailed, and you could build a larger ship or with more power, just to catch up and get ahead of the AI's ship during the journey. In Civ2 you won if you were the first to reach Alpha Centauri, and building the best ship in a given situation wasn't a no-brainer. The real satisfaction was to launch later than an AI but get to AC faster thanks to a faster spaceship.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I didn't say I "couldn't stand to lose to an AI", I just said it may be frustrating to lose within a space race after an AI that is configured God know how, and after all this time of play at the end of the game
Not everybody want to intense-play.
And if it's getting boring, than stop playing, your time is done.
I agree that Civ3 AI is less competitive regarding space race though, and about the better complexity of Civ2 space ship construction.

 

[kryszcztov]

If it is too frustrating to you, just play on a lower level.

Don't worry about me, I usually win my games well before the space race, so that I rarely get to the boredom that is the modern era.

 

[warpstorm]

I haven't seen the space race in ages either (arty is the death of my enemies), but I seem to remember seeing what the opponents were building on their space ships. Do you not use spies?