Play like a nation or play to win?

[Naokaukodem]

Well I didn't say it was too frustrating to me, as I don't even play Civ2 for ages, and I liked the competitiveness of its AI. That just 'could' be frustrating.

@warpstorm: yes I can use spies, but in Civ2 the fact that each part constructed was announced (with this little mechanic soundy) each turn, was absorbing us much prettier. It is a pain to verify each turn the spies to check where is who, and we must have a spy implented. And anyway that's not fun. But I remember a time the AI was at 9 piece on 10, I was very inferior but catched it up anyway... not competitive...

 

[Akka]

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.

Well, it has always been the fundamental principle, that people who wants an AI acting "like a nation", wants it because it's more immersive and more consistent with the game itself.
The rest of the debate was just going into the details of that

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.

You should do math

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

No. Why should I be ?

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 ?

Not really.
The victory objectives are the most talked about, because they are the most glaring examples of the difference between "game mentality" and "real-life mentality".
But they aren't the only differences. Differences also include the whole "emotionnal side" of the reality. Facts like having two leaders who actually like or dislike each other, populations who sees such other population as a friend or a foe, more on a gut basis than a reason basis (just look at the end-19th/beginning 20th centuries nationalism in Europe, where French and Germans hated each others).
The "player approach" on a purely technical level, makes for civ totally lacking any kind of personnality, character and deepness. They look and act only as, well, "AI", lines of Mr Spock-like algorithms.
The civics and leader personnalities are example of civilizations going more "nation-like" than "player-like", by the way, adding arbitrary (=> "emotionnal") preferences that just make for a kind of "character".
The concepts of "holding a grudge" (trying to harm you once you broke a pact, for example, or hating you after you spent both several decades/centuries waging war on each others) is also a purely "emotionnal", "nation-like" concept.

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

Yeah, it went from less than a quarter to less than a third
Still the minority, and still I'm pretty sure that still the "player" option is over-represented in the poll, as the "hardcore player" tends to be more involved.

 

[Akka]

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?

The main difference, is that in Civ3, practically each part of the ship is tied to a specific technology, and you have to build only one.
So in the end, there isn't really a "space race", as you don't have to choose between a smaller but faster or a bigger but better ship (all ships are the same), and the advancement of the ship isn't tied to how much you invest in it, but simply how fast you can learn the relevant techs.
It's rather a "tech race" than a "space race".

 

[kryszcztov]

No. Why should I be ?

Because on Regent the AI [starts a song] SUCKS, SUCKS, SUCKS... SOOO BAAAD !!! Even for you, I'm sure. Do you lose some games on Regent ?

But they aren't the only differences. Differences also include the whole "emotionnal side" of the reality. Facts like having two leaders who actually like or dislike each other, populations who sees such other population as a friend or a foe, more on a gut basis than a reason basis (just look at the end-19th/beginning 20th centuries nationalism in Europe, where French and Germans hated each others).

In Civ3 you have a "friend" scale with the AIs. And believe me or not, some civs will dislike you more than others when you meet them, just because of culture groups (though the difference is tiny). The other reasons are due to gameplay (if I don't forget any) : governments, war and peace history, trading, etc...

The "player approach" on a purely technical level, makes for civ totally lacking any kind of personnality, character and deepness. They look and act only as, well, "AI", lines of Mr Spock-like algorithms.

The AI is coded so that it hates you when you cheated him, for example. This looks like playing like a nation to me. And like a player, since I doubt any human, "technical" player would forget treason...

The civics and leader personnalities are example of civilizations going more "nation-like" than "player-like", by the way, adding arbitrary (=> "emotionnal") preferences that just make for a kind of "character".
The concepts of "holding a grudge" (trying to harm you once you broke a pact, for example, or hating you after you spent both several decades/centuries waging war on each others) is also a purely "emotionnal", "nation-like" concept.

Civics and leader personalities are from Civ4, right ? I agree with you, but I disagree about the conclusion that you make. For a start, it's not because an AI will be coded so that it has a "personality" (ie. has different, basic characteristics than other AIs) that said AI won't play like a player. In this regard, the "personality" of the AI is just a handicap (or a bonus) to whatever is the best way to win. Also, civ traits, UUs, culture groups, civ aggression, etc... are already part of the AI personality, and were implemented into Civ3.

Yeah, it went from less than a quarter to less than a third
Still the minority, and still I'm pretty sure that still the "player" option is over-represented in the poll, as the "hardcore player" tends to be more involved.

I guess it's time to wake up all those immersed players who fell asleep in front of their computers last night.

 

[apatheist]

The AI is coded so that it hates you when you cheated him, for example. This looks like playing like a nation to me. And like a player, since I doubt any human, "technical" player would forget treason...

That implies that punishing a player for breaking a treaty is irrational, but it isn't. If there were no long term consequences for breaking a treaty, then you'd be much more likely to do it. The implied threat is part of what keeps you honest, and hating you until eternity is just the appropriate follow-through.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

I usually play like a nation, then get bored and just go for the blood bath