Rubberbanding AI

[Ozcor]

As everyone knows, many people (including myself) find the late game of solo-CIV lacking in entertainment value, because there is generally a given point where victory is more or less inevitable when playing at a competitive difficulty setting.

Raising that setting is an option, of course, but once you can beat the new setting you're pretty much stuck with the same problem. Also, heightened difficulty levels seem to me to take away some of the flavor of the game, as it often becomes profoundly unlikely that the player will be able to build wonders, found corporations, etc.

Because of this, I was wondering about the possibility of a flexible, rubberband style difficulty setting. For those who aren't familiar, rubberband AI is something commonly used in racing games to give speed boosts to cars which have fallen significantly behind in order to ensure a close race for the player at all times, at least in theory. Similarly, I think it would be a great option for CIV if civilizations that have fallen behind could be given production/commerce bonuses, etc., in order to ensure they stay competitive throughout the game. I think this would be a great counter to late-game stagnation/tedium.

Granted, I am not a modder or programmer of any degree of proficiency, so I have no idea how plausible this concept is, so I'm throwing the idea out there for discussion. Jump on in!

 

[Empiremaker]

Sounds like a good idea, but I think this feature could be easily abused.

 

[L4zXX0r]

i'd like to see some sort of political turmoil arise in the later game, making it a challenge to keep certain cities from breaking away, or even just guerilla units of a barb faction, or colonies faction pop up and give you trouble. I was a big fan of the revolution mod they had for warlords. I'd like to see that, as it made it challenging and interesting. Plus, it's funny to watch other civs splinter apart.

 

[Dominico]

I hate the rubber band think in racing games. Always disable it. There is nothing worse than thrashing your friend for a whole race only to see him pass you at the end since he got rubber banded nearer you lol.

On a civ side it could be a good thing for you if you are finding it too easy. Im suprised you havent found a setting which challenges all the way through though. My games are always fun, im always playing catch up or racing to try and get a decent amount of land to win domination on odd occations. The ai gives me a good challenge.

For me it would feel too artificial like in racing games and i wouldnt like it, but i see where you are coming from.

 

[digitCruncher]

Personally, if the 'splintering apart' thing is anything like Ryes and Fall (sp.?) then I wouldn't like it. Although I LOVE every part of Ryes and Fall (except stability), and LOVE the idea of rebel factions breaking out (maybe it happens if the cost for maintainance is above a certain limit, and if there are unhappy citizens, then it will default to the barbs? I am pretty sure that that would be real easy to implement, however I have no idea how to do it. Curse XML and its long "beginneers guides" ) the way that Ryes does it, I hate. Although its realistic, I loathe it, ESPECIALLY the economy stability reasons.

Back on topic: To be honest (It may be the new player thing...) I have never found late-game to be boring. For me it is the most exciting thing of the game, as the battles are far more varied than even the medieval ages (AIR, improved navy (3 war ships vs. 1 in the previous eras, and 2 transport vs. 1 in the previous eras), improved land (better seige, better amphibious attacks, 2 movt. defenders, and defenders immune to collateral damage, meaning defences can now be shrunk, and now, paradrops ), and the seige FINALLY catches up to the eras (trebs -> cannon is a huge jump, sometimes longer than the cannon -> Mobile Artiellery!!), more victory conditions open up (diplo with the AP is nigh-impossible for the AI, and in the late game you have space-race, diplo, culture (Again, new player. All cultural victories from AI have been in the modern era), and conquest (I still don't get how people can conquest in the medieval era, without banks, jails, or anything that reduces war weariness, or .), and, of course, time.

I find it more interesting because there are more victory conditions, better wars, and better buildings in the late game. That could be because I play Noble/Warlord, but I am sure a pro player playing Monarch would find the same thing, as long as they don't do a classical era conquest victory, or a really really early cultural victory...

 

[bonafide11]

Actually, that might not be a completely bad idea, as long as the bonus was marginal...

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Rubberband AI is horrible.

Always.

If you're good enough to beat your opponents on a given setting, you should win. Your opponents shouldn't get out of thin air bonuses to keep up.

If you want a challenge, and find yourself getting one early then running away with the game late, the trick is to find a difficulty setting where you can barely survive early. Then, your late game surge makes you competitive, not the clear winner.

 

[Matty R]

I despise Rubberband AI in racing games. It was annoying in Need For Speed : Underground but completely ruined Need For Speed : Most Wanted, in my opinion.

But in a Civilization game? If it was just to keep them competitive and not to simply ensure a close finish I think it could be a good thing.

The worst civ could get bonuses to improve itself and possibly stop it being destroyed easily, but it would still be the worst civ. As long as the Rubberband AI wouldn't let it quickly get better and overwhelm civs that don't have the AI active, I think it could be quite interesting, and certainly keep more civs in play for longer, which is what I try to do anyway.

 

[Theoden]

This is already implemented in the game to a certain degree. For example, there is a research bonus depending on how many other civs already have the tech that the player/the AI is researching, meaning that civs completely behind in the tech race actually get a notable discount.
The best way to create the rubberband effect would be to increase these bonuses and introduce more of them. Exactly how much and how many is a matter of taste and I don't think it's impossible that someone could make a mod with an option in the game setup screen where you could choose to which extent the rubberband effect should be present.

 

[jackdog]

I agree the laet game can be boring as you know by a certain stage often decades or more before the end that you have won. I agree that if this is the case then its time for a level jump and wouldn't like a rubberband exercise at all, with all the variants available like fast start and set victory conditions tech trading etc you can set it up to challange you more if you want.

The mian problem is trading boredom at one level like I have at prince now fairly regularly, with frustration like I had last time I tried Monarch!

 

[The_Reckoning]

I think there should be a "We do not feel threatened by you." relations boost toward Civs with far lower points.

Also, late-game barbarians would be amusing. Strength 18 'rebel gunmen' and such.

 

[Diamondeye]

I'd hate that feature with a good heart, if I'm techleader and winning and Shaka is a primitive fool, whose fault is it?
And whose fault is it when he only has axes and archers to protect against my musketmen?


Nope. I am against rubberbanding, sorry to say

 

[BeyondCivilized]

I'd hate that feature with a good heart, if I'm techleader and winning and Shaka is a primitive fool, whose fault is it?
And whose fault is it when he only has axes and archers to protect against my musketmen?


Nope. I am against rubberbanding, sorry to say

Isolotardation is what I call it.

 

[bonafide11]

Giving leaders who are struggling a small bonus would make granting independence to colonies a whole lot more useful.

 

[SlightlyMad]

I think this could be implemented in a pretty fair and interesting way with the event code. Basically, just add a bunch of really nice events with a prerequisite of being x% below the leading civ in score.

 

[Powerslave]

Personally, I might lead toward giving the score leaders less positive events, and the guys at the bottom less negative events. This way, nobody actually gets more positive events -- just less negative events. It seems a bit more "fair" to me.

You could certainly code up a bunch of "you hit the jackpot" events, so that bottom-feeders have a slight chance to bounce back. If you wanted, you could even make them AI-only, I suppose. That'd keep the game a bit more competitive for runaway players, yet frustratingly difficult for newer players trying their first game at Noble.

I'll think about this and maybe add a few events like this to my own events compilation mod. I'm not sold on the idea, but it would be interesting to test it out and see what happens.

 

[SlightlyMad]

Actually, what if you made quests available only to the bottom civs, and increased their probability? That means the "rubberbanding" would still have to be earned, and not a free ride.

 

[Delan]

I'm in the NO to rubberbanding camp. If I've won, then that's it. But I agree that when a win is inevitable the game can get a bit boring waiting it out. I'm not sure if some sort of check can be coded so that the game will "know" that your win going to happen no matter what and go ahead and end the game if you so request.

What would be better, IMO, is smarter AI that sees that you're winning and does whatever it can to try and stop you. For example, all the AIs could gang up on you and send spies to sabotage spaceship parts and slow you down until they catch up. Or maybe they could all declare war at the same time. I play a lot of face-to-face boardgames with multiple players, and woe be to any early leader or someone who's on the fast track to a win. They rarely get there .

 

[grommit5]

i wouls have to say BAD IDEA. IMO

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I have a far better solution that would be easy to implement and much more balanced (IMO).

Let the player change the difficulty level as the game progresses. Maybe this change should be recorded and easy to lock out for HOF type games, but why not?

Generally I find it fairly balanced on the level I play on at the moment - it challenges me right up to the modern era. But there are games where you have an awful start but you've invested time in the game - why not drop the difficulty level a notch and continue? Or games where the start is awesome, but the challenge is disappearing in the late game - why not ramp the AIs up to Diety and continue?

On of my favourite games (System Shock 2) had this capability - it was great. I don't think it would be too unbalancing - in fact it would be like rebalancing a game.

I'd prefer something under the players control to automatic rubber banding.