Streamers debating the new AGES in Civ 7!

[Arcaian]

That's not a decision to help the feeling of fitting history at all as last time I checked and the Spanish with knights had conquered an Aztec civilization that didn't even know Iron working.

It's actually not true that the Spanish used their advanced knights as a military force to conquer the Aztec civilization through technological superiority. There were several times soon after the expedition landed where the conquistadors absolutely would've been wiped out if an armed conflict had happened, but there was significant internal conflict in the area controlled by the Triple Alliance, and hostility towards the Triple Alliance from neighbours. In the decisive battle in the fall of the Triple Alliance, the Spanish numbered about 1,000 men to the Triple Alliance's 80,000; their dozen cannons and firearms and metal armour would've made absolutely no difference in that fight (and there are quite a lot of reported incidences of the metal armour being replaced with the traditional armours of the region because they were highly effective, and also of Spaniards dying specifically because of their trying to use metal armour). In fact, they lost most of their cannons and firearms early on in the conflict with the Triple Alliance and the forces of the Triple Alliance used them against the Spanish. The technological differences between the Spanish and the Triple Alliance played at best an extremely minor role in the battle; the difference was that the Spanish had 200,000 indigenous allies fighting in the battle alongside them. Routinely you read about aspects of the battle where the Spanish write about how 'they' won a key skirmish when it was 100-200 Spaniards and 10,000+ indigenous allies. This is true for a remarkably large amount of the initial conquests during western colonization - alliances with enemies and rebellious elements proved far more important than whether only one side had discovered iron working.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The late game in Civ is definitely bad due to the game design, not the AI. Good or bad AI doesn’t make micromanaging all those systems and doing hundreds of clicks per turn any more fun.

Late game micromanagement being tedious (something allieviate with automation and streamlining of mechanics) and Civilizations (including the player) running away with the game are two completely seperate issues.

Splitting the game into three seperate rounds and introducing civilization swapping does not nessecarily address the tedium of micromanaging too many units.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's actually not true that the Spanish used their advanced knights as a military force to conquer the Aztec civilization through technological superiority. There were several times soon after the expedition landed where the conquistadors absolutely would've been wiped out if an armed conflict had happened, but there was significant internal conflict in the area controlled by the Triple Alliance, and hostility towards the Triple Alliance from neighbours. In the decisive battle in the fall of the Triple Alliance, the Spanish numbered about 1,000 men to the Triple Alliance's 80,000; their dozen cannons and firearms and metal armour would've made absolutely no difference in that fight (and there are quite a lot of reported incidences of the metal armour being replaced with the traditional armours of the region because they were highly effective, and also of Spaniards dying specifically because of their trying to use metal armour). In fact, they lost most of their cannons and firearms early on in the conflict with the Triple Alliance and the forces of the Triple Alliance used them against the Spanish. The technological differences between the Spanish and the Triple Alliance played at best an extremely minor role in the battle; the difference was that the Spanish had 200,000 indigenous allies fighting in the battle alongside them. Routinely you read about aspects of the battle where the Spanish write about how 'they' won a key skirmish when it was 100-200 Spaniards and 10,000+ indigenous allies. This is true for a remarkably large amount of the initial conquests during western colonization - alliances with enemies and rebellious elements proved far more important than whether only one side had discovered iron working.

I'm very well aware that in reality the Spanish conquest of Mexico was only possible because the Spanish had tens of thousands of indigenious allies, don't worry I understand the history of the conquest of Mexico very well. Bernal Diaz' account was one of my favorite reads in university.

I was making a point about the Civilization series and abstraction of history presented in the game, not making a definitive statement about a historical event or trying to imply that Cortez singlehandedly toppled an empire of millions. Civilization game will never accurately model something as complex as the fall of the Aztec empire.

 

[pokiehl]

Late game micromanagement being tedious (something allieviate with automation and streamlining of mechanics) and Civilizations (including the player) running away with the game are two completely seperate issues.

A civ snowballing and running away with the same is a game system issue though.

 

[TheGrayFox]

A civ snowballing and running away with the same is a game system issue though.

no, its a balance and AI issue

 

[pokiehl]

no, its a balance and AI issue

It’s definitely not an AI issue. Snowballing occurs between strictly human players as well. I’d argue “balance” falls under game systems design.

Ultimately, the devs said in these recent interviews that they didn’t want to keep making the same game and keep being predictable. They thought these design choices could address long-standing problems and also create a fresh new approach. I applaud the bravery to make a bold decision like that, especially in an industry where lazy sequel cash grabs rule the day.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It’s definitely not an AI issue. Snowballing occurs between strictly human players as well. I’d argue “balance” falls under game systems design.

Ultimately, the devs said in these recent interviews that they didn’t want to keep making the same game and keep being predictable. They thought these design choices could address long-standing problems and also create a fresh new approach. I applaud the bravery to make a bold decision like that, especially in an industry where lazy sequel cash grabs rule the day.

Snowballing does occur between human players as well, the problem is balance. it is not strictly an AI issue but the AI is particularly terrible at handling snowballing Yeah sure balance can fall under game design systems but that doesn't mean that balance has to be addressed in such heavy handed way.

It's great that Ed Beach and his team don't want to make the same exact game but does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?

 

[pokiehl]

It's great that Ed Beach and his team don't want to make the same exact game but does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath water?

I think there’s a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes the “baby” here in your view vs others’ opinions.

Seems like most folks are excited and interested in how the game is shaping up. Totally OK if you aren’t though. The other Civ games still exist, there are competitors, etc.

 

[ombak]

I think there’s a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes the “baby” here in your view vs others’ opinions.

Seems like most folks are excited and interested in how the game is shaping up. Totally OK if you aren’t though. The other Civ games still exist, there are competitors, etc.

I was going to make a funny comment about throwing out the baby, and oh well, some people think some babies are ugly, so...

... but it didn't quite come together. At any rate, this is what it comes down to. They made very clear in at least one of the three interviews they knew going in how big the changes were. They also felt they could make big changes and still feel like Civ.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Was or is late game boredom not down to a genuinely bad AI?

I think late-game boredom (in single player games) does stem in large part from the AI.

But I think that developing an AI that could compete into and through the late ages is a tall order. It took a while to develop competitive chess AI and that game has 64 squares, 32 pieces, and rules for movement and combat that are simple in the extreme. When one thinks how advanced an AI the developers would have to build in order to effectively manage the exponentially greater complexities in a game in the civ franchise, you realize how difficult, probably impossible, that task is.

And then there are these two further thoughts. First, you would be building that AI for a game that has a decade-long shelf life at best (vs chess which has been around forever and will be around forever). And second, you would have to build that super-smart AI adequate to compete at deity level, for a relatively small number of your most elite players, and then immediately go dumb it down for all other levels of difficulty. (I myself would find that latter task heartbreaking.)

So (single player) Civ games give the illusion of competition rather than competition itself.

I actually probably agree with you more than I disagree, for however what I have just said might appear. When I fantasize myself as the lead designer for a new Civ, my very first meetings would be brainstorming sessions with the following question: how can we make X subsystem something that computers handle well rather than poorly? What computers do well is grind numerical information. So, for example, make units combine their capacities in various complex ways (if you are adjacent to a spearman, you get plus +1 in this capacity; if adjacent to a chariot, +1 in this other capacity.) And make combat results arise from super-complex combining considerations like that. Make the game's economics depend on super-precise calibrations of the price your civ puts on a commodity, with significant disadvantages for either overpricing or underpricing and make the computer good at calculating what that optimal price would be, so it's always thriving economically. Make tile development such that the optimal development of a city's tiles somehow involves the tiles as an interrelated group, rather than just an aggregate.

I would do all of that, however, knowing that min-maxing players would figure out those same mathematically complex formulas for optimal success, maybe even write computer programs to help them calculate it, and then share those AI-busting strategies on some website somewhere and it would all pretty much be for naught.