What do you expect from the AI in Civ 4
- Thread starter eaglefox
- Start date
wit>trope
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,871
I don't mind that all the programmers are white (if that's true). White people make good programs. It's not like white people make bad programs or that something critical is left out of a game due to non-inclusion of non-white people. There's no fundamental inherent capability present in non-white people that is not present in white people.
But not having women could be a potential problem, especially for women gamers. Having women on the team may be necessary to be able to appeal to women gamers. Also, it could be a problem for some male gamers too if the male gamers do not conform to a stereotypical model of what a man should be ... for example some men may actually like "chick flicks" and the programmers might think that all men are the same in not liking "chick flicks" etc.
OTOH, having programmers from different non-white CULTURES may be valuable since they may have more of a perspective on some things and be able to bring different new ideas.
But not having women could be a potential problem, especially for women gamers. Having women on the team may be necessary to be able to appeal to women gamers. Also, it could be a problem for some male gamers too if the male gamers do not conform to a stereotypical model of what a man should be ... for example some men may actually like "chick flicks" and the programmers might think that all men are the same in not liking "chick flicks" etc.
OTOH, having programmers from different non-white CULTURES may be valuable since they may have more of a perspective on some things and be able to bring different new ideas.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
cierdan said:
Actually, it's not the programmers that matter that much. It's the designers. They are the ones that decide what is going into the game and how it works, not the programmers. Now, to muddy the waters, at Firaxis the top designers are mostly also programmers, but that is not the case at every game company.
eaglefox
Chhatrapati
So, a few months after the release of Civ 4, what do you guys have to say about the AI? Has it performed to your expectation? Is it better at warfare and diplomacy. Personally, I love diplomatic actions over total war, like Bismarck, so to me a good strategy game needs good politics.
The Great Apple
Big Cheese
The artificial intelligence - the computer opponents.JWSTOCK82 said:
eaglefox
Chhatrapati
Of course its the comp. What else could it be.JWSTOCK82 said:
eaglefox
Chhatrapati
has the ai lived up to your expectation? or is it still too easy to be beat? does it seem to make intelligent moves, or just the same old worn out ones?
salty mud
Deity
Zombie69 said:
I'd say that was harsh. I have the contrary to some peoples problems - getting war declared on them for no reason - I hardly ever get declared for war.
eaglefox
Chhatrapati
i still hear stories of AI declaring war on countries that are out of reach for its troops. i think the ai should be made smart enough to atleast understand that in the early stages of the game when your navy is not advanced enough to transport your troops to the other side of the world, just focus your foreign policies on your immediate neighbours. Just like European nations first concertrated only on Europe and later switched their attention to other continents as new and improved ships were designed. this would make the game a lot faster and a lot more believable. moreover, ai should focus their strategy on long term survival. at present, i think they only focus on short term goals, and are therefore much more willing to get into a war. I was very much hoping that Sid and team would implement the quantization of resources and even population. right now, wars can last as long as a civ has cities remaining. they don't consider the population factor at all. not every person in your country is capable of fighting. plus some people are required and skilled to do other tasks, like sword smithing etc. so every civ should have a certain number of people available to fight. this would depend upon the land and food available, the culture of the nation, the tech level, the time frame etc. shortages of men to fight have been major problems in a lot of wars. quantization of resources also works the same way, and prevents a single iron mine, or oil field from supplying the whole nation. i personally don't care much about graphics. lets face it, after a few games, no one really cares anyways. i stopped caring about civ 3 graphical changes in my third or fourth civ 3 game. but a realistic approach to resource management can go a long way in improving gameplay.
King Flevance
Deity
Man I keep seeing really old threads brought back to life lately. But anyways:
I agree. From what I have been seeing though concerning different issues on discussions about the AI modding abilities, it seems it is more realistic to maybe get a 7-8 out of it. I definatley have strong faith in the modding communityto get it going as good as they possibly can but it seems some things are hard to get the AI to be able to handle. Mostly in concerns to where to place their units, I think.
From what I can gather the ability to control AI actions beyond city placement and terrain improvement is rather vague and generalized by the coding. In any case, I am anxious to see what the results end up as after the modders toy with it a bit.
Side Note: This is something I recently mentioned and had not seen any news of it before. I think in 1.61 they removed the negative "-X You signed a defensive pact against us" modifier out. Which was a step in the right direction. I saw times where AIs had like 4-6 pacts signed which is impossible for a human with all the negatives we have to take if we don't just hand over everything to anyone who asks. Just thought I would mention it.
Zombie69 said:
I agree. From what I have been seeing though concerning different issues on discussions about the AI modding abilities, it seems it is more realistic to maybe get a 7-8 out of it. I definatley have strong faith in the modding communityto get it going as good as they possibly can but it seems some things are hard to get the AI to be able to handle. Mostly in concerns to where to place their units, I think.
From what I can gather the ability to control AI actions beyond city placement and terrain improvement is rather vague and generalized by the coding. In any case, I am anxious to see what the results end up as after the modders toy with it a bit.
Side Note: This is something I recently mentioned and had not seen any news of it before. I think in 1.61 they removed the negative "-X You signed a defensive pact against us" modifier out. Which was a step in the right direction. I saw times where AIs had like 4-6 pacts signed which is impossible for a human with all the negatives we have to take if we don't just hand over everything to anyone who asks. Just thought I would mention it.
eaglefox
Chhatrapati
The concept of vassal states seems to be interesting. If we look back a bit to Civ 3 conquests and the locked alliances concept, things used to get wierd when members of a locked alliance used to get into a war with each other. do you think vassal states idea will have such a flaw in it. or will the firaxis team ask and answer all the questions before releasing it?
