Will Civ ever conquer its late-game malaise?

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It's exactly what he said. Unless you assume "no holds barred victory at all costs strategy" to imply breaking the game rules/cheating, the assertion is literally saying he wants the AI to not play competently but to play competently.

It's not at all what he said. He made a clear distinction between "no-holds-barred victory-at-all cost strategies" and "playing competently". Further, in both his original post and his follow up post, he explained what he meant by those terms and why he believes the AI should be programmed to avoid the former while pursuing the latter. There was nothing inconsistent in his assertions and they were useful contributions to the discussion of how the AI should behave.

You may have a different view of what types of behaviour the AI should exhibit and what it should not, but re-characterizing his words to suggest they mean something other than the meaning he rather clearly conveyed isn't helpful.

 

[Zaarin]

It's exactly what he said. Unless you assume "no holds barred victory at all costs strategy" to imply breaking the game rules/cheating, the assertion is literally saying he wants the AI to not play competently but to play competently.

That's literally not what I said, unless you accept "playing to win" and "playing competently" to be the same, which I do not. The truth is that you can play the game very well--perhaps not "optimally," whatever that means--but well without single-mindedly pursuing a victory condition.

 

[Leathaface]

Ever since moving up to Immortal difficulty, i've found late game to be exciting since the AI is building spaceparts right alongside me, I have to use spies to destroy their Spaceports. Though if a World Congress type system was introduced to Civ VI, that'd definitely spice up late game.

 

[Ferocitus]

not everyone, no, but enough people since enough iteration of the game to make the question relevant.


that's the human's player objective. And not even everyone of them, I've never ever played any game of Civ to achieve one of the defined victory conditions, I've always played to stand the test of time, nothing else.

The goal of an AI in a game is to allows the human players to play an interesting game. That means it should be able to win of course, because challenge is one of the things that will make the game interesting, but it also means that it may have to be specifically programmed to not use frustrating mechanisms against the humans players. And I'm not even talking about role playing here, just "playing".

In short the AI is programmed* to play civ6 against humans players, not to play civ6 against itself.


*edit : "should be programmed", because IMO it fails at that too.

The question, as posed, presupposes that there is a problem without considering
the many ways to play Civ, or player expectations, or the time spent on playing
the game. Written in the style of a header for an article in a cheap games
"magazine", it assumes that there is a "malaise".

If some players exhaust the replayability of the game, because it is boring or
too predictable for them personally, then the real issue is how long it took to
reach that state.

It will take complete novices many, probably dozens of hours to learn Civ's
intricacies; to get to a level of competence where they recognise certain
patterns in the late game, is going to take dozens more. Just completing one
complete cycle of civilizations, game speeds (that suit) and maps will take
dozens of hours more. If they don't like the game after a few attempts, then
that's just tough luck for them - Civ isn't ever going to suit all possible
players.

Experienced players, who are the most likely ones to find problems with some
stages or aspects of the game, know that there are mods available to tailor
the game to better suit their style and preference. They are also the same
players who would have known what to expect from their experience with previous
Civ releases, and how long it took Firaxis to get them to a high standard.

Firaxis deserve strong criticism for many aspects of Civ, but not providing a
game that's value for money for the vast majority of players isn't one of them.
They didn't promise a game that is replayable with the same level of enjoyment
for infinite repetitions. Mods go a long way to extending the life of the game
and making it enjoyable for longer (for many people). That's one reason they are
a feature of Civ. I agree they are well behind "schedule" (if that's the right
term) to make good on their promise of better modding tools. If players don't
want to avail themselves of the many mods available now then that's just their
bad luck, and maybe it's time for them to move onto some other game. There are
plenty of other games around to find fault with. ;P

That's literally not what I said, unless you accept "playing to win" and "playing competently" to be the same, which I do not. The truth is that you can play the game very well--perhaps not "optimally," whatever that means--but well without single-mindedly pursuing a victory condition.

And there's just oldtimer "bumbling".
At marathon pace against 25-30 civs on ludicrous-size maps I often get
distracted by a series of events (sometimes fortunate, othertimes more Lemony
Snickett flavoured) requiring immediate attention. Those events and
interventions can then create other distractions all over the map and before
long (e.g 200 turns) I forget what the hell I'm supposed to be doing.
Kids - you can't do drugs and always competently run a world-wide empire!

 

[Gedemon]

The question, as posed, presupposes that there is a problem without considering
the many ways to play Civ, or player expectations, or the time spent on playing
the game. Written in the style of a header for an article in a cheap games
"magazine", it assumes that there is a "malaise".

If some players exhaust the replayability of the game, because it is boring or
too predictable for them personally, then the real issue is how long it took to
reach that state.

It will take complete novices many, probably dozens of hours to learn Civ's
intricacies; to get to a level of competence where they recognise certain
patterns in the late game, is going to take dozens more. Just completing one
complete cycle of civilizations, game speeds (that suit) and maps will take
dozens of hours more. If they don't like the game after a few attempts, then
that's just tough luck for them - Civ isn't ever going to suit all possible
players.

Experienced players, who are the most likely ones to find problems with some
stages or aspects of the game, know that there are mods available to tailor
the game to better suit their style and preference. They are also the same
players who would have known what to expect from their experience with previous
Civ releases, and how long it took Firaxis to get them to a high standard.

Firaxis deserve strong criticism for many aspects of Civ, but not providing a
game that's value for money for the vast majority of players isn't one of them.
They didn't promise a game that is replayable with the same level of enjoyment
for infinite repetitions. Mods go a long way to extending the life of the game
and making it enjoyable for longer (for many people). That's one reason they are
a feature of Civ. I agree they are well behind "schedule" (if that's the right
term) to make good on their promise of better modding tools. If players don't
want to avail themselves of the many mods available now then that's just their
bad luck, and maybe it's time for them to move onto some other game. There are
plenty of other games around to find fault with. ;P

I've read the OP again, and I've not found any mention of a lack of replayability in Civilization.

But the difference between the early and late game and people not finishing a game but starting a new one instead is a recurrent subject here and on other Civilization forum/sites.

And it seems even Firaxis/2K testers, Q/A and developpers are doing the same, because if they had played some late games during their development, civ5 and civ6 would have been released at least with an AI knowing how to use air units.

 

[Ferocitus]

I've read the OP again, and I've not found any mention of a lack of replayability in Civilization.

But the difference between the early and late game and people not finishing a game but starting a new one instead is a recurrent subject here and on other Civilization forum/sites.

And it seems even Firaxis/2K testers, Q/A and developpers are doing the same, because if they had played some late games during their development, civ5 and civ6 would have been released at least with an AI knowing how to use air units.

Enjoyable replayability and sticking out the game to the end go hand-in-hand
with the claimed late game "malaise".

I think Firaxis are behind schedule on many aspects of the game.
It's a clever move to not optimise early (a "sin" in Knuth's estimation!) so I
can't blame them for that. Investing enormous amounts on AI routines that would
have to be rewritten, with many having to be re-tested from scratch, would be a
ludicrous waste of time and effort.

AI control of air units would be way down their "TODO" list when there are other
more pressing priorities. And, yes, that includes bringing in $$$'s first. If
they didn't give that financial aspect of the game development attention it
would take longer (IMO) to get to a similar state Civ 5 ended up at.

I can understand why some people are unhappy with how long it has taken. I
expected it would take 2 years to get to where Civ 5 ended up. Fortunately,
it started off way better than the rubbish they released with Civ 5 and I've
enjoyed my games immensely because of your mod. I think the "standard" game is
mediocre crap at best, so don't think I'm defending everything Firaxis do.

Another guess is that the YEILD bug and some others have thrown them further off
schedule. They tweaked and twerked, here and there, for the last few months,
but now that all has to be re-assessed and re-tested. No excuses there - that's
their own fault.

(I can just imagine someone trying that old line, beloved by many CEO's and
politicians at press grillings: "I don't think now is the time to apportion
blame.")

 

[shaglio]

I DO think that the AI should try to actively achieve a victory condition, but not in a no-holds-barred sort of way. If an AI is trying for, say, a Cultural victory, but the human player (or another AI) looks like they're going to win their victory condition first, I think the AI should double down on its efforts and try to beat the human player (or other AI) to its victory. I think the AI shouldn't drop everything and immediately declare war on the leader to try to prevent them from winning.

If you're in an auto race heading down the home stretch and it looks like the car next to you is starting to pull ahead, what do you do? Do you put the peddle to the metal and try to beat them to the finish line? Or do you cut the wheel and slam the car up into the wall so they don't win (and consequently prevent yourself from winning as well)?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

that's the human's player objective. And not even everyone of them, I've never ever played any game of Civ to achieve one of the defined victory conditions, I've always played to stand the test of time, nothing else.

It's the game-defined objective.

Saying "I've never played this way" is logically equivalent to claiming moving pieces on a chessboard randomly and not caring about the stated objective (checkmating opponent's king). Nothing stops you from "playing chess" that way, but it doesn't change the reality of what the objective in chess is. Replace "chess" with "go", "Mario Kart", "Smash Brothers", or any game with opponents with same/similar rules and win conditions and you have the same conclusion.

You can claim constantly ramming a wall in Mario Kart is fun. That might even be true for some percentage of players. However it's not a convincing case that the AI should constantly drive into the wall, just as "players that don't try" in Civ 6 is not a functional argument that the AI should also not play Civ 6.

The goal of an AI in a game is to allows the human players to play an interesting game. That means it should be able to win of course, because challenge is one of the things that will make the game interesting, but it also means that it may have to be specifically programmed to not use frustrating mechanisms against the humans players. And I'm not even talking about role playing here, just "playing".

"Frustrating mechanics"? What's frustrating is that devs take this cop-out path. Rather than make the game sound, they make the AI not play the game. I'm arguing they should make the game sound. If a mechanic is "frustrating", it's not the AI that needs to be fixed. It's the mechanic.

It's not at all what he said. He made a clear distinction between "no-holds-barred victory-at-all cost strategies" and "playing competently"

That's literally not what I said, unless you accept "playing to win" and "playing competently" to be the same, which I do not.

There's the problem.

"Playing to win" is not "never make mistakes". However, if you are deliberately making choices you know are not conducive to victory, you are not playing "competently" in the framework of that game. Playing something other than Civ 6 is antithetical to playing Civ 6 competently, at least if we're all holding to standard English definitions.

In essence, I'm rejecting that "not trying" and "competent" are a viable combination. Throwing a game at the strategic level is not "playing well". It's playing pretend.

I DO think that the AI should try to actively achieve a victory condition, but not in a no-holds-barred sort of way. If an AI is trying for, say, a Cultural victory, but the human player (or another AI) looks like they're going to win their victory condition first, I think the AI should double down on its efforts and try to beat the human player (or other AI) to its victory. I think the AI shouldn't drop everything and immediately declare war on the leader to try to prevent them from winning.

This is a non-obvious strategic consideration. Nobody is saying the AI is perfect.

If we hold nation A is pursuing culture, nation A has cut its military resources. They're now a threat to win, but nation B is likely to win first. What nation A needs to determine is whether victory is more likely by hoping someone else intercepts B and therefore doubles down on culture, or if it has a reasonable chance of actually intercepting B's condition without jeopardizing its own.

In this scenario, depending on the estimated probabilities, both "attack" and "push culture hard ASAP" could be reasonably construed as trying to win or throwing. The AI doesn't need to be perfect at this. Players aren't. However it should be making that estimate based on some criteria and acting accordingly.

Another way of looking at it is that you "dogpile the runaway", not "dogpile the slight leader". The latter does not optimize winrate for the nation selecting the strategy. Not for AI, not for humans.

Take your auto race example. Let's say you absolutely die for sure no matter what if you don't get 1st. This is an awful scenario, but if you are more likely to cross the line first/not die by intentionally hitting the other car, it's still the best option...unless you estimate it lowers your still-dismal odds of finishing first. In the latter case you just slam the gas and hope for the best.

 

[Zaarin]

There's the problem.

"Playing to win" is not "never make mistakes". However, if you are deliberately making choices you know are not conducive to victory, you are not playing "competently" in the framework of that game. Playing something other than Civ 6 is antithetical to playing Civ 6 competently, at least if we're all holding to standard English definitions.

In essence, I'm rejecting that "not trying" and "competent" are a viable combination. Throwing a game at the strategic level is not "playing well". It's playing pretend.

But again, that's not what I'm saying. The point isn't that the AI shouldn't be "trying to win"; the point is that the AI shouldn't be stabbing you in the back because you happen to be winning, in its estimation. The AI can be effective without engaging in the sort of metagame ruthlessness you'd expect from a human opponent in multiplayer (and which is among many reasons I don't play multiplayer).

 

[Gedemon]

It's the game-defined objective.

Saying "I've never played this way" is logically equivalent to claiming moving pieces on a chessboard randomly and not caring about the stated objective (checkmating opponent's king). Nothing stops you from "playing chess" that way, but it doesn't change the reality of what the objective in chess is. Replace "chess" with "go", "Mario Kart", "Smash Brothers", or any game with opponents with same/similar rules and win conditions and you have the same conclusion.

You can claim constantly ramming a wall in Mario Kart is fun. That might even be true for some percentage of players. However it's not a convincing case that the AI should constantly drive into the wall, just as "players that don't try" in Civ 6 is not a functional argument that the AI should also not play Civ 6.

your argument is invalid, this is a possible "game-defined objective":

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

"Playing to win" is not "never make mistakes". However, if you are deliberately making choices you know are not conducive to victory, you are not playing "competently" in the framework of that game. Playing something other than Civ 6 is antithetical to playing Civ 6 competently, at least if we're all holding to standard English definitions.

Words take their meaning from the context in which they're used. Pretending that his meaning adhered to the definition you're applying rather than the meaning he clearly and legitimately conveyed is disingenuous. It's also preposterous for you to suggest that yours is the "standard English definition" when the word conveys a variety of connotations and denotations, again, depending on the context in which it's used.

Moreover, the gist of his post was not an assertion on what the word "competent" means in the context of the Civ 6 AI. That's a rabbit hole you're running down. His assertions related to what behaviours the AI in Civ 6 should exhibit and what behaviours they should not exhibit.

On that point, to suggest that all AI actions should be directed exclusively towards maximizing the chance that the AI wins is inconsistent with elements of the core game design. The agenda system narrowly, and the relationship system more generally, are designed to provide some measure of control to the human player over their relationship with each AI Civ, rather than having those relationships be based exclusively on the AI's assessment of what relationship would maximize it's odds of winning.

 

[Chibisuke]

I think this whole conversation totally touches on what I was saying earlier. There seems to be two schools of thought with Civ.

School 1: Player wants Civ to be a fun game above all else, with fun being defined as the game creating a puzzle-like environment that the player must learn to master and control.

School 2: Player wants Civ to be a challenging game above all else, i.e. the AI should do whatever it takes to win, and thus frustrate the player's attempts to master and control the game by any means necessary.

As some have mentioned, School 2 does seem more in line with multilayer play, since a human player may have one objective, win, and are more capable of improvising on the fly in that cutthroat manner. AI needs varied objectives tho. Otherwise they might as well just carbon copy the same AI player for each civ.

Thus, it just doesn't make sense for AI to be "win at all costs." They should focus on their objective. Often times that does result in them declaring war on you, but it is not some knee jerk "all AI leaders use their telepathic abilities to know exactly when human player is getting close to victory and all declare war on you at once and lay waste to the planet."

 

[agonistes]

It's the game-defined objective.

Saying "I've never played this way" is logically equivalent to claiming moving pieces on a chessboard randomly and not caring about the stated objective (checkmating opponent's king). Nothing stops you from "playing chess" that way, but it doesn't change the reality of what the objective in chess is. Replace "chess" with "go", "Mario Kart", "Smash Brothers", or any game with opponents with same/similar rules and win conditions and you have the same conclusion.

You can claim constantly ramming a wall in Mario Kart is fun. That might even be true for some percentage of players. However it's not a convincing case that the AI should constantly drive into the wall, just as "players that don't try" in Civ 6 is not a functional argument that the AI should also not play Civ 6.



"Frustrating mechanics"? What's frustrating is that devs take this cop-out path. Rather than make the game sound, they make the AI not play the game. I'm arguing they should make the game sound. If a mechanic is "frustrating", it's not the AI that needs to be fixed. It's the mechanic.





There's the problem.

"Playing to win" is not "never make mistakes". However, if you are deliberately making choices you know are not conducive to victory, you are not playing "competently" in the framework of that game. Playing something other than Civ 6 is antithetical to playing Civ 6 competently, at least if we're all holding to standard English definitions.

In essence, I'm rejecting that "not trying" and "competent" are a viable combination. Throwing a game at the strategic level is not "playing well". It's playing pretend.



This is a non-obvious strategic consideration. Nobody is saying the AI is perfect.

If we hold nation A is pursuing culture, nation A has cut its military resources. They're now a threat to win, but nation B is likely to win first. What nation A needs to determine is whether victory is more likely by hoping someone else intercepts B and therefore doubles down on culture, or if it has a reasonable chance of actually intercepting B's condition without jeopardizing its own.

In this scenario, depending on the estimated probabilities, both "attack" and "push culture hard ASAP" could be reasonably construed as trying to win or throwing. The AI doesn't need to be perfect at this. Players aren't. However it should be making that estimate based on some criteria and acting accordingly.

Another way of looking at it is that you "dogpile the runaway", not "dogpile the slight leader". The latter does not optimize winrate for the nation selecting the strategy. Not for AI, not for humans.

Take your auto race example. Let's say you absolutely die for sure no matter what if you don't get 1st. This is an awful scenario, but if you are more likely to cross the line first/not die by intentionally hitting the other car, it's still the best option...unless you estimate it lowers your still-dismal odds of finishing first. In the latter case you just slam the gas and hope for the best.

For quite awhile now, the option exists to turn off all victory conditions. All of them. It is part of the game.

To many, civ is not linear. Its a medium. The devs were correct to try and construct an ai that allows for more sandboxing. That is part of the core charm of civ.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But again, that's not what I'm saying. The point isn't that the AI shouldn't be "trying to win"; the point is that the AI shouldn't be stabbing you in the back because you happen to be winning, in its estimation. The AI can be effective without engaging in the sort of metagame ruthlessness you'd expect from a human opponent in multiplayer (and which is among many reasons I don't play multiplayer).

If the AI estimates you will win, then doesn't intervene and chooses to avoid stabbing you in the back, it is throwing.

That does not meet the standards of the word "competent". Competence and doing poorly on purpose are different concepts.

your argument is invalid, this is a possible "game-defined objective":

??? I'm arguing that the AI should try to win based on the defined victory conditions. If you literally remove all of the victory conditions, only a bugged slop of spaghetti code AI would estimate that you're a threat to win and go for a backstab. Considering that you can't possibly win with those settings, why would we be discussing the AI backstabbing a "winner" with them active? That's is a red herring at best.

Granted, I wouldn't put that past Firaxis to make an AI think the player is near an impossible win condition, but it SHOULDN'T happen.

For quite awhile now, the option exists to turn off all victory conditions. All of them. It is part of the game.

To many, civ is not linear. Its a medium. The devs were correct to try and construct an ai that allows for more sandboxing. That is part of the core charm of civ.

The thing I argued against (and that started this line of discussion) is the irrational, self-inconsistent statement that the "AI attacking you because you're winning is gamey". The assertion that "player is winning" is strictly dependent on there actually being a win condition. If there isn't a win condition, the AI can't "attack you because you're winning" unless it's bugged.

This seems a rather silly thing to bring up and is completely avoiding my argument (and the surrounding discussion over the last two pages) rather than refuting it. AI making an estimation akin to what I mentioned already in earlier posts would have to be broken to estimate someone is close to winning when winning isn't possible.

 

[agonistes]

The thing I argued against (and that started this line of discussion) is the irrational, self-inconsistent statement that the "AI attacking you because you're winning is gamey". The assertion that "player is winning" is strictly dependent on there actually being a win condition. If there isn't a win condition, the AI can't "attack you because you're winning" unless it's bugged.

This seems a rather silly thing to bring up and is completely avoiding my argument (and the surrounding discussion over the last two pages) rather than refuting it. AI making an estimation akin to what I mentioned already in earlier posts would have to be broken to estimate someone is close to winning when winning isn't possible.

Well, let's see if I can break it down a little more so it doesn't seem as silly to you.

The existence of the option to not play with victory conditions indicates the game is designed to allow an individual game to be more sandboxy/ less linear.

That has been a feature of the game for long enough it is fair to consider it a core part of the series.

Since it is a core part of the series, and indicates the game can be played in a less linear manner, it is more likely than not that the game series is intended to be able to be played in a less linear fashion.

Since the game has the option to be less linear, and many people enjoy that aspect of that game, playing it in a non-linear way is 'properly' playing the game, just as much as playing it in a linear way is.

Leaving one or more victory conditions on does not alter what is the 'proper' way to play (referencing your chess analogy). Regardless of what victory conditions you choose, or how many.

From the context of playing in a non-linear way, it is fair to say that the ai dowing on you just because you are winning is indeed 'gamey.' By definition.

It also seems to fly in the face of some of the core mechanics of the franchise, such as diplomacy. You are close to winning, and suddenly there is a rules change. This is 'gamey.' Whether that be good or bad.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in making the connection between my previous post and the prior pages of discussion. In my defense, I thought it (the connection) was kind of obvious. And I wasn't interested in making a long post on the topic.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Part of the issue is stuff just takes too long to build. Having it return a profit is even worse. Except in production heavy cities, stuff like late game units and research labs have huge costs. A couple of units or power plants costs the same as wonders like Ruhr Valley.

They should look into reducing the cost of that. I also think they should just get rid of district scaling altogether.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Leaving one or more victory conditions on does not alter what is the 'proper' way to play (referencing your chess analogy). Regardless of what victory conditions you choose, or how many.

Actually, it does and this is central to my point. If the pre-game goal of Chess were altered to be "first player to capture all of his opponent's pawns" and checkmate stopped being a win condition, pursuing checkmate would be degenerate junk for an AI, a clear example of game throwing by playing a different game rather than "pawns chess".

When you change the rules of a game, you are changing the game (to varying degrees). When you change the actual goals entirely, the players should operate under the premise of those goals.

An AI that breaks alliances to go for domination with all VCs turned off is nonsense, every bit as much as an AI that just sits there when it can realistically stop a culture win when victory conditions are all on. Civ 6 with all VCs on should not be played the same way as Civ 6 with all VCs off. They are different rule sets and the agents in the game should be operating under their present rule set, not some other rule set.

All that said, the initial quote carried a necessary implication that victory is possible, so falling back on "they can be turned off" is awkward.

From the context of playing in a non-linear way, it is fair to say that the ai dowing on you just because you are winning is indeed 'gamey.' By definition.

"Gamey" as it's used in this context has no meaning. Actually if you look it up online you get...different results.

But I'd like to point out that when people use the term "gamey", they almost invariably can't come up with a coherent way to delineate what is and is not "gamey" in a way that would accurately anticipate even their own preferences...a failure mode suggesting the term is meaningless even in the context of the person using it.

It also seems to fly in the face of some of the core mechanics of the franchise, such as diplomacy. You are close to winning, and suddenly there is a rules change. This is 'gamey.' Whether that be good or bad.

Not only does this not spell out what "gamey" is, there's no "sudden rules change". The game is the same from the start. If you allow a victory condition, there is only one winner. The complete farce Firaxis spews at us with "diplomacy" (and has for most of the franchise's existence, to be fair) doesn't change that. Good evidence of this comes from how much "diplomacy" you see getting used in competitive games where all players are human. The incentives don't match the mechanical actions available. Players will use some diplomatic actions because they make sense. Many don't.

 

[sixty4half]

Think of this way: would England or France suddenly declare on the US because we are close to a culture victory? No, they wouldn't, because we are allies. It should the same way in the game. Your allies and even friends should not declare war on you if you are close to winning.

That line of logic doesn't translate to Civ. The US isn't about to "win the game" in any fashion IRL. There is no game to be won. The world isn't ending in 2050 with a prize going out based on what nation has the highest score (my money is on China if there was).

We are literally playing a game, and you're complaining about it being a game. This does not compute.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

That line of logic doesn't translate to Civ. The US isn't about to "win the game" in any fashion IRL. There is no game to be won. The world isn't ending in 2050 with a prize going out based on what nation has the highest score (my money is on China if there was).

We are literally playing a game, and you're complaining about it being a game. This does not compute.

Yes, we are playing a game but it's a game that simulates human history. All the game mechanics try to represent real things in history. So, the game should be "realistic" to how civs might behave in real life.

 

[sixty4half]

Yes, we are playing a game but it's a game that simulates human history.

No it doesn't.

All the game mechanics try to represent real things in history. So, the game should be "realistic" to how civs might behave in real life.

All the game mechanics are stepping stones on the way to winning a game. Just because the game uses real life things to represent these mechanics does not mean the game is realistic.



All players in a game should be trying to win the game, whether they are AI or human. If 1 of those players is about to win the game, the other players should be able to recognize this and make every attempt at not losing the game. Those are basic tenants that make games competitively enjoyable. My opponents not trying to win is not enjoyable.