WORLD CREATION - Agression Level

[Chieftess]

This poll is to determine what agression level we want. This is another new feature in Civ3 Conquests.

Agressive levels in a nutshell:

Least Agressive - Equivalent to playing 2 levels lower than the chosen level. (regent becomes chieftain, demigod becomes monarch). The AI will rarely fight, and sometimes, rarely expand.

Less Agressive - Equivalent to playing 1 level lower than the chosen level. The AI is less likely to go to war.

Normal - Normal gameplay.

More Agressive - The AI is more eager to pick a fight with anyone.

Most Agressive - The AI tends to attack early and often. Once 2 AI are at war, they can be at war for the entire game! This setting sees massive bloodfeuds between the AI.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I would like to see the AI engaged in battles with other nations for a change, rather than just taking a number for the opportunity to be mowed down by us. If the most aggressive setting accomplishes that, let's use it.

 

[Ashburnham]

There's no way to make the aggression level Random? That's what I would have voted for.

 

[Chieftess]

Nope, the programmers didn't put that in.

 

[Chieftess]

I think we need a couple more votes to tilt this one over the edge...

 

[Black_Hole]

now this would have been a poll where spectrum polling would have been helpful, cause i would prefer more aggressive over normal...

 

[blackheart]

I want really aggressive AI. WW1 in the Ancient Era!

 

[Chieftess]

now this would have been a poll where spectrum polling would have been helpful, cause i would prefer more aggressive over normal...

Spectrum polling?

 

[DaveShack]

Spectrum polling?

Order the options. Start from the big end and count cumulative votes for each option plus all the higher level options. The first one with a true majority wins.

Most = 9
More = 10 cumulative = 19
Normal = 11

19 people want at least more aggressive, while only 11 people want normal.

 

[Provolution]

More aggressive makes perfect sense here.

Daveshack, show some leadership and shift to More agressive vote, so we do not need to violate the Plurality nature of this poll.

 

[Sarevok]

Most Agressive, I want to have some fun, hehe.

 

[thescaryworker]

Most aggressive. It'll be cool to finally see AIs back-stabbing eachother instead of us.

 

[Black_Hole]

if its not spectrum voting I will change my vote

 

[DaveShack]

At present, the "more aggressive" option is winning.

Does the more aggressive setting affect our ability to play a peaceful game if that is what the people want? I'm all for more realistic AI-AI warfare, but don't want to see us forced into a game where some AI is at war with us all the time.

Instead of changing my vote to show leadership, how about scheduling creation day a couple of days into the month, and have a quickie JR on whether it's ok to interpret this poll as spectrum voting? This idea is partly in jest and partly serious. I don't want to give our court unnecessary work, but don't want to be seen as taking away a citizen choice if one of the extreme options has the highest vote total.

Of course if there were widespread comments that most voters thought this would be a spectrum vote or want it to be interpreted that way, at least from the people who voted for most aggressive, then that would more clearly show WOTP is for more aggressive.

 

[YNCS]

I support spectrum voting on this topic, even though I voted for "normal."

 

[Black_Hole]

At present, the "more aggressive" option is winning.

Does the more aggressive setting affect our ability to play a peaceful game if that is what the people want? I'm all for more realistic AI-AI warfare, but don't want to see us forced into a game where some AI is at war with us all the time.

Instead of changing my vote to show leadership, how about scheduling creation day a couple of days into the month, and have a quickie JR on whether it's ok to interpret this poll as spectrum voting? This idea is partly in jest and partly serious. I don't want to give our court unnecessary work, but don't want to be seen as taking away a citizen choice if one of the extreme options has the highest vote total.

Of course if there were widespread comments that most voters thought this would be a spectrum vote or want it to be interpreted that way, at least from the people who voted for most aggressive, then that would more clearly show WOTP is for more aggressive.

i dont think that would happen
i think agression just increases teh likelihood of AI wars, but it doesnt increase the cost for peace

 

[Chieftess]

Agression sets the attitude level. i.e., a civ that's polite with you might be furious with high agression, but gracious with least aggression. Although, once 2 AI go at it, then tend to have wars on and off for the rest of the game. It makes for interesting games though, since smaller AIs can sometimes take over much larger ones. (happened in a OCC demigod game I played once -- lost to domination victory by the Russian by a few dozen turns).

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Agression sets the attitude level. i.e., a civ that's polite with you might be furious with high agression, but gracious with least aggression. Although, once 2 AI go at it, then tend to have wars on and off for the rest of the game. It makes for interesting games though, since smaller AIs can sometimes take over much larger ones. (happened in a OCC demigod game I played once -- lost to domination victory by the Russian by a few dozen turns).

I think that's why I support the aggressive AI approach. It would be nice to see a game where we have a war that actually stands for something, instead of just enduring another episode of OK They'e Gone; Who Should We Attack Next?

I welcome the prospect of a runaway AI civ or two, and hope that this is the way to bring it about.

 

[Provolution]

I find it fun and ironic that all the polls with barbarian levels and AI Aggression level are the most controversial and tumultuous threads.

 

[GenMarshall]

Keep the AI agression normal