note: This is The Column, a part of Apolyton where anyone can write about whatever he/she wants :) If you feel like writing, submit your article via the article submission page

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#88 APOLYTON VERSION 2 MarkG details the plans for Apolyton "Version 2". #89 C:CTP: UPS AND DOWNS Timothy Pintello talks about the hits and misses he sees in C:CTP. #90 IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CUSTOMIZATION DarthVeda looks at the simplicity he sees in customizing CivII any which way. #91 HAVE THE FORUMS TAKEN OVER ME? Iain Lindley is worried about where his forum addiction will take him. #92 THE FAILURE OF EVOLUTION Timothy Weij worries about Sid's Dino game evolving as a RTS title. COLUMN ARCHIVE

Sid Meier's Civilization was, and still is as Civ2, a brilliant game concept that is well executed. Of course, you already know all this stuff, since you're Here at Apolyton! But, before I launch into my jeremiad on where the civilization genre is headed, I have to set the scene for Why it's so important to me that the genre strikes out in a new direction. You see, I'm Truly Hooked on historical 4x games. But I can't get a fix.

Anyway, back to Civ... The replay value is immense, there are so many ways to pursue your objectives, and triumph gloriously! There's something here for everyone, the fighters, the diplomats, the builders, and presumably the lovers will get theirs in civ 3 or 4 8-) . It can provoke even a staid strategy gamer into an adrenaline rush! But unlike a game with an aerial duel, or fistfight, there is a euphoric combination of rising to succeeding challenges, while also building something Magnificent piece by piece. And because your civilization always needs just one more achievement or conquest, and it is In Sight, the next thing you know, its 6 AM.

It is only after you've played Civilization about 20 times through, that some of the rough edges start to show. Among them are:

• Abusive levels of micromanagement are needed as the game progresses
• The AI is Really Pretty Awful
• Insert Your favorite gripe here

The two big problems I've listed, and the fact that the commercial game companies haven't managed to significantly address them over Almost A Decade, is what has driven me to the sorry state I'm in today. I have been driven to... Do Work while I should be goofing off playing games! (But at least I'm working on a game) There has been a lot of discussion of the problems of micromanagement and pathetic AI around the forums, so I'm sure I'm not alone in my general despair at the direction things are headed in.

Since I'm a physicist by training, it's in my nature to take things apart, and try to figure out Why they're the way they are. I'm going to attempt to do that with the two gripes above, and see where it leads. As for Your favorite gripe, well, you're on your own. I want to stress that I'm talking about turn-based games here, since I don't have any experience with the RTS ones.

Micromanagement is the bane of the whole 4x world as far as I can figure. But it seems to be pretty much required for a successful game. I think it's because there's a certain amount of Stuff the player needs to do to feel that they are in charge. Without enough "contact" between the player and the civ, the game becomes simply a sim, kinda dry. But as it is now, the game slows to a crawl, with 15 min. turns or worse near the climax. The problem, it seems to me, comes from two directions. First, the amount of micromanagement that was correct to establish that strong player-civ connection when the player has just a few cities, becomes overwhelming when the player has 20 or 40 (or 100 for the ICS crowd). I've seen some good general ideas for solutions to this "scaling" problem on the civ 3 list forum. One that stuck in my mind was referred to as Regions in the Econ thread (and also regional menu & city menu ideas). Check it out if you haven't already seen it. The basic idea of keeping the number of city-like economic entities the player has to manage down to below 10 as the game progresses seems to be a workable fix for the scaling type of micromanagement.

The second type of micromanagement problem, is that different people build that critical affinity with their civ by micromanaging different things. One player will love executing brilliant tactical maneuvers with their army, but could care less about the economy. Another will be just the opposite. The problem is, enough micromanagement to keep everyone "happy" is thrown in for this reason. We all drown in it... Everyone knows the solution to this "player preference" micromanagement problem. Just put an AI manager in charge of the part of the game that the player isn't interested in. Unfortunately, watching the AI "manage" part of your civ is about as pleasurable as getting a root canal. Most players can't stand to see Their civ subjected to this sort of misguided treatment. So, although it looks like the scaling micromanagement problem in the section above can be solved with game design changes, the player preference one seems to require decent AI to pull off. So what about that AI?

Most of you who've played muliplayer have had just how bad the AI is burned into your consciousness if you have missed even a single turn for one reason or another. Through the management *magic* of the AI, your almost-done 400 shield wonder turns into a catapult! Your carefully assembled army dies ingloriously making the most Boneheaded of attacks, etc. Why does the AI in 4x Suck Badly? Doing good AI for such a complicated game is indeed Really Hard. But in most games they haven't even done the Easy parts! A few simple rules would go a Long Way. FE don't attack in an area unless you have At Least as much military power as your enemy (adjusted for defensive bonuses). The list of simple rules could go on for a long time, but this is supposed to be a short article, so I leave it at that.

But I think the final answer on why the AI is so lousy is that the game companies are doing just fine without it. Most players want eye candy, and gameplay, and quickly switch over to the next game that comes out. Don't get me wrong, good gameplay is Essential, and cutting-edge graphics are cool, but I think those are not enough! Perversely, there is also what I call the "Next Napoleon" complex. Even players who are only going to play through relatively few games want to beat the highest level before they move on, so paradoxically a stupid AI can actually help with market success of a game. The only problem is that us hard-core types have to invent ever-more-extreme challenges to keep the game fresh. The OCC chalenge is the most notable among these. I think it has been a Great addition to the game, keeping things in the Civ2 Strategy forum fresh and interesting. And I don't mean to detract from the achievement of OCC players in Any Way, but it would be Impossible to win such a challenge with even a Dull but competent AI.

I'd thought Multiplayer would solve the AI problem. But between human foibles, difficulties scheduling rematches, and network glitches, it didn't turn out to be My answer anyway. Even in MP the poor AI takes a heavy toll. Games need to be suspended immediately when someone loses their connection, or their civ will be set back about 30 turns after the AI's turn or two of Tender Loving Care. So I'm back to where I was before. I don't play any 4x games right now, because there's just no challange left to them, and MP is mostly too frustrating.

So, at least in my mind, poor AI is the biggest problem with the whole 4x TBS genre. If you have good AI the micromanagement that is the other major problem can, I think, be taken care of. Furthermore, I think if one company Did put in the effort to make at least a passable AI, while maintaining good gameplay and decent graphics, the advantages would quickly make such AI industry standard. Just this has happened in sports games over the last several years. But When this miracle will happen for Civ-type games I have no idea. The fact that I've waited nearly a decade at this point for them to come through, doesn't give me hope that the industry will come up with the game I want to play anytime soon.

I'm a "cup is half full" kinda guy, so I can't end this on such a dour note. There are, I believe a few possiblities in the wings for people with my problem. Firaxis is sadly not one of them. They're making plenty of money just milking incremental changes. And they're a small shop so they probably can't afford the dedicated AI programmer it would probably take. The best hope from the industry is, IMO, the second version of "Reach for the Stars" a space-based 4x game from a company called SSG. I played the original, (kinda dates me as a bit of a geezer) and also their Carriers at War. Both games had very competent scripted AI for their day. I think the SSG folks can probably do a bang-up job now that there's a Lot more processing power to go around. True it wouldn't be Historical 4x, but any spark can light a fire!

I have a second ace in the hole. The game project I started called The Clash of Civilizations. The next time I get my act together enough to write a column I'll let you know about how we are going to Reduce Micromanagement and work at getting Great AI in Clash, and Lots More!

---------
ABOUT AUTHOR: "My interests are Civilization-type games (duh), game design and programming, and AI" -- self-quote.

Want to comment on this article?

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.