I sure hope randomizing is possible. It would be really lame to know each civs tendencies going into the game. Kinda eliminates a bit of the strategy doesn't it?
Originally posted by Steve Clark
I think this is one of the first time I've seen a Firaxian address something about the AI and their tendencies.
So you are saying that we can set ALL of the civs to the highest aggression setting and expect to get hit hard early? Or what about the opposite? If I set all of them to the lowest setting, will they focus on a peaceful diplomatic game? How will the AI act or react when something doesn't go their way (setting-wise?). For example, if a non-aggressive civ becomes cornered and the only way out is to fight hard, will it?
In other words, to make Civ3's civs less predictable (e.g., Chinese always growing fast and agressive), just change their settings? But what if I don't want to know what the Chinese will or won't do???
And taking your Babylonians example. With them back-stabbing you EVERY game, isn't that too predictable?
How can one hide or randomize the setting in the file so that a civ's tendency will not be predictable or known?Just following up on this exchange from a month ago. Was the “randomize” function able to be developed? If not, what provisions have been made to produce a truly random game where the actions and abilities of the AI civs are not known or pre-defined?Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
You could, in theory, set the aggressiveness to the maximum for all Civs and set the strategies to be similar or identical (i.e., always build offensive ground units, or whatever).
It was really a conscious design choice, though, for each Civ to play a certain way, and this goes back to the "quality vs quantity" argument.
To my knowledge there's not a "randomize" function right now that changes the AI personalities, but it's certainly an idea I can pass along to the team.
And re: the Babylonians, perhaps I was being a bit dramatic about them "backstabbing", but let's just say I have had a few confrontations with them that ended less than fortuitously for me
Some of the testers seem to really despise Gandhi so I guess a lot of it is just in how you play the game.
Dan
I sure hope randomizing is possible. It would be really lame to know each civs tendencies going into the game. Kinda eliminates a bit of the strategy doesn't it?
But apparently quite of few folks here think that pre-defined tendencies are a good thing, esp. with all of the talk about civ attributes and unique units/golden ages. Little do they know that after a few games, such predictability might reduce replayability.
I think that they shouldn't automaticly randomize, but this should be a supported option when you start the game. Just like randomizing starting places and resources.
Right! Randomize feature would be cool to use in lower level games. I think that when playing deity then i will just have to know in advance how will probably act who i find near me
I do not want to achieve immortality threw my work. I want to achieve it threw not dying - Woody Allen
I'm all for tendicies because it helps give each leader thier own personality.
Mike, since you are around (and a shameless bump to get this back up), can you comment on this, please?
In MP with friends (or enemies, iow, not strangers) you know that certain players act in certain ways, some players will turn belly up at the slightest show of force, others will fight to the last man against overwhelming odds. Some people have no honor and will use every underhanded trick in the book, others have no shame and will not hesitate to form alliances to save themselves.
Real people definetely have tendencies to be agressive or pacifist (camper), Wimps tend to consistentely wimp out once they think they have, Stubborn players tend to remain stubborn.
An example, when playing multiplayer FFA games of Red Alert 2 I have a friend which is quite predictable, invariably, once I have destroyed the majority of his army/base he surrenders (quits), he does this in 90% of games.
In contrast I always fight to the last man, if it's against overwhelming odds I do it to annoy the guy crushing me, if there are more players in the game I go down fighting to hopefully give the remaining players a chance to beat the guy which beat me.
Because our behaivours are at some level predictable, does this mean multiplayer must be boring? Would I be better of playing with complete strangers? Personally I enjoy exploiting others weaknesses.
The same with unique AI personalities, by knowing how an AI tends to act, whole new avenues of diplomacy and politics are opened up, you can try all sorts of tricks (like directing the agression of a frisky Caesar at another agressive Civ, instead of condemning yourself to a war with Caesar, you know the Romans are agressive, but you dont have to be the target)
So even if there is a randomize feature I wont be using it, because it removes a whole element of the diplomacy game...
I'd really like a randomize function for both leader personalities and unique units. Such a function would definitely add to the unpredictability and thus replayability of the game. Knowing your enemy before the start of the game takes part of the discovery process. Anyway, I'd like to see a belligerent Gandhi and an American Impi.
The AI faction leaders in SMAC had certain tendencies that you could pretty much expect in the game. But there WAS a 'randomize faction leader personality' option in the game startup.
At least when I'm playing Civ II, I don't think to myself, "Oh it's the Zulus I know they're gonna declare war on me" I just pretend that I don't know anything ahead of time, so that I can really get into the game.
Afterall, Hammurabi didn't know that the Code of Laws he made would lead to Genetic Engineering. You just have to use your imagination when playing Civ.
I suppose having the choice of 16 civs you can chose the ones that you want to play against. I liked the concept in SMAC of knowing what a faction was like because of their uniqueness rather than all of them playing the same. Wanting to kill Miriam in every game made it worthwhile!
'No room for human error, and really it's thousands of times safer than letting drivers do it. But the one in ten million has come up once again, and the the cause of the accident is sits, something in the silicon.' - The Gold Coast - Kim Stanley Robinson
'Feels just like I can take a thousand miles in my stride hey yey' - Oh, Baby - Rhianna
If randomisation didn't make version 1 of the game I hope these sorts of features will make the multiplayer add-on.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
H.Poincaré
Miriam was coolOriginally posted by SITS
I suppose having the choice of 16 civs you can chose the ones that you want to play against. I liked the concept in SMAC of knowing what a faction was like because of their uniqueness rather than all of them playing the same. Wanting to kill Miriam in every game made it worthwhile!
Das Ewige Friede ist ein Traum, und nicht einmal ein schöner /Moltke
Si vis pacem, para bellum /Vegetius
Friend of my enemyOriginally posted by knott
Miriam was cool
'No room for human error, and really it's thousands of times safer than letting drivers do it. But the one in ten million has come up once again, and the the cause of the accident is sits, something in the silicon.' - The Gold Coast - Kim Stanley Robinson
'Feels just like I can take a thousand miles in my stride hey yey' - Oh, Baby - Rhianna
Blake: I read your post last night and wanted to think about it before I replied.Originally posted by Blake
In MP with friends (or enemies, iow, not strangers) you know that certain players act in certain ways, some players will turn belly up at the slightest show of force, others will fight to the last man against overwhelming odds. Some people have no honor and will use every underhanded trick in the book, others have no shame and will not hesitate to form alliances to save themselves.
Real people definetely have tendencies to be agressive or pacifist (camper), Wimps tend to consistentely wimp out once they think they have, Stubborn players tend to remain stubborn.
An example, when playing multiplayer FFA games of Red Alert 2 I have a friend which is quite predictable, invariably, once I have destroyed the majority of his army/base he surrenders (quits), he does this in 90% of games.
In contrast I always fight to the last man, if it's against overwhelming odds I do it to annoy the guy crushing me, if there are more players in the game I go down fighting to hopefully give the remaining players a chance to beat the guy which beat me.
Because our behaivours are at some level predictable, does this mean multiplayer must be boring? Would I be better of playing with complete strangers? Personally I enjoy exploiting others weaknesses.
The same with unique AI personalities, by knowing how an AI tends to act, whole new avenues of diplomacy and politics are opened up, you can try all sorts of tricks (like directing the agression of a frisky Caesar at another agressive Civ, instead of condemning yourself to a war with Caesar, you know the Romans are agressive, but you dont have to be the target
So even if there is a randomize feature I wont be using it, because it removes a whole element of the diplomacy game...
I agree that tendencies may be ok, but not to the extent of strategic predictability or limitations. One example would be starting techs. Why in the world would you and the AI civs start with the exact same techs every game? Shouldn't that be a factor on starting location, ala Civ2, instead of pre-coded, abstract attributes? In other words, don't you think that, when starting a new game, you shouldn't know whether you will get 0 techs or 5? I believe that such a thing we enhance replayability.
Here's a better example. What I prefer is for the AI civ to act like a human, albeit in a simplistic way. For example, some/many can radically shift from a peaceful strategy to a bloodlust one given the right situation, or vice-versa (or more typically, go back and forth a few times). It's about taking advantage of a strategic situation that will get you ahead and/or to win. I don't want an AI civ to ALWAYS be peaceful if certain situations demand them to fight out of a corner (or to retreat and rebuild if they come up a wall).
Let me use an example from a recent Imperialism II game. Playing as English on a random map with Spain and Portugal to the north, France to the south and Sweden to the east, all on one continent. I was determined to build peacefully into the latter stages of the game, despite the turmoil around me. I kept a close eye on the diplomacy and at one brief time, I found that if I declared war on Spain, no one else would declare war on me. Spain managed to get themselves isolated and since I was stronger militarially, I took advantage of that window of opportunity and gobbled up their provinces. Then I went back to getting even stronger while the others fought among themselves.
To me, it should be about the AI taking advantage of a strategic situation regardless of what their pre-defined "roles" are. I don't want to play a game in which the Indians (for example) are ALWAYS peaceful builders. I want them to come out fighting if they see a strategic advantage. That would be a challenging AI instead of one that would limit the AI's strategic options because it doesn't fit their "role".
But having said that, I do believe that there will be enough other factors to consider, ranging from geography, resources, diplomacy to culture, that even if each of the AI civs have hardcoded "tendencies", each game will be unique enough. I just don't like the idea of factions, pre-defined tendencies or other factors that would limit the AI civs in what it can or cannot do.
Right! I fully agree. Also, this borders on (mild) racism. Players are led to think of certain civs as "aggressive" or "wussies". Pre-determined racial templates... as someone here calls it in his sig.Originally posted by Steve Clark
But apparently quite of few folks here think that pre-defined tendencies are a good thing, esp. with all of the talk about civ attributes and unique units/golden ages. Little do they know that after a few games, such predictability might reduce replayability.
I do think it will be editable, but it looks like it's fixed in the normal game...
I have to agree that predefined tendencies for each AI civ limits the strategy a bit. As with most good suggestions, it ought to be an option to turn on or off.
I think it depends on how much it is 'defined'. If it is painted with a broad brush then it can make it interesting. Otherwise you are playing against 15 versions of the same thing which I think limits replayability.Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Right! I fully agree. Also, this borders on (mild) racism. Players are led to think of certain civs as "aggressive" or "wussies". Pre-determined racial templates... as someone here calls it in his sig.
I do think it will be editable, but it looks like it's fixed in the normal game...
'No room for human error, and really it's thousands of times safer than letting drivers do it. But the one in ten million has come up once again, and the the cause of the accident is sits, something in the silicon.' - The Gold Coast - Kim Stanley Robinson
'Feels just like I can take a thousand miles in my stride hey yey' - Oh, Baby - Rhianna
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks