Survival of the Fittest

[Jack Frost]

I have a number of problems with the civ series. Its not the concept of the game, which I very much do love - the idea of taking a people from the dawn of civilization through to modern day is utterly fascinating. It is the sole reason I come back for the latest installment.

The problem I have with the civ games is partially gameplay (diplomacy, the entire technology model, combat, national borders, the war system). This stuff aside, the game is playable and fun.

But the thing that bugs me most about civ is the total lack of any mapping to realism. If the most important thing about civilization is the fantasy it offers - being able to create a world based on reality from scratch and dominate it - then the critical flaw is that there is no actual relation to the real world outside of the names and graphics given.

There are little annoyances like having 4-20 of the wonders of the world built in the same city - or having all the wonders of the world clustered in 2-3 civilizations.

But my main problem with civ is that almost every nation goes through all of history without getting wiped out. Every nation has a 6000 year history, starting at the same point, and ending at the same point. Sure, I'll kill off a civ or two at some point in the game to make sure I win (or go down trying to win) - but the AI still can't seem to win decisivly at war, and at best with map settings that favor elimination of weak civs (18 civs, small map, good amount of water) usually only 1-2 get killed by someone other than me.

The problem I see is two fold:
1 - Civ strongly favors the defender. The techs are easy to get, the units are cheaper -- except for certain key (brief) points.
2 - The AI is playing itself at the same level. All the AI's are playing at the same general strength. Mix this in with the fact that civ favors the defender - and you have a situation where the AI has tons of trouble beating its alter egos.

Therefore, no matter what - you will never have a situation where only the fittest nations survive (as is more or less what happened in real life).

Further - it makes gameplay stale sometimes when national borders tend to stay very stable.

The solution to this problem as far as I can see - would be simple - allowing the user to select the play level of each AI individually. This would more or less allow nature to take its course, and stronger AI will be able to eat up weaker AI. This in turn will allow the AI to pose a real threat to the player, both in its ability to expand, and the changing national borders.

Now, if only there was a clever way to make civilizations rise and splinter throughout the game (if the real world were civ, either the mongols or the romans would have won the game thousands of years ago in world conquest).

Anyway - anyone have any idea on how to make it so that I can select the strengths of each AI? Is it even possible... and does anyone else feel the same way I do about the total lack of realism in civ?

ps - I'm not suggesting Civ4 become a heavy historical simulation (like paradox games), but I want my fantasy world to unfold in a slightly believable manner.

[ghen]

While that would be neat once or twice, I feel the whole direction of the game is more about you, the human, versus the world. If the AI destroy or cripple each other before I get my chance then that would be kinda boring.

[Jack Frost]

see, but thats part of the problem - right now the AI can't really engage in war with another AI without killing itself.

Here is the example:

Imagine you have two boxers who are perfectly equal in skill. When they fight, it'll go on forever - and round after round, each will be equally hurt.

The same thing happens when the AI goes to war with another AI. Unless you have a powerhouse civ and a weakling civ, they just beat the hell out of eachother with no actual result.

Once you get good at civ, and when you finally get over the initial bonuses the AI gets, and are in a semi dominant position - you can't really lose.

Because the AI can never really strengthen itself by taking over other civs. The player can make a come back by waging a risky war, or by taking advantage of certain situations. But, since every AI nation is being played at exactly the same skill level and bonus level, it can't ever make a dramatic change by conquering another civ.

The game sorta devolves into the player clawing and beating his way near first place, which is difficult, but then once you're near first - its easy, because the AI can't dominate other AI very well - and therefore can't make a dramatic increase in power like the player can.

Just watch the end game films. If you're an aggressive player, then just about 2/3 of all cities being taken over are by the player.

And that sucks.

[Jerh9e1k5]

Hmm this is an interesting post. Reminds me of Killer AI's (KAI) that people used to refer to in Civ3. This usually meant that one AI had been alone on a large continent with 2 or 3 other AI's for a large part of the game. As they were alone one of the AI's somehow killed both AI's to become one massive AI, which eventually lead to a massive showdown between the human and the KAI. Many players really enjoyed the challenge of these games.

I think that this idea of setting different AI's at different difficulty levels makes a lot of sense. The weaker AI's could be placed around a stronger one to encourage the development of a KAI. Or the starting positions could simply be random allowing a natural survival of the fittest, and a VERY interesting game.

Imagine Tokugawa as the stronger civ against all of the weaker ones

[Jack Frost]

I'm glad someone agrees!

One of the biggest problems with civ, is that there is frantic competition when you're weak (the AI bonuses guarentee you being weak during the early game). But if you make a single solid conquest, and end up close to first place and you aren't lacking any terribly important resources you just can't lose - because the AI can't really get stronger.

So you end up just building some stuff and hitting end turn because theres no challenge left.

If there are more feeder/wimp civs then the game becomes more dynamic - with the player needing to pay attention to growing threats.

I tried the slower tech + balance mod. It has some interesting effects, one of which is it makes jungle REALLY suck (you can't even build a road through it till gunpowder). It also significantly slows down technology research while keeping unit production the same.

The effect this has is a step in the right direction - because if you have a civ in jungle, it'll be a total wimp (which realistically, it should be - jungle isn't like a minor annoyance - just look at any nation that is mostly jungle - it had devestating effects).

And with slower technology, war is more profitable (you end up having nothing else to build except war making units before you hit alphabet, so you almost need to go to war to keep your upkeep low).

The effects of this mod are a step in the right direction - but I still think the AI needs more help in its ability to conquer other AI nations. If for no other reason then to give the player a challenge when you're close to first place.

[Zuul]

Yes I agree, the cpu usually have arount the same points. Different cpu levels would be very nice.