Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AI Random Personalities?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AI Random Personalities?

    Hey Betas and Previewers!

    I love the concept of RANDOM PERSONALITIES for the AI but at the same time I'm a little nervous about how this may have been implemented. This option was there in SMAC and while very entertaining it often felt like it would setup some really silly situations like an Environmentalist Morgan Industries and such. I mean having a war mongering Ghandi, for example, could be cool BUT I'd love some word from folk in the front, can the AI competently handle personalities that would appear counter to their strengths? Take the Ghandi example again, Ghandi COULD be a pretty nasty conqueror but he'd need to play war monger in a very differnt way (like not relying as much on brute force of numbers but advanced tech for his units) than somebody like Ghengis.

    So basically is choosing random personalities not just putting the AI at some big disadvantage?

  • #2
    It doesn't put the AIs at a disadvantage. If a random personality is aggressive, then it will do its best to fight. AIs won't really be weakened by the randomization.
    Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
    Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
    I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man

    Comment


    • #3
      FYI it's "Gandhi," not "Ghandi."

      Alot of people seem to make this mistake.
      THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
      AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
      AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
      DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF

      Comment


      • #4
        Ghengis, Gandhi...

        please excuse my confused spelling.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ah, but will the AIs have GPPs?
          If I'd known then what I know now, I'd never have done all the stuff that led me to what I know now...

          Former member, MOO3 Road Kill...er, Crew

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LordGek
            Ghengis, Gandhi...

            please excuse my confused spelling.
            Actually, it's "Genghis"
            THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
            AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
            AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
            DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LordShiva


              Actually, it's "Genghis"
              Well, in the GAME sure. But in reality it was translitterated from a different alphabet, so you get all sorts of different spellings, most of which are more or less correct.
              That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Agnosticism and Christianity", 1889, Thomas Huxley]

              Gary Denney
              >>>-----The Archer----->

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by archermoo


                Well, in the GAME sure. But in reality it was translitterated from a different alphabet, so you get all sorts of different spellings, most of which are more or less correct.
                Well, technically every word is translitterated. Unless you invented the words and the alphabet used to express them (e.g. Klingon). I hear in the British version of the game they misspellt EVERYTHING!
                "The human race would have perished long ago if its preservation had depended only on the reasoning of its members." - Rousseau
                "Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer!" - Erich Honecker
                "If one has good arms, one will always have good friends." - Machiavelli

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by archermoo
                  Well, in the GAME sure. But in reality it was translitterated from a different alphabet, so you get all sorts of different spellings, most of which are more or less correct.
                  Well, just because a name was originally written in a different alphabet doesn't mean that it's impossible to transliterate it phonetically. In English "Gh" at the beginning of a word is a hard G sound, while the G in "Genghis" is soft

                  Actually, the pronunciation is more like Chinghiz or something, but that isn't too badly approximated by "Genghis."
                  THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
                  AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
                  AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
                  DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LordShiva


                    Well, just because a name was originally written in a different alphabet doesn't mean that it's impossible to transliterate it phonetically. In English "Gh" at the beginning of a word is a hard G sound, while the G in "Genghis" is soft

                    Actually, the pronunciation is more like Chinghiz or something, but that isn't too badly approximated by "Genghis."
                    Very true that it isn't impossible to transliterate it. Just that it is impossible to have one "correct" way of doing so. The phonemes between the languages just aren't the same. Personally, I generally use Chinggis, as that is the spelling used in Urgunge Onon's translation of "The Secret History of the Mongols", which is my prefered version.

                    But then again, we might be getting a bit off topic...
                    That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Agnosticism and Christianity", 1889, Thomas Huxley]

                    Gary Denney
                    >>>-----The Archer----->

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X