Accepting other civilization's civics

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Grenouille
I guess the problem here is that, in a game, the human player will stick to rationality [...]

I disagree. Disregarding the fact that nothing which has happened in any civ game has ever happened in history, we often do no play Civ rationally. How often do folks post comments eluding to their preference for militaristic or builder games? How many Americans, Brits, Canadians and Germans play with the unconcious assumption that Universal Suffrage and Emancipation are the "final, highest" forms of civ governance? Or even scarier, how many of us get a pleasurable jolt for sacrificing a part of our civilian population to aggrandize our own positions.

"You have died nobly, that I, your Supreme Leader, may be imortalized with these great pyramids! History will not remember any of you (nor will I--in a few turns you'll be replaced since I've got Wheat and Pigs nearby). It's very big of you all not to be offended by that."

Remember: true authoritarians are not the willfully oppressive, but the willfully oppressed.

[SebP]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
that's a pretty stupid gameplay contrivance, then.

what strategic, in-game reason is there for the AI to have a "preferred civic" ? why would it get angry? a human player would not care unless he had something strategic to gain from your switching civics.

pre-packaged preferred civics are a dumb idea. I can see how they add strategy (should I adopt civic X to appease this guy, even if I'd rather have civic Y) but it does so in a very contrived way.

Same for religion, and still seems most people - me included - like this asymmetric way (human players don' care) of getting the diplomacy game going

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
They will frequently ask you to adopt a civic that is not their preferred civic (and each leader has only one). They will dislike you the same if you refuse their preferred civic as if they asked you to adopt some other civic and you refuse, but you get a bonus for adopting their favorite civic even if they didn't ask you to.

Uhm no. The AI never asks you to adopt a civic that is not their preferred civic.

Also (to answer someone else's post) there are no shunned civics in Civ4. It was a SMAC concept.

[Nugog]

Accept another civ's civics - never - they can accept my praetorians instead!

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Martinus

Uhm no. The AI never asks you to adopt a civic that is not their preferred civic.

Also (to answer someone else's post) there are no shunned civics in Civ4. It was a SMAC concept.

Where did you get that? I know I've been asked to adopt a civic that wasn't the preferred civic of the asking civilization. Are you saying that Isabella has NEVER asked you to adopt another civic prior to getting Police State? And just the other day Montezuma asked me to adopt Hereditary Rule, even though he's modded to prefer Theocracy in my game.

[eddieeddie]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
: Hay eddieeddie, and dont take this the wrong way but how many people play civ4 in China?
:
:
:P.S- I am not being idiotic I just want to know, cause all my asian mates that have migrated here havnt even heard of it at all, while they were staying in China.



NubianMercenary

Really? The first game I played was civIII, and I started loving this game. The civIII I used to play was a Chinese version which I had bought in China, and some of my friends started playing that after seeing me played. Such a nice game and there are players in China, I can also find the similar forums about this game in Chinese web site too.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by SebP


Same for religion, and still seems most people - me included - like this asymmetric way (human players don' care) of getting the diplomacy game going

There should be some benefit to having your state religion spread, even if you didn't found it.

That said, I thought normally the AI asked you to convert only if it had founded the religion? If not, they should make it that way.

The game, as far as I can tell, tries to skirt this line between the AI "playing to win" and "playing realistically," and it's very awkward. For instance:

1) Why would the AI vote for a human in diplomatic victory? It's realistic, sure . . . but runs contrary to the AI's efforts to win.

2) As mentioned, why would AI want you to convert to a religion it did not found? Or civics it "prefers?" Realistic, but contrary to AI's strategic interests.

3) Why don't AI's team up on the clear space race leader? Or the clear score leader? Realistic. But makes no sense in-game. They should all be gunning for you.


What they need to do is a) erase diplo victory b) add a practical reason for the AI to want you to switch civics/religion and c) fix the ways wars are declared, to prevent AI from ganging up on the human. make the game inflict a severe happiness penalty on civs that declare war without a valid "casus belli" of some sort ... eg, if 5 Civs go after you just because you are the tech leader, they will not be able to sustain the war for long.

It takes some imagination...but they can make the AI play this game without contrivances for "realism."

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Prussia
It's purely to give it a more realistic sense, for example, democracies don't tend to like communists that much, and vice versa.

Free markets don't tend to like Mercantilisms, and vice versa.

Mercantilists would love free marketers. It would be open shop season to sell all they want and import nothing.

[gdijedi7]

It does make sense to have prefered civics. For one thing, it makes for a more interesting game. How boring it is if everyone one the map only has the best government. I remember in CivII that everyone always went Democracy. Very boring. I want a good Communist dictatorship to fight a war with.

For another thing, take Washington for example. Washington would never have considered making America into what Civ would call a Police State. You want him to in Civ4? It would be very out of character, and playing against historical figures who are acting (at least vaguely) like they were is half the fun.

[Wiglaf]

Ostensibly there is no "best government" in civ, although the civics are not that well balanced, there is no "one way to go."

So there'd be plenty of different civics. Not boring uniformity.

I can understand Washington having a preferred civic, and that helping with the feel of the game. But why not justify that by in-game rules? For instance...every civ has a preferred civic, and if the civ uses that civic, it gets maybe some extra happiness?

That way, the human would have a reason to play "in character" and the AI would not be doing so for a contrived reason.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by gdijedi7
I want a good Communist dictatorship to fight a war with.

Having some strongly idiological (sp?) based opponents would make for a very interesting "long" game.

Particularly if the UN actually worked

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by nugog
Having some strongly idiological (sp?) based opponents would make for a very interesting "long" game.

I'm willing to bet that Stalin has been given such a personality.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Thedrin


I'm willing to bet that Stalin has been given such a personality.

Yeah - bring it on - an AI leader that will tell you to go to hell no matter what!



Oh yeah!

[Blake]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Mercantilists would love free marketers. It would be open shop season to sell all they want and import nothing.

But what would they do with the foreign currency?

[Dauphin]

Refuse to accept it as payment.