Tweet
So I've been reading a biography of John Nash recently and there is a lot in it about game theory and the work of Von Neuman. Which started me thinking has anyone done some work on Civ and game theory? I assume the way it is set up at least in SP it would be a zero sum game not sure though.
-
A university faculty is 500 egoists with a common parking problem -
Tech trades and open borders are not zero-sum.
Also what is a good action depends on if your goal is to win the game or simply end up with as high a score as possible. -
I've thought about game theory and Civ a bit before, but I always come back to its complexity. I see no way to model the game accurately. Maybe bits and pieces could be modeled, but I think the interaction between those parts would be too complex to be much helpComment
-
I can't really see it. Besides, the game would be no fun if it always reduced to Nash equilibria.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!! WTFComment
-
Game Theory is of much interest when it comes to things like heading for Buddhism or Hinduism, beyond that the complexity tends to become a bit overwhelming.
It's generally more useful in MP games because game theory kind of benefits from having rational opponents rather than deterministic/random opponents.Comment
-
Also, the AI's goal is to make the human have fun, not to win.Comment
Comment