Civ Attributes: Are you concerned...?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Txurce
And it's all too likely that all civs will turn equally hostile in the later stages of the game, if you're "supreme."

IMO, this was handled differently in SMAC. When my faction became 'supreme', the factions second and third on the power-graph would usually (not always) become hostile, but smaller factions that were allied to me stayed cordial and continued to exchange techs with me (as long as they had something to offer ). I´m sure that civilizations will behave more reasonable in Civ3, too.

[mactbone]

Hmmm, an agression setting, so that means in scenarios you can make sure that the Aliens hate your guts and don't end up giving away all the cool stuff

Same with WW2 scenarios, you won't be able to make Germany like you and then backstab them.

[Inverse Icarus]

one of my favorite things to do is to play the ww2 scenarios as Spain or the Turks, and watch the allies and the axis team up against the french.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
For example, the Indians, as you might expect, are less aggressive than the Romans.

On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.

But isn't it a bit bad, as each Civ game is predictable?

That's what in my opinions should be avoided and indeed could be avoided if you use my suggestion for Civ Leaders AI.

Synopsis:

Each civilizations has a pool of leaders, one of which is randomly chosen at the start of the game, and randomally changes 2-5 times during a single game.

Each Civ has several "leaders" (AI hardcoded personalities) that are unique to it (though I suppose Musolini could be similar to Hitler, but I don't want each civ to have the same 5 warlike, expading, paecefull, scientific presets) .

Therefore Rome could start with Caesar - Agressive and Expansive. Then move to Neuron which is self centered and later to Musolini, and the features change each time.

Russia could move from Peter to Stalin to Gorbachov to Yekaterina.

What does it give us?
Unpredictable behaviour - we don't always expect the Romans to be agressive.
Rise and Fall of Civilizations - Romans don't always survive to finish. Greek aren't always the largest civilization.

I'm sure you can see the point.

I suggested it many times here.

Hope you can still do something, or put it on the list for Civilization IV!!!

Btw, if you guys made a good scripting engine, it could be coded in, I'm sure.

[Melios]

Not to be nit-picking, but his name is spelled as Mussolini.

[mactbone]

Read what Dan wrote again, he said it "feels" like they always backstab him. As he explained later, they don't really do it all the time, but him being a human generalizes things. I don't think that the AI should change leaders, if you never change then why should they? What should happen is that they adjust what their goals are depending on circumstances.

[Txurce]

Originally posted by lockstep


IMO, this was handled differently in SMAC. When my faction became 'supreme', the factions second and third on the power-graph would usually (not always) become hostile, but smaller factions that were allied to me stayed cordial and continued to exchange techs with me (as long as they had something to offer ). I´m sure that civilizations will behave more reasonable in Civ3, too.

That should make for a better game. It's hard to draw the line between realism - why would a weak country commit suicide by declaring war on the supreme civ? - and competitive game play: you vs. the AI in hive mode, which ought to do anything possible to stop you from winning the game, including having a pipsqueak civ go down in flames to slow you down.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.
Dan

Easy solution - play the Babylonians

As for the lack of a "randomise" function, that's not a real problem if the game is configurable. I'm sure one will be available for download from Apolyton within a week or two of the release of the game.

[Ozymandous]

Quality?

I find it hard to believe that a "design decision" was made to make the game predictable in this extreme. I thought the idea of a sequel, be it 2, 3, etc, was to evolve the game? How does having the civ's act in exactly the same way each game promote growth when Civ's have been like this in the game since it was first released back in the early ninety's!!

Hmm, I am glad I found this forum, each day I come here and find more and more clues that Civ3 will be a re-hash of Civ2 with some minor cosmetic improvements. Sure culture is good, units having different zone's of control (or lacking them) is good, but when the guts of the game, i.e. the AI is relatively the SAME as when the game came out 8 years ago I can do nothing but shake my head and look at games such as MOO3 to see how someone can take a basic premise and make it BETTER.

I didn't want to believe that Firaxis looked at Civ3 as merely a "cash-cow" they could slap a new coat of paint on and ship out to people, but every day this seems to become more true. Heh, I guess I should have seen the writing on the wall when Sid Meier was quoted as saying (paraphrased) "I thought we were done with this game, but we agreed we would do another".

Oh well, looks like the key-word for Civ3 will be "predictable". Too bad, I was really hoping for something more than what happened with Civ vs. Civ2, i.e. same game, new coat of paint. Looks like some things never change. *shrug*

(Since when does "quality" mean predictable and less choices?)

[Stromprophet]

I've already made my mind up to play either the Romans or Chinese. Militaristic and Productive. Those are the ones I want.

The only other one I would choose is the Indians, but only because the War elephant is so powerful.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmm, I am glad I found this forum, each day I come here and find more and more clues that Civ3 will be a re-hash of Civ2 with some minor cosmetic improvements. Sure culture is good, units having different zone's of control (or lacking them) is good, but when the guts of the game, i.e. the AI is relatively the SAME as when the game came out 8 years ago I can do nothing but shake my head and look at games such as MOO3 to see how someone can take a basic premise and make it BETTER.

Haven't been paying attention, eh? Culture will radically transform the game. Also, resources will make Civ totally different from any other Civ game before.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Haven't been paying attention, eh? Culture will radically transform the game. Also, resources will make Civ totally different from any other Civ game before.

Ah, yes I have been paying attention, but consider this...

Playing against the "Mongols" (for example) you know you won't have to worry about culture because they always send to many units to attack and you always need more units to defend. The Americans will always be "friendly" neighbors, and ther Greeks will always be expansionistic. When ALL civ's act in EXACTLY the same manner each game it will take a lot of the "what will they do next" factor OUT of the game, which is bad.

Sure, resources will be "interesting and new" for about 2 games, then you'll have seen the entire tech tree and will know what you need for what units and will know what' important or not.

The point here is this... Unless you play MP in some way shape or form, the game will ultimately be very predictable because the AI will act in the same manner for that Civ every single game, everything else is just window dressing to try to cover for the fact of predictable AI behavior.

The only way the game will be dynamic at all, regarding how the AI's act will be if Firaxis has been clever enough to give them "starting bonuses" to counter their natural AI. For example, if the Indians are always peaceful and simply build cities as their main AI "stance" if they were given the "expansionistic" and "industrial" qualities then they would be balanced better.

[Solver]

Dan surprises me. He's lucky to already play Civ3, and yet he whines .

[Steve Clark]

Ozy: Two solutions. 1) Civ3 will be highly customizable for a good reason. Any one of us can shape the regular game into whatever they feel comfortable with (from the looks of the units/terrain, to the addition/deletion of unique units and civs, to the play-style of the AI civs). 2) While waiting for MP, play the custom scenarios. I have said before that in the first 6 months, I predict that perhaps 90% of the Civ3 games I will play will be scenarios.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


Ah, yes I have been paying attention, but consider this...

Playing against the "Mongols" (for example) ....

If you've been paying attention I'm sure you realize that the Mongols are not included in Civ3. Anyway...

I think people are jumping to conclusions when it comes to how the game will or will not play. Why don't we let Firaxis playtest and balance the game and release it? The only way to determine if the game is a predictable rehash is to actually wait and play it. It's amazing to me that there are so many people eager and willing to trash a game before anyone has even played it.