Civ Attributes: Are you concerned...?

[Steve Clark]

Are any of you concerned that chosing a civ to play, with its predefined attributes, will limit strategy and replayability?

Are any of you concerned that any of the AI civs, with its predefined attributes, will become predictable?

Adm.Naismith alluded to this in a different way and while it has been said that such things can be turned off, what would be its effect?

I'm just trying to get a gauge on how this might affect strategy. Do you want the civs to be predictable in any way, thus making it easier to play the main game? If you are a hard-core Civ2 player, is this something we should fear or immediately stay away from? To answer my own question, in part, I want an AI that acts and reacts according to game situations, not based on predefined patterns. In Civ2, all civs acted exactly the same, mainly stupid. How will this be improved in Civ3?

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

For one thing, each Civ has its own "aggression setting" as well as individual strategies that the AI will use. These things can all be changed in the editor, and don't have anything to do with the Civ Specific Units. 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.

Dan

[Gramphos]

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.

What have happened with the peaceful Babylonians that always was destroyed by barbarians?

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
For one thing, each Civ has its own "aggression setting" as well as individual strategies that the AI will use. These things can all be changed in the editor, and don't have anything to do with the Civ Specific Units. 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.

Dan

I think this is one of the first time I've seen a Firaxian address something about the AI and their tendencies.

So you are saying that we can set ALL of the civs to the highest aggression setting and expect to get hit hard early? Or what about the opposite? If I set all of them to the lowest setting, will they focus on a peaceful diplomatic game? How will the AI act or react when something doesn't go their way (setting-wise?). For example, if a non-aggressive civ becomes cornered and the only way out is to fight hard, will it?

In other words, to make Civ3's civs less predictable (e.g., Chinese always growing fast and agressive), just change their settings? But what if I don't want to know what the Chinese will or won't do???

And taking your Babylonians example. With them back-stabbing you EVERY game, isn't that too predictable?

How can one hide or randomize the setting in the file so that a civ's tendency will not be predictable or known?

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Steve Clark


I think this is one of the first time I've seen a Firaxian address something about the AI and their tendencies.

So you are saying that we can set ALL of the civs to the highest aggression setting and expect to get hit hard early? Or what about the opposite? If I set all of them to the lowest setting, will they focus on a peaceful diplomatic game? How will the AI act or react when something doesn't go their way (setting-wise?). For example, if a non-aggressive civ becomes cornered and the only way out is to fight hard, will it?

In other words, to make Civ3's civs less predictable (e.g., Chinese always growing fast and agressive), just change their settings? But what if I don't want to know what the Chinese will or won't do???

And taking your Babylonians example. With them back-stabbing you EVERY game, isn't that too predictable?

How can one hide or randomize the setting in the file so that a civ's tendency will not be predictable or known?

You could, in theory, set the aggressiveness to the maximum for all Civs and set the strategies to be similar or identical (i.e., always build offensive ground units, or whatever).

It was really a conscious design choice, though, for each Civ to play a certain way, and this goes back to the "quality vs quantity" argument.

To my knowledge there's not a "randomize" function right now that changes the AI personalities, but it's certainly an idea I can pass along to the team.

And re: the Babylonians, perhaps I was being a bit dramatic about them "backstabbing", but let's just say I have had a few confrontations with them that ended less than fortuitously for me
Some of the testers seem to really despise Gandhi so I guess a lot of it is just in how you play the game.


Dan

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS It was really a conscious design choice, though, for each Civ to play a certain way, and this goes back to the "quality vs quantity" argument.

Thanks Dan for the reply. While I have advocated for a long time to have a fewer number but quality civs, I certainly didn't expect for quality to mean predictability ("to play a certain way").

[jsw363]

I'm glad that each civ will have personality, but would like the random option as well, so I don't always have to face those backstabbing Babylonians. The Indians were never my favorite opponents either. I wonder if an agressive civ has different tactics for different situations or if it reacts to the same events similarly regardless of the situation...

[mactbone]

Shouldn't this thread be signified as important?

[Steve Clark]

Mac, most folks seem to be enamored with how the graphics look instead of something as trivial as the AI.

[Txurce]

In Civ 2, the Mongols and Babylonians (picking easy examples) respond fairly predictably at the start of each game, based on their own separate tendencies. As the game progresses, they become increasingly similar in their response to your (usually dominant) civ.

The changes in Civ 3 seem to be elaborations on this basic pattern. That we have a more detailed sense of a civ's characteristics when we first encounter them shouldn't be too different from my Civ 2-based distrust of the Vikings and comfort with the Americans. And it's all too likely that all civs will turn equally hostile in the later stages of the game, if you're "supreme."

The same could be true of the UU's. The edge they provide is no bigger than the way one occasionally encounters a Civ 2 nation with archers when you're still researching horseback riding. Dealing with it is part of the fun, and knowing who has the JW (for example) ahead of time becomes moot once you encounter one, be it Aztec or Iroquois.

Possibly more important is the game engine's selection of civs for each game, so that a balanced assortment of traits (and therefore, challenges) are present for stimulating game play.

[jdd2007]

Ive had this idea for a while but i didnt really no where to post it. dan seems to be looking at this thread so here goes- each civ should have a third "attribute:" either aggressive, defensive or balanced. this wouldnt make the zulus, for example, extremely aggresive, easily provoked and warlike. it would just make them so that when they are ALREADY at war, they are more likely to attack rather than falling back on their defenses. the americans on the other hand would protect their own soil before any offensive action be taken. any comments?

[Melios]

I think it should go furthur by having numerical values attributed to AI characteristics. Characteristics like Aggressiveness, Defensivesness, Expansion, Economic, and Scientific.

[Dimorier Maximus]

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.

Yeah, even in Civ2, when the Babylonians were one of the tougher civs (which was almost never) they would always be backstabbing jerks.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Gramphos

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.

What have happened with the peaceful Babylonians that always was destroyed by barbarians?

i'll never forget my FIRST civ2 game, i was rome, and io shared an island with babylon.

i surrounded them with phalanxes (at the time) forcing them into only 3 cities.

every other turn i demanded gold, and i got 200-250 each time.

i really didn't care where they got it.

[DonJoel]

Just for the record the babylonians has my record for most worthless civ in civilization 2. I dont think I´ve never seen them past pathetic, but mostly they never appeared.