VERY interesting bits from a Korean review...

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by yin26
Well, in case you guys missed my Korea thread earlier, here it is: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=25219 Be warned, it goes VERY off-topic and all over the place at points. Pay attention to the second page where I show you images of what the Japanese did to the Koreans.

As for Korean-Japanese relations, I think you can see they were tense (and still are). What is not in dispute, however, is that Korea seeded Japan. Does this mean Korea should be in Civ3 before Japan? Well, I think it's only part of the story...but an important one.

Anyway, as for the AI described above: If what we have is basically SMAC and Civ2 AI (in diplomacy at least), there will be MAJOR TWEAKING that will have to take place...to put it kindly.

Good post about Korea and Japan Yin.
The curious thing is that I've seen these discussions before about other nations as well (e.a Spain but no Portugal, no vikings in Civ3, Americans not a historic civ etc...), even back in the usenet days this would pop up from time to time. There's something universal about these discussions.

As for the AI. It sound very Civ2'esque to me!

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by BigBopper
I am very excited about the A.I. (It's from Sid after all).

Sid's on the title in name only. Although he had his say in the gamedesign he mostly worked as a playtester for Civ3.

[SerapisIV]

Alright !! Initial signs show that Soren did a bang up job. Hopefully the initial impressions hold true after the 30th and 300th hour of play.

[SITS]

I think I would side with Japan to be included ahead of Korea. In the same sense that America was colonised by Europeans yet no one really suggests that because of that they shouldn't included. The fact that America is a major civilisation now means they should be included and I think the same argument goes for Japan as well.

Saying that it would be right for Korea to be included in any update and that they have a legitimate right to be included ahead of the Iroquois...

I too hope the AI isn't solely based on the SMAC Diplomatic model. It was enjoyable to play against but sometimes too rigid. (Just to put my post on topic!)

[Zealot]

Damn! I ranted so much about NOT wanting an AI agressive like in SMAC!

This is the part where we see that a project losing half of its working power is extremely damaging to itself! It seems that Civ3 will have the same engine that was left by Brian & co. in SMAC, because in Firaxis probably there is no one expert enough to create an entirely new engine!

[Dry]

Originally posted by Earthling7
Interesting stuff, but I am concerned about the France/Persia affair. I hope this was a deliberate betrayal, not just a stupid AI stupidity.

Smells like the stupid diplomacy AI of MOO2.
The algorythm is something like: "I don't like to be at war with 2 factions. When this happen, I accept peace with the first one to ask".
So,

Case 1:
- you declare war to B (Bad guy)
- you ask A (Ally) for help
- if A agrees, in the same turn, you make peace with B.

Case 2:
- A, at war with B ask you for help
- accept and on next turn make peace with B (possible only if A didn't do it before you)

Boring to death

[magnwa]

Sounds to me like the France / Persia thing was a very calculated betrayal. The AI on SMAC does that often.. maintaining vendetta against two or three opponents, and asking you to fight against the fourth, while making a peace treaty with them. The question is, is France stabbing Persia in the back... or is France stabbing YOU in the back?

Magnwa

[Solver]

Pessimists, you'll eat your words when the game arrives to you!

[GoofyBoy]

The whole Japan/Korea thing boils down to "My Kung-Fu is better than your Kung-Fu".

Japan is a major powerhouse today, just like the Greeks or Romans were in ancient history. Unless I'm mistaken, Korea wasn't a world (Western-centric?) powerhouse in the past.

But it is a shame that they didn't include Korea just because they are big computer gamers. Maybe someone could add them with the editor.

[Green Giant]

That worries me a bit . I hope the having the AI "good" doesn't mean it screws you over at every turn.

[wotan321]

Wow, that discussion of the Persia/France diplomatic event really took the wind out of my sails.... that sounds just like EVERY game of Civ2. As soon as you started winning, everyone stays at war with you the rest of the game. Diplomacy became a non-issue. If the workings of diplomacy are the same for Civ3, it will be a HUGE disappointment. I hope this reviewers game was an aberation.

Every other review made it sound like diplomacy was really working, and peaceful maneurvering was a viable option. Lets hope this is the case.

[zoom200]

Originally posted by GoofyBoy
The whole Japan/Korea thing boils down to "My Kung-Fu is better than your Kung-Fu".

Heheh...japan vs korea would be Karate Vs TaeKwando....
but seriously...when the west thinks of asia...do they only think of kungfu...

If that is the case...it would be so cool lying to pple in North America and Europe abt asia...

[Jason Beaudoin]

What's amazing to me is to see that the reviewer couldn't keep politics out of the article. Very unprofessional.

I'm a little worried about what the AI did in that scenario because I certainly wouldn't want a good friend of mine to do that kind of crap.

Anyway, I wonder if that would happen if two countries made a "mutual protection pact". Would the other country make peace without you? Would that not be breaking the treaty?

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Zealot
Damn! I ranted so much about NOT wanting an AI agressive like in SMAC!

This is the part where we see that a project losing half of its working power is extremely damaging to itself! It seems that Civ3 will have the same engine that was left by Brian & co. in SMAC, because in Firaxis probably there is no one expert enough to create an entirely new engine!

I don't think so. We've known for a long while now, that less then 10% of Civ3 is old engine, that sounds pretty damn new to me.

Also, it sounds to me as if the AI is not like SMAC in aggressiveness. It sounds to me as if the AI is friendly/tolerable enough for most of the early-mid game and only becomes aggressive in the late game. That to me is good. I don't really enjoy the slow pace of ancient combat. Modern wars are much more fun as there is a full industrial base and existing armies and lots of attack options to be used. As long as the AI building its industrial base is very important, I'd be a very happy player.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I'm a little worried about what the AI did in that scenario because I certainly wouldn't want a good friend of mine to do that kind of crap.

Anyway, I wonder if that would happen if two countries made a "mutual protection pact". Would the other country make peace without you? Would that not be breaking the treaty?

Well, Pakistan and the Taliban were good friends until a month ago, so I don't see any lack of realism with such a feature. Throw in Germany and Russia in WWII and there's another example of real-world backstabing.