VERY interesting bits from a Korean review...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by yin26

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.

Yes, but all the Civs in the game were "seeded" by other cultures and civs, except the most ancient. I don't see this as ground for putting in Korea over Japan, and I think Japan's impact on world events, for good or bad, have been far more significant. *Turns on Sony CD player...*

Cheers.

[Boris Godunov]

Oh, and as for the France/Persia thing...

While I wouldn't say I believe this, here's a possibility. Look at how the guy entered into war on Persia. He didn't have a previous alliance with France, they simply asked him to ally against a country he hadn't even met. So his war declaration was unprovoked and, frankly, rather evil. France's betrayal of him was not a longtime friend backstabbing, but rather one opportunistic civ giving an opportunistic player his just desserts for warmongering.

In summary, he deserved what he got.

Cheers.

[Sarcastro]

Sounds like the "*** for tat" engine works just great!

[magnwa]

I see a lot of you guys upset that the France and Persia signifies a somewhat.. mischevious AI. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why. This is not a game that should hand you a win.. this is a game that basically has different civilizations, all wanting to WIN. You're wanting to win. I'm wanting to win. You'd stab me in the back to win. What's wrong with me doing the same? I see a lot of unease and disconcertedness with the fact that the AI's are starting to pull the same crap we pull on them, and it's ironic

Magnwa

[SITS]

Originally posted by magnwa
I see a lot of you guys upset that the France and Persia signifies a somewhat.. mischevious AI. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why. This is not a game that should hand you a win.. this is a game that basically has different civilizations, all wanting to WIN. You're wanting to win. I'm wanting to win. You'd stab me in the back to win. What's wrong with me doing the same? I see a lot of unease and disconcertedness with the fact that the AI's are starting to pull the same crap we pull on them, and it's ironic

Magnwa

I think people are worried about the AI doing it for stupid reasons rather than intelligent ones....

[Crouchback]

Great post Yin, and its good to see some detail finally emerging.

I'd love to know what difficulty level he was playing at, because that France/Persian stuff was alway happening at medium to high levels in Civ2. They'd get me into an alliance just to force a war on me, then all make peace and even turn on me. Most bloody annoying.

A good AI would be one that can handle defence when attacked, offence when it is best in it's interest, and maintain reasonable and sensible diplomatic relations. Not one that demands help in a war they're not even fighting in the first place. From this preview the AI sounds very bad to me, and the ign.com preview doesn't even mention combat...

David

[sekong]

Thanks to Yin

I got 40 point at today's civtrivia, the question about which civ built the earliest ironclad. Korean.

Anyway, it's sign that firaxisian noticed your "point".
I like your design of Korean as a civ. Hope to see/implement in some modpacks.

[yin26]

LOL! That's cool! I just ran over and answered my very first trivia question...because that one had special meaning for me. Now I have a huge 40 points!

(Thanks, Dan, for putting that one in there...)

[yin26]

Yes, but all the Civs in the game were "seeded" by other cultures and civs, except the most ancient.

Well, this is partially the point: Korea IS one of those civs that seems to have no traceable seed. It has just been around as long as anybody knows. Anyway, I'll leave this discussion for my other thread about Korea if anybody cares to post about it.

Ah, but I should add: Koreans and Mongols (and Cherokee Indians, of which I am 1/16th) share the 'purple butt at birth' gene code.

[Akron]

Originally posted by magnwa
I see a lot of you guys upset that the France and Persia signifies a somewhat.. mischevious AI. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why. This is not a game that should hand you a win.. this is a game that basically has different civilizations, all wanting to WIN. You're wanting to win. I'm wanting to win. You'd stab me in the back to win. What's wrong with me doing the same? I see a lot of unease and disconcertedness with the fact that the AI's are starting to pull the same crap we pull on them, and it's ironic

Magnwa

I have no problem with the computer being aggressive, but I want to have some civ that will make good allies and will be worth talking to. In civ 2, I always felt as if the computer was just one sprawling but incredibly idiotic civilization. I didn't really distinguish the different civs; they all sorta merged into one and i ended up attack them all at the same time because they never liked me. IMO, this lack of diplomacy really hurts the game. I want some AI civs that I can actually talk to and trust, though I also want a bunch of aggressive or manipulating ones as well.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Solver
Pessimists, you'll eat your words when the game arrives to you!

Only if the France/Persia thing has a reason or doesn't happen very often. If AI continues to suck me into conflicts and then immediately get out of them just because the comp can, that is neither good AI nor is it fun.

[Simpleton]

It's great to finally see something on the AI. Thankfully, it's positive news.
I like the fact that the AI can be a slimeball (or is it 2 words? slime ball?). It seems way better than the "I love you, you love me" Barney AI from CTP2!
I think deep down what I most wanted from Civ3 was an improved AI and it "looks" like this is what happens although I'm still concerned about the "Histograph issue" --> see post by myself on this for further info.

PS: Way to dig up good stuff Yin...there may yet be some use for you.....

[yin26]

LOL! Well, 1 in 100 posts has to be to some good purpose. This is Karma.

Anatolia is the one who found the article, by the way. I hope he doesn't hate me now for posting it this way...but he said he wasn't going to translate it (it might be a bit outdated), so what was a Civ addict to do?!

[yin26]

As for this particular AI issue, it does concern me a bit (of course we lack sufficient evidence to make any sweeping statements). Namely:

1. Why didn't France attack Persia...or Persia attack France? I doubt there is something sophisticated enough in Civ3 for France and Persia to *pretend* to be at war just so they can trick a 3rd party into conflict and then gang up on him.
2. And no matter how that happened (either by design or just plain old AI simplicity), one has to wonder: Is Civ3 re-creating human-like diplomatic models or just rather rudimentary challenges for the human player?
3. I compare this against Europa Universalis, which has some outstanding dimplomatic rules and gameplay. In fact, it's primarily a game *about* diplomacy as, sadly, the combat model is shallow. However, in most cases, the AI in Europa Universalis is reasonable but not a push-over...and though you'll never make EVERYbody happy, you'll understand why you are pissing people off when that day comes.
4. Otherwise, where is the strategy?

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by yin26
As for this particular AI issue, it does concern me a bit (of course we lack sufficient evidence to make any sweeping statements). Namely:

1. Why didn't France attack Persia...or Persia attack France? I doubt there is something sophisticated enough in Civ3 for France and Persia to *pretend* to be at war just so they can trick a 3rd party into conflict and then gang up on him.
2. And no matter how that happened (either by design or just plain old AI simplicity), one has to wonder: Is Civ3 re-creating human-like diplomatic models or just rather rudimentary challenges for the human player?
3. I compare this against Europa Universalis, which has some outstanding dimplomatic rules and gameplay. In fact, it's primarily a game *about* diplomacy as, sadly, the combat model is shallow. However, in most cases, the AI in Europa Universalis is reasonable but not a push-over...and though you'll never make EVERYbody happy, you'll understand why you are pissing people off when that day comes.
4. Otherwise, where is the strategy?

This goes to whether or not the AI will practice such a strategy in ALL games. Hopefully they can mix it up a bit. In Civ2 modern ages, everyone ALWAYS hated you unless you gave ridiculous gifts.