VERY interesting bits from a Korean review...

[yin26]

Yes, it's an interesting way to force situations on the player. But when 'interesting' and 'reasonable' don't mix well, you tend to get detached from the process and view the gameplay as something to be manipulated ... not because you necessarily like or agree with the actions you are about to take but because you know that doing otherwise will artificially tilt that game against you.

By the way, this may well be one of the reasons Firaxis originally only wanted to have 8 civs in the game. My guess is that 'odd' diplomatic behavior increases exponentially with 16 civs in play.

[HalfLotus]

I want the ability to maintain alliances and friendships throughout the game. If I trade and fight for the English (I have a crush on the UK ) for centuries, I dont want them stabbing me in the back every game. Although sometimes is fine.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by yin26
Is Civ3 re-creating human-like diplomatic models or just rather rudimentary challenges for the human player?

If so, this would be somewhat reminiscent of Civ2 where if your ahead everyone attacks you Hopefully, this is not the case).

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.

I bought the game but only played it once mainly because the combat seemed so dry thus, I found the game hard to get into. But I do, one day, hope to play it.

[yin26]

In Europa Universalis, they use a rather elegant approach to diplomatic relations: The Bad Boy Rating. So each time you attack somebody, break a treaty, take some land, etc., you get a higher and higher 'BB' rating, which can only revert back to normal over long stretches of time being 'good.'

What this does, then, is makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE for you sustain peaceful relationships with other nations. They simply don't trust you. Thus, too high a BB rating will eventually put you in a situation in which you are the Public Enemy #1 and the AI civs WILL join together to pounce you into some form of submission.

This is wonderfully intuitive and yet still very fun.

Conversely, if your goal is to maintain peaceful relationships, you certainly can ... within the bounds of religious differences and so on. For example, as England you start off as a sworn enemy of France (1492). Now you can either try to get other nations to go to war against France (Spain, for example) and remain its enemy, or you can with lots of patience and warm "Letters of Introduction" slowly (I mean, it takes some time) actually win France over to liking you ... eventually seeing them offer an alliance. This, in turn, allows you to concentrate on holding your lands on the continent and build peacefully or try to expand in other parts of the world.

It is costly. It takes time and patience. But it is strategic and very satisfying to have a PEACEFUL and DIPLOMATIC way to build your empire.

[HalfLotus]

This was supposed to be case in Civ2. All I ever saw was "ENRAGED". Damn stupid AI, I just gave you 6 techs!

[yin26]

Yes. In fact, those artificial methods of forcing war on the player just aren't satisfying to me now after playing EU. I'll be VERY interested in some full reviews of the diplomacy.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by yin26

What this does, then, is makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE for you sustain peaceful relationships with other nations. They simply don't trust you. Thus, too high a BB rating will eventually put you in a situation in which you are the Public Enemy #1 and the AI civs WILL join together to pounce you into some form of submission.

I wonder if the UE model is just a refined one from Civ2 because this is similar to what occured in that game (i.e. If you break treaties, ceasefires, etc. the computer AI players "remember" your past transgressions and are reluctant to deal with you
.)?

[yin26]

I think it's much deeper, though. In Civ2, eventually they just hate you no matter what. That's not the case in EU. And since there are so many AIs in play in EU, when they gang up on you, it can REALLY screw you ... whereas in Civ2, no number of AIs ever really made me worry.

In part this is because EU also has in place elegant restrictions on the number of troops you can recruit at any one time, inflation goes up as you spend more money (thus making sustaining long wars VERY costly), etc. Great stuff.

[HalfLotus]

I think Civ2 AI got more aggressive each turn if you more powerful than them (esp. supreme) . No matter how nice you were, they hated you. Not very fun.

[yin26]

Precisely. It's an artificial and not very fun way to keep the game 'challenging' toward the end game when the human player is normally just mopping up the map.

Hmmm. Civ3 really should think about those recruitment caps and inflation ideas from EU ... otherwise those HUGE Civ coffers and nearly limitless unit flows (of vastly superior units, no less) make for some awfully dull end games.

[dennis580]

First of all Dan posted c couple of months back that he was able to play a peaceful game, but he had to give HUGE amounts of tribute and have 2 or 3 strong defensive units per city to do it. He finally decided to go to war because Abe refused to trade him oil.


Here's my explanation for the France and Persian battle. Perhaps the Persians was attcking Him and not the French because his territoy was less fortified and easier to pentrate then the French territory. Then the Persians realizing they in big trouble and cann't possibly fight both France and Him decide to make a peace treaty with France because it's stronger then Him.

I beleive this is probaly what happen.

[SerapisIV]

Please...you're ripping on the game for having bad or unrealistic AI based on a few lines of some preview. Wait till the final reviews before you start you conspiracy theories and AI bashing again. Also, comparisons to Civ2 AI are unfounded, because the AI was written by Soren, who never worked on Civ2 or SMAC.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by dennis580
Here's my explanation for the France and Persian battle. Perhaps the Persians was attcking Him and not the French because his territoy was less fortified and easier to pentrate then the French territory. Then the Persians realizing they in big trouble and cann't possibly fight both France and Him decide to make a peace treaty with France because it's stronger then Him.

I beleive this is probaly what happen.

I hope your right because this would make for a much more enjoyable and unpredictable game IF the computer actually analyzes the situation as you've described. However, this type of analysis could make for a boring game if your ahead because no one would attack you rather they would attack someone weaker. Thus, if you get ahead you could just coast to victory...ala CTP2.

[HalfLotus]

We were comparing Civ2 to EU.

[yin26]

Please...you're ripping on the game for having bad or unrealistic AI based on a few lines of some preview.

No ... "a few lines of some preview" and about 1,000 hours of Civ and SMAC that played EXACTLY that way.

Also, do I need to put in every line I post what I already put at the top: "It's still too early to say for sure."

But it if smells like a chicken...