Disenchanted

[Analyst Redux]

Originally posted by Heliodorus
Analyst, two questions:

When you say "can't be taught to," are you being generous to the design team in that they actually chose not to pursue such teaching?

Is it fair to say that the basic source of AI behavior for Civ3 was a previous Civ version's AI?

I guess I'm a little more disappointed in what Firaxis has released here, if the answers to either question is yes.

When I say "can't be taught to" I'm employing passive tense, in a deliberately vague linguistic construction, because I don't pretend to know whether the failure was one of effort or ability. That the AI never built super cities was observable fact. The why is open to debate. That the game's rules have been changed to preclude the possiblity of any player, human or AI, from building super cities is observable fact. The why is open to debate. I have advanced a theory that I believe is true.

It is fair to say that it is my opinion that the basic source of AI behavior for Civ3 was the AI behavior for SMAC and Civ II. Some have argued that the expansion aspect of the AI has made a large leap from Civ II, in that the AI now doesn't stop its expansion at some arbitrary point, but that leap was already made in SMAC. Similarly, the mass-units-to-attack behavior was built into the SMAC AI. It appears to have been fine tuned to a more aggressive attack release point, but not particularly changed. The first wave of any AI attack in SMAC aimed to pick off vulnerable units in open ground, i.e. mainly formers and crawlers. This, of course, is exactly what the Civ III AI does. In all versions, attacks occur front on, en masse, against one or two targets at a time. No combined arms, flanking maneuvers, sparrow-hawk strategies, etc., just mass attacks. There are plenty of games on the shelf that make less grandiose claims about their AI which can at least accomplish those kinds of basic military stretegies against you.

The single most significant warmongering AI improvement I see is that, when you declare war and move into AI territory, you better be ready for one mother of a storm of counterattacking units. In prior versions, units would be held in reserve, and you'd wind up with the easier task of defeating the AI piecemeal. In this game, you've got to take on the whole AI army in a counter-attack wave. It's not a very sophisticated change, however, as it simply means I've had to recalibrate how many units I need to bring to a front to start a war.

[Libertarian]

Analyst:

Your contributions are surely a welcome addition to the forum. I admire your dispassionate and systematic dissections. Thanks for sharing your insights with us.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
I tried to explain why we would never see a decent AI for a game like Civ until there were huge advances in AI technology and computing power. I used a comparison between Civ and Chess, an AI that can beat me regularly using only my home computer and a thick book of openings and useful patterns.

Chess: 64 identical squares which cannot change

Civ: Thousands of squares of numerous different types, each of which can have a number of additional properties which can change (ie roads, cities etc.)

Chess: 32 units (16 per side), one of which can be moved on each player turn (exception: castling). Limited upgrades (pawn reaches back line)

Civ: Potentially hundreds of units, all of which can move (in any sequence) every turn.

The list gets crazier from here obviously. I feel a bit guilty because on that long lost forum I suggested that the game had to be simplified in some ways in order to give the player a good challenge. (Not that anyone listened to me, but the idea is obvious from a design standpoint) I suggested giving the player a lot more challenges in maintaining control of his empire (which historically is a lot more realistic) and turning over a good deal of the operational tasks over to AI generals and ministers who would help the balance by the fact that they would be no better than the generals and ministers of the other civs. The advantage would be that the player could be kept busy solving management problems which would require thought and creativity and would hopefully be satisfying. Where the AI could not compete in management efficiency the choice could be made to either let it alone (the SMAC solution) or to change the game in certain ways so that the poor AI doesn't have to play the same difficult game that the player does. These areas should of course be far from the HP's view, not in direct combat for instance.

I have always understood Sid's disappointment with the game as it tended to be played, as a wargame. Civ has always been a wretched wargame, in many ways 30 years behind the boardgames being released at the same time. The idea behind the game was nonetheless fascinating, and I have been somewhat surprised to see how many people tend to treat these games as turn based warcraft clones. It is this tendency which has pushed Civ 3 over the edge, (though equal credit must also go to economic factors. It is obvious that in comparison to SMAC this game has a fraction of the graphics, voice overs etc.)

Given the choice between a closer (but duller) battle with the AI which I will tend to win anyway, or a sandbox game (like SMAC tends to be once you learn one of the many strategies to beat it), I'll take the sandbox, at least in a competition between Civ 3 and SMAC. At least SMAC was a lot of fun. I enjoyed comparing my performance and methods with others playing SMAC, and taking the many dynamic elements of that game and twisting them into new configurations.

Civ 3 should have been a brand new design, but instead it was just another tired retrofit of a game engine which is far past it's prime. After playing many hours of Civ 1, Colonization, Civ 2, Master of Magic, SMAC/X etc. the last thing I needed was to have the game engine stripped down and left naked before me. I know it too well already.

I agree with nearly everything you say, except for one thing: It is possible to have a challenging (not as good as Chessmaster, but challenging) AI for a civ-similar game, that is more complex than any civgame ever was, and here is how I would do it:

(Sorry for the cliff-hanger, but this is going to be a LONG post; coming soon. )

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Analyst:
Frankly, my biggest gripes (unary unit movement and bizarre unit activation sequencing) would be less of a problem if the units presented me with interesting decisions to make. But because the game is dumbed down, there's no decision whatsoever. I must improve the terrain. Period. That's it.

Pah; you get two fascinating decisions to make:
1) Build Road first, OR build Irrigation/Mine first.
2) Build Irrigation OR Mine.

And you get those decisions to make, like, HUNDREDS of times. Isn´t that wonderful?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Analyst Redux
You can’t have both “freedom from coercion� and “freedom from fraud�.

While I disagree with the core idea of economic Libertarianism, I gravely doubt I could have explained why in just 11 words. You start to scare me.

[Arrian]

Endgame tedium, however, has always been the bane of this series. As others have noted, it was less noticeable in SMAC because there were so many more possibilities for verticle development, you didn't run out of things to do, and there were more distracting window dressings/bells and whistles (the plot breaks, the voiceovers, the SP movies, etc.) that gave you a break from unit management. But while the lack of window dressing was, in all liklihood, an economic necessity this time around, the lack of verticle development is, I believe, a deliberate design decision, consistent with my thesis.

In short, you quite rapidly reach a point where you can't build or expand and it's pointless to conquer. So the second half of the "4x" game becomes a "1x" game. All you do is hold in place and maximize research until the tech tree yields the UN or a space ship. Yes, that is, indeed, quite tedious. [/QUOTE]

Well, that pretty much sums up the endgame problems. I love the early-mid game in Civ III (lets say up until I've build the Hoover Dam...or maybe a bit earlier, I don't know). I tolerate the endgame. I put to you this question, Analyst, what can be done? Can this be fixed, or must the whole Civ concept change - a vastly different Civ IV?

-Arrian

[Libertarian]

You can’t have both “freedom from coercion� and “freedom from fraud�.

That is true only if you define coercion as force of any kind, including initial force. Libertarianism does not oppose force; it opposes coercion, and defines it as force that is initiated ex nihilo. Fraud is merely a form of coercion, employing deceit — rather than a club — for mugging its victim.

[Comrade Tribune]

How I would Design A Civgame (Part I)

OK, I believe I have a workable approach for a Civgame that would surpass CivIII by a wide margin.

To begin with the beginning: Exactly whom did Firaxis want to please? My hypothesis: They never really asked themselves that question.

If they wanted to please the mass market, then why didn´t they create a better Intro? Wonder Movies? More Fluff? Most importantly: Why did they create a Civgame?

On the other hand, if they want to please hardcore strategy gamers, they really don´t have a clue. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH POST-REYNOLDS FIRAXIS: After Reynolds is gone, and Sid has mentally wandered off into Simgolfland, there is no one left who understands their customers. It´s not that they can´t program, it´s that they don´t know what to program, because they don´t know what we really want. I would be totally surprised by their ineptness, if I was told that the CivIII designers`spare time hobby was playing strategy games. I think it isn´t, and they simply don´t know what motivates us.

And here is where I must admit that those who said that some part of the responsibility belongs to the fans were right, Yin´s list notwithstanding. I was not involved with the List, so I may be wrong here, but I think the List contained mostly ideas and features , things we wanted to see in the game. What it probably did not contain, however, was an explanation, why we want this or that feature, or, even more generally, how we tick. I guess everybody assumed -as I would have- that was understood. And this is where the entire community went wrong. The CivIII designers simply don´t understand us strategy gamers.

(Observant readers will notice that I haven´t yet started to adress my topic; but I said my explanation will be LONG. )

[Analyst Redux]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, that pretty much sums up the endgame problems. I love the early-mid game in Civ III (lets say up until I've build the Hoover Dam...or maybe a bit earlier, I don't know). I tolerate the endgame. I put to you this question, Analyst, what can be done? Can this be fixed, or must the whole Civ concept change - a vastly different Civ IV?

-Arrian

A more tedious endgame is somewhat inherent in the design, but you don't have to cramp the design to the point where the back half of the game is a 1x formula.

SMAC actually had a number of useful solutions. Allowing the development of sea bases greatly postponed the termination of the "explore" stage of the game--and the AI was good about founding sea bases (if not any good at developing them). SMAC's verticality allowed the "build" phase of the game to continue through to the last turn, and to even be used as an alternate strategy. The tradeoff, as noted, is that since the AI doesn't grasp the value of verticality, using it is exploiting a feature the AI can't. Strictly an exercise in self-satisfaction.

Restoring the practical enjoyment of late-game conquest requires a more global set of solutions. From the beginning, players of this series have screamed for a more practical set of tools for dealing with late-game unit managment. Those ideas, mostly good, seem to perpetually fall on deaf ears. Don't ask me why. Give me those tools, and a corruption formula that makes distant cities something other than utterly worthless. Then, substantially retool the culture flip equation so that it doesn't become a sure-fire, no-effort thwart to invasions. [Random thought: 50% chance of permanently destroying a civ's palace when capturing their capital. A civ without a palace can never again gain a city by culture flip.] Once you do those things, late game conquest might be both practical and fun.

It'll still be more tedious than the early game, as that is inherent in the difference beteen managing a few cities an managing several dozens. But there will actually be reasons to care about playing the late game again this way.

Note to the political philosophers: I'm not going any further down that road in this thread, no matter how much you tempt me

[Comrade Tribune]

How I Would Design A Civgame (Part II)

Now, I have a theory: I believe that hardcore strategy gamers fall into two categories, with some in-between. I call them the Powergamers and the Sandbox Enthusiasts.

The Powergamers

What the Powergamers want from a strategy game can be described in one word: Challenge. They want to find the shortest path to victory over a mind quite as devious as their own, and therefore no AI (Chess exempted) in our lifetime will satisfy them. They will break every possible AI in a short while, so the #1 priority with Powerplayers is not an improved AI at all, but Multiplayer.

That doesn´t just mean the game should include Multiplayer. To satisfy the Powerplayers, the game must be designed to in every way accomodate and facilitate Multiplayer. In short, with this type, MP is the most important part of the package.

So what is important for MP? Quite a number of things:

-The game must be super-solid. Nothing more annoying than losing connection/the game hanging up all the time. For this reason alone, MP as an afterthought is the Death Kiss. The game must be programmed to acommodate Multiplayer from Day 1; otherwise it will never work in an entirely satisfying fashion.

-The interface must be programmed with Multiplayer firmly in mind.

-There must not just be many strategies (CivIII on Regent or Monarch level arguably has many strategies); the important thing is that all strategies must work equally well. The moment the Powerplayers discover the 'best strategy' that works better than everything else, Multiplayer falls apart. Not only must the designer understand that, he must prevent the problem by a no less than enormous amount of external playtesting.

-Last, but not least: To be MP playable, the game must not take TOO long. This is not to say it must be finishable in a single session, but there are limits. This is why EU isn´t really suitable for Multiplayer, even though it does contain the option. But the heart of the game, the Grand Campaign, takes so long it can barely be finished at all; certainly not would you ever find an opponent for Grand Campaign MP. There is the serious possibility that one of you might die, before the game is finished.

Next installment: The Sandbox Players

[Comrade Tribune]

Part III

The Sandbox Enthusiasts

Now I come to the part I understand best (I am 20% Powerplayer and 80% Sandbox Enthusiast).

What we want from a game is a bit more difficult to explain. But when all is said and done, I believe it comes down to two things:

1) Lots, and I mean awful lots of different toys to play around with and explore.
2) The toys must make sense.

(2) is because Sandbox Players usually have a very keen sense of logic and care a lot for the topic of the game. If a Sandbox Player plays CivIII, you can bet he knows a lot more than your average guy about history, and will be disaffected, if the designers`understanding of the topic is superficial and/or they don´t take it seriously. (This is where EU is shining: The designers obviously know a lot about their subject, and they take it very seriously.)

First and foremost, we want to experiment with a rich environment. SimCity will not appeal to Powerplayers, but it will have an enormous appeal to us. The best way to disgruntle us: Take away our toys. For example: All my favourite CivII units have disappeared in CivIII. My favourite units happened to be the Spy, the Partisan and the Crusader. You might argue that the Partisan was too weak, the Spy was too strong, and the Crusader has been replaced by Cavalry; but that argument would totally miss the point. Because my point is not about the function of these units in the game; my point is about the function of these units in the environment. Unlike Powergamers, Sandbox Enthusiasts don´t think "game". They think "environment". I liked my Spies, Partisans and Crusaders! They were cute. Taking them away single-handedly killed half the atmosphere for me. The minimum expectation of all us Sandbox Enthusiasts for CivIII was more units, more buildings, more wonders, more toys. Taking things away in this department was the one sure-fire guarantee for disappointment.

Now to the challenge part: The term 'challenge' (Powerplayers, please take note!) has a totally different meaning for us. We don´t play to win, we play to experiment. Therefore we don´t necessarily need a tough opponent. But we need some sort of challenge. If everything works equally well, experiments are meaningless. This is why there is a limited budget in SimCity, people move away if they don´t like your place, it would be even better if they could elect another Mayor, if you do badly. But there is no opponent; the challenge there is is provided by the environment itself.

And here is the basic misunderstanding: What the fans said is they wanted more of a challenge. What Firaxis totally failed to grasp -and what the fans themselves, in all probability, did only vaguely understand-, is the kind of challenge we wanted. We wanted a more challenging environment, which, of course, ideally, included stronger opponents, but not in the first place. What we wanted -and I am pretty sure I am speaking for all Sandbox Enthusiasts here-, is an environment intriguing and complicated enough to be challenging in itself, which CivIII, of course, utterly and totally fails to deliver. However, part of the blame belongs to us, because it must be admitted that I am not sure beyond reasonable doubt that we really, unmisunderstandably, communicated this decisively important, but in itself pretty complicated fact to Firaxis.

Now so far, the aspect of my theory most surprising to everybody, including myself, is that stronger AI opponents were really no one´s first priority. Because Powerplayers want great MP more than anything, and we Sandbox Enthusiasts want a degree of complexity where the game itself is the #1 challenge, with a stronger AI being a nice addition, as the sugar-coating on the cake, but not the be-all-end-all we perhaps helped Firaxis to very mistakenly believe.

*Tomorrow: So what should have been done instead?* Sorry, people, I am dog-tired.

[BanastreTa]

ComradeTribune,

Very insightful analysis re: powerplayer vs. sandbox.

Although I sense I'm not quite as disappointed with the game as you are, I think my breakdown is very similar--largely a history buff/keyboard Napoleon who likes a little bit of strategic challenge thrown in (so, I was especially impressed by the description of the Sandbox player).

This is a good, straightforward methodology for analyzing some of the practical areas wherein the game breaks down. It's also a good way, I think, of conceptualizing the "antigestalt" of Civ 3, how the constituent parts seem nice enough, yet don't add up to be an altogether satisfying whole.

I like.

The headline: "Don't take my toys away!"

BT

[moomin]

Originally posted by Libertarian

Rand's work is so easy to parody. [...]
If you're interested, here's a thread at Straight Dope, where I wrote a parody of Randian love scenes.

While fun, I really think that your parody was way to intrusive (yeah, sorry...) for it to be a good parody as such. The lady was a prude, shameless flaunting of fetisches nonwithstanding. But you got the style down, for sure.

[Cunctator]

Late game is a problem but i don't think the whole civ concept needs to be overhauled.

Substantially what we need is something really new in the end game. The SMAC council was a promising innovation, that could bring completely new strategies and interaction with the other civs. The end game should open new ways to play the game.

Besides, inherent weight introduced in the end game by the civ formula, more units, more cities, more of everything to manage, should be directly addressed. I mean that "automation" is not the solution. It cures the symptoms, not the sickness. Automation is needed when things goes out of control but don't make a better game, only a less tedious one (yes, civ3 absolutely needs this, don't flame me. I think that in the end game we need some game mechanics that enlarge granularity. Looking at the old wish list a good example was the "region" concept: you don't need to manage dozens of worthless cities but a few regions, a sort of supercities. Ultimately this enforce vertical building. The same goes for the military part of the game, with the exception that there is an alternative. If they keep the tons of units that currently we can build in the game they have to introduce an adequate warfare system, one that require more strategy than amass a bunch of units and throw it against the opponent. Otherwise a "chess like" system with fewer units to manage is more suitable.

[Sikander]

Comrade Tribune,

Excellent analysis, as you probably know from my post I am very much like you in my approach to the game. All this, and the use of "antigestalt" all in the same thread. One of the most interesting threads I've seen here.