Disenchanted

[Captain]

Analyst Redux:

You make a lot of good points. Lots to think about...
I don't know about the others, but I hadn't realized the AI was the driving reason for many of the things they've implemented.
Streamlining helps the AI a lot more than us.

I suppose making a MP would have allowed for the complexities we humans both can handle, and demand.

But since it's SP, it looks like we're stuck with a real tradeoff.
More of the options and intelligent decision making we want (like build factory or bank? build mines or build irrig? etc...) would mean more AI incompetence.
But designed more in a way the AI can handle, and the game will favour us playing like the AI - not much thinking involved!
May as well Ctrl-Shift A our whole empire!

Most of the suggestions made have been for improving our gameplay and choices - without considering how potentially crippling that might be for the AI.

I know a bit about programming, but not enough to propose how to really make a good enough AI to handle the ideas we're coming up with on this board.
Is that why the free civ game being developed online is MP only?

Solutions anyone?

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Analyst Redux



The constant in this list: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A simplified decision tree makes it easier to play well, but harder to distinguish your own play from anyone elses (including, of course, the AI's). It also definately makes the game more boring and repetitive. OTOH, as you reintroduce complexity, you also reintroduce AI idiocy. Therein lies the rub, and the problem that Firaxis is, quite apparently, not up to solving.

Nice post. I hope somebody is paying you well for your skills irl. I'd say you hit the nail on the head. Programming even a stupid 'ai' is not a trivial task, & the observations you've posted here should be noted by many in the community. The KISS principal should be tattooed on the brain of any wanna-be developer, game or otherwise.

Cheers,

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Captain

I know a bit about programming, but not enough to propose how to really make a good enough AI to handle the ideas we're coming up with on this board.
Is that why the free civ game being developed online is MP only?

Yes, it is.

[nato]

Blaaa Willem ... we will see improvements, but they will be minor tweaks.

The only improvement we might see that won't be minor will be stack movement. I'm not saying it is guaranteed to be done, but it is such a popular demand it might be done, just maybe.

Other than that, there won't be big new features, just tweaks. Firaxis's extremely light presence on this board does not change the fact that the game is for the most part already done.

Just how I see it though. Its just not realistic to hope for major new features for free ... we already paid.

[Willem]

Originally posted by nato
Blaaa Willem ... we will see improvements, but they will be minor tweaks.

The only improvement we might see that won't be minor will be stack movement. I'm not saying it is guaranteed to be done, but it is such a popular demand it might be done, just maybe.

Other than that, there won't be big new features, just tweaks. Firaxis's extremely light presence on this board does not change the fact that the game is for the most part already done.

Just how I see it though. Its just not realistic to hope for major new features for free ... we already paid.

Well as someone pointed out, for $50 I'm still getting value for my entertainment dollar. If I have to spend another $50 for an add on, then so be it. As long as the end result is a game that I end playing up again and again, which has never been a problem for me with any of the Civ games.

[Comrade Tribune]

Analyst, I assume your 'Settler' status is a bit misleading , and you are really a civlegend (such as: 'The Master of Masters'); these astoundingly brilliant posts have cut to the roots of the whole debacle.

I had thought the watering down of decision-making and complexity -the precise opposite of what so many of us wanted- was due to sheer incompetence and, perhaps, a lack of time and/or resources. Not realized had I that there was method in the madness. So the entire game system is a Potemkin Village, designed around the general idea to make the AI *look* as if it had improved. Now that, finally, makes sense.

[Comrade Tribune]

This also goes against the whole idea of a computer strategy game, which is to create a kind of complexity in the gameworld, which an oldfashioned boardgame simply couldn´t handle.

If I want a simplistic, streamlined game, I don´t need a computer. A boardgame would be the better choice. After all, Chess beats CivIII every day (24 hours a day, 7days a week, 52 weeks a year). The reason I play computer strategy games is I want as much of a simulation, as much complexity and multi-faceted decision making as technically possible. In a word: The exact opposite of CivIII.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
This also goes against the whole idea of a computer strategy game, which is to create a kind of complexity in the gameworld, which an oldfashioned boardgame simply couldn´t handle.

If I want a simplistic, streamlined game, I don´t need a computer. A boardgame would be the better choice. After all, Chess beats CivIII every day (24 hours a day, 7days a week, 52 weeks a year). The reason I play computer strategy games is I want as much of a simulation, as much complexity and multi-faceted decision making as technically possible. In a word: The exact opposite of CivIII.

Right! Very true. But HOW do you get an AI that's capable of that?

Or is MP the only resort?

And if so, wouldn't you want it to have Simultaneous turns (like Risk 2, a vast improvement over Risk 1 where you could railroad over your enemies so easily if you got the cards)...
If they make MP, I hope they figure out a way to make it Simultaneous turns (submit orders, then resolve) - which would also make it more playable for people who don't like PBEM!

[yin26]

Analyst: Great to see you here, old friend.

I think that the idea of making the AI "smarter" by making the game less complex was a deliberate strategy, and not merely accident.

Agreed.

it's a more difficult AI to beat, but a more boring game to play.

Fantastically put. And, in the end, that AI ain't all that hard to beat if you stick to the 'build a thousand cities' strategy anyway. Thus, Civ3 is a near total failure to me. Even *if* the AI were a right bastard (which it can be at times), the bore of beating it outweighs the satisfaction in doing so. As you said.

In the gameplay world of give and take, Firaxis took more than it gave.

[Sze]

Great post(s) Analyst. I wonder now if the only poor design decision Firaxis made was to allow for a single player game. I'll bet most of the fans here woud prefer a robust, multiplayer-only game to the one we got.

This actually makes me even less sympathetic to the programers. The AI, even with all these benefits, is still dumb as hell. If my governers are any indication, the city build decision-making code is 3 lines long.

If a wonder is available, build it
If our military is not 4*(#of cities) large, build military unit, goto x
Else build city improvement, goto y

And deciding which unit or structure to build is probably no more sophisticated than that. Likewise the worker decision-making code, the diplomacy decision-making code, etc... That's just plain sad.


Do you think they dumbed down the combat system to make the AI better at estimating its chance of success?

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....damn....so much to comment on since I left work...wow. I'm almost at a loss for where to start.

Firstly, to Lib and nato....thank you for your kind words. I....I dunno. Part of me rejects the notion of holding any special status, cos I never have. Perhaps this post is revealing a little more personal information than folks here are accustomed to, but I'm okay with it, as I regard everybody here as a friend. And, I think that having people who read here know WHERE I'm coming from is at least as important as the words themselves. (Note to Lib, the below, I think, should set your mind at ease that I cannot....would not forget "where I came from." This is, after all, a community, and the one I spend far and away more time at than any other. It's like a second home.

The truth of the matter is....I've never had an easy time at much of anything. Growing up dyslexic, all my teachers in grade school made me feel like a blithering idiot, my parents didn't understand why I couldn't seem to grasp even the simplest of concepts (tho my fifth grade teacher made the discovery that my answers in math were right all along, if only she reversed all the numbers...lol). So to start up a thread and have it thrust before me that I'm in some kind of special position is just....I dunno, I can't say it's an unpleasant feeling, but it DOES take some getting used to, cos it's just not what I'd call the norm in my life....if that makes any sense at all.

And then, there's something of a paradox that exists with everyone who writes, acts, paints, or whathaveyou. The greater part of the reason for creating in the first place is, of course, sheer love of creation. For me, it's the written word....makin' up stories, writing books, turning my Muse loose on a cool (potentially VERY cool) game and seeing where my train of thought will lead....I get into that kinna stuff...lol

Part of it too though, is the burning desire to be recognized FOR those efforts. I guess I just figured I wasn't there yet, and it took me by surprise when people started pointing that out. A little harder to adjust to than I thought it would be is all....::sheepish grin::

As to the recent posts here....I can't say I disagree with any of it. I only wish the game were designed differently. In the end, I suppose that's the crux of it.

If the AI were moddled after the behavior of a virus, with two very simple goals: Expand and Survive.

It's got the expand part down pat, I'd say, but the survival part....hmmm...after reading Analyst's post, it's got me thinking.

It's got me thinking a lot, actually.

GOD! A part of me wants soooo bad to solicit for people with programming experience and start up a little shoestring company, churning out a fairly simple game to test some of the ideas i have in my head, and then, once the validity of those ideas have been proved, turning our collective attention to something a bit more complex....a bit more like....the way I'd love to see Civ....

-=Vel=-

[gnomos]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Second, automatic upgrades. When you get a new unit type (pikemen), all your older units that upgrade to it are upgraded on the turn you get the tech with no prompting from you. If you can't afford it....tough. You lose them.

This is good cos it adds another layer of planning in HOW you attack the tech tree. You can't just go balls up racing at breakneck speed....not unless you wanna rebuild your army and defense forces from scratch.

Hmmm, I don't like this for a number reasons. First, I may not want to upgrade elite units and lose their elite status. Second, older outdated units are still useful for providing large garrisons for newly occupied cities. Third, seems like auto upgrades would create a major exploit - if a civ is low on cash, hand them the next tech and all their units poof. Then you waltz into their cities.

[Velociryx]

Good point. My solution would be to simply make the upgrades free for the AI. They already get cheats handed to them, so one more wouldn't be crushing, and it'd make them more of a threat in the Industrial/Modern eras....

-=Vel=-

[Analyst Redux]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Analyst, I assume your 'Settler' status is a bit misleading , and you are really a civlegend (such as: 'The Master of Masters'); these astoundingly brilliant posts have cut to the roots of the whole debacle.

I had thought the watering down of decision-making and complexity -the precise opposite of what so many of us wanted- was due to sheer incompetence and, perhaps, a lack of time and/or resources. Not realized had I that there was method in the madness. So the entire game system is a Potemkin Village, designed around the general idea to make the AI *look* as if it had improved. Now that, finally, makes sense.

I would never refer to myself as a "civlegend". I've been around the civ-block. I was quite active on the Firaxis SMAC boards, as Yin, and others, can attest. I was part of a group of poster there who dubbed ourselves the "Transcend Iron Men". We deconstructed SMAC til there was nothing left of it. :LOL: I played a lot of Civ2 MP and a little SMAC MP (which, in my mind, never quite worked).

I'm tempted to agree with your "Potempkin Villiage" characterization of the current offering, but I don't think it's quite that bad (or cynically intended). I can also point to examples of new feature/rules that have been added that the AI seems to do quite well. Pop-rushing, for example. At least, if the AI isn't effectively pop-rushing, I can't figure out how else it is doing so well in the early game. I also do see a refinement in the mass-to-attack formula which I count as an improvment over the prior offerings. Other improvements like that. But the real improvements are incremental, unfortunately, and absent the simplification of design, probably wouldn't have been particularly noticeable, IMO.

[Capt Dizle]

Thanks for the clarity Analyst!

If you are correct, and I think you are, then Firaxis has tried "addition by subtraction" in their effort to make a challenging SP game.

Wouldn't it follow then that they would have to "know" that in constructing multiplayer they need to go 180 degrees in the other direction and give us more instead of less?

I hope so.

I doubt it though.