Lots of Features AND Smart AI

[Captain]

nato, about your original post, totally in agreement!

Originally posted by Tuberski
The AI never uses artillery now. If you remove that option from the AI, it will concentrate on other things. Instead of the peicemeal artillery you see now. I have yet to be hit by artillery when the AI attacks.

tuberski, what do you mean remove that option from the AI?
i assume you mean you've edited the game, but how?
did you make artillery unavailable to all AI civs? or did you set the AI to never produce? or did you deselect the bombard/attack unit AI roles setting ?

just trying to get a sense of whether the AI has been prevented from ever using it, or just 'discouraged' from using it (and smart enough not to).

[SirSebastian]

Actually, in 1.21f the AI does use artillery somewhat offensively. =P Of course, that was just used as an example. And, does that jimmy guy have to post everywhere that MP is all that counts?

SMAC was a good game, but Civ III is better. I certainly can understand O.O. being sad about it, but at least he understands what Civ III is. It's "streamlined." Personally, I like the different direction Sid went with it. However, he should be cautioned against dumbing down the game... but I don't think he did this (how could you ever say he did with resources + culture?). It is unfortunate if he truly thinks that SMAC was a failure, it wasn't. It was just different. There is room for both the streamlined and the complex, and SMAC did some things right that no other game has done, IMO. Civ III, however, is just beautiful.

PS - I do a killer Nwabudike Morgen (sp... haven't played SMAC in ages...), "Human behavior, is economic behavior"

[Deornwulf]

What OO brings up is very sad. Perhaps CivIII marks a new era of throwaway TBS games sold only to entertain the masses for a few moments until the next distraction is released. If this is true, then replay has no value to Firaxis or Infogrames. Someone tell me this isn't true .

[nato]

Well no one but Firaxis really knows why design decisions were made the way they were. The game could be simple because:
1. By intentional design
2. For the AI's conveniance
3. Ran out of time

Probably some combo of all three. I guess I tend to think it is more 2 and 3, and hence my post. If it was 1, maybe the less than perfect reception of the game will make them want to change course. In any event, expansion packs offer a real opportunity to change their decision and add features, if they wish.

Endless moaning about Firaxis-is-evil is useless. It just turns all threads into the same discussion. We've heard it all before. I say this even though I lean to the whiners side slightly! In any event, since my idea is arguing for change, it seems counter productive for whiners to turn it into the same old argument.

Anyway, if you really believe there is no hope ... WHY ARE YOU HERE? GET A LIFE!

Artillery is just an example! Replace it with terraforming, social engineering, espionage, specialized units, specialized city improvements ... any concept beyond the basics, that might be too complicated for an AI to use intelligently, but adds fun for the human.

I know, you might not like one of those examples either, and be just dying to say so, but in general more options = more strategy decisions = more fun for the human players.

Peeling away unnecessarily complex features of a game so that the AI does not have to deal with them I can understand. In some ways it has made Civ III more challenging to play than previous Civ games

You have a good point ... I just don't agree because it basically forces humans to operate on an AI's level. If the AI can't handle it, poof! its gone. It seems backwards to me to design the game around the AI instead of the human player. This leads to jokes like "fun was decided to be an unfair advantage since only the human player could enjoy it, so it was programmed out for the AI."

Being streamlined does have advantages, I admit. I guess I am just casting my vote for features over simplicity.

Perhaps the answer would be to give the AI units and basic abilities unavailable to the human player. Not necessarily as cheats but as advantages unique to the AI to make single play as exciting as possible

This would work for me. Cynical people describe the game as AI expoits versus AI cheats. I would rather it be human strategy & options versus AI advantages at basics.

I look at it this way... imagine a war between two forces. One side is small but very elite and clever. It uses tactics, weapons, and capabilities the other side doesn't even know about. The other side is not stupid, but fairly simple. It uses a few simple but effective tactics and basic weapons ... and it uses lots of them because it has more troops than the other side.

So it is a battle of brains versus brawn. I find that compelling. I would love to be the first force, using my clever strategy and special weapons to outfight superior but simple numbers.

Since humans will always be smarter than AIs, arming both sides with the same options will never work. It will have one of two results:
1. The game is on the humans level, and the AI is doomed
2. The game is on the AI's level, and the human is bored

Arming both sides with different options, to take advantage of the human's and AI's unique strengths, can give an overall even match, and an interesting and tough challenge.

Thanks a lot for reading and replying, sorry this one was so long.

[Cyclotron]

Deornwulf, looking at your sig I'm surprised you agreed with Ogie's statement...

and (driving a dagger thru my heart)

b) it was too complex thus affecting gameplay

In hearing the second comment it makes one wonder whether he means Firaxis couldn't code a credible AI to handle the complexity thus game challenge is a problem, or did he mean the unwashed masses never took to the game because it was too complex.

[Mark_Everson]

Great idea nato!

I think the core AI could be clearly enhanced if Firaxis could have been able to focus on doing a few things better. For my money, AI has always been the weak point in the Civ series. I'd probably still be playing actively if the AI were more challenging.

However I differ with one of your previous comments, that Firaxis had spent too much time working on making the features limited by what the AI could handle. I think they would be better going Further in considering what they can provide a good AI for in terms of rules than they do now. YMMV

One other issue is that if the AI lives in a much-simplified world, it could give problems in gameplay. FE if when taking over an AI city all of a sudden it doesn't Work. As in its population crashes, or other jarring things happen. I'm not saying your suggestions for simplified AI would cause that necessarily, but its something that might limit your approach a bit. Lets hope someone in a position to do something listens

[nato]

Wow thanks!

Those are good points, especially the second one. There are always unintended 2nd and 3rd order side effects...

I was under the impression a lot was removed and changed for the sake of the AI. I guess I got this impression reading posts here.

It might be tricky to make the human options and the AI options mesh ... but I think it could be overcome. Especially if, in general, it is just the AI not having options the player does. For capturing cities, for instance, the human player would get a city that didn't have any of his special human-only buildings, but did have the basic ones. But thats just an isolated example like artillery, so the concern still exists.

You are very right, there could be a lot of information or details missing. You'd have to make sure the low detail AI stuff could give all the info the high detail human stuff needed, or that this info could be generated on the spot.

Still I think it could be done ... it would probably be a lot easier than trying to get the AI to understand new features, at least.

[exeter0]

I am sorry but I must disagree.

I do not think that the AI should be disciplined not to use bombard (artillery & bombers etc) tactically.

To be competitive (from the time the cannon is available) the AI must understand the notion/value of combined operations.



I also think that the AI is not too far off... it CAN use artillery and cannon.. it just needs to be disciplined in coordinating attack/defense manouvres. It needs to develop more concentrated cominations of units. I do not thaink that this will be a major

If you suggest to Firaxis and convince them that we do not need the AI to develop combined offensive/defensive tactical manouvres then I think the game will become very stale very quickly.

The AI doesn;t need to be hard coded with instructions for each unit.. just each type of unit.

I sort of envision that the combat model could evolve with an evere growing library of 'set tactical manouvres'.

If I am over simplifyng the task then maybe Firaxis should get a proven wargame AI architect guru.

Look at Close Combat... a brilliant game with a vastly more complex model to achieve because the game operates at the combat unit level: each individual soldier is controlled with different weapons (rifles, sub-machine guns, grenades, flamethrowers, panzerfausts, mortars, heavy machine guns etc.) and will tactically manouvre hedgegrows, buildings, ruins, walls etc for cover.

Please do not lower your expectations of CIV in this regard. I think Firaxis are on the right track and are committed to maturing the AI combat model... look at the features in the XP that have just been announced!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Captain
nato, about your original post, totally in agreement!



tuberski, what do you mean remove that option from the AI?
i assume you mean you've edited the game, but how?
did you make artillery unavailable to all AI civs? or did you set the AI to never produce? or did you deselect the bombard/attack unit AI roles setting ?

just trying to get a sense of whether the AI has been prevented from ever using it, or just 'discouraged' from using it (and smart enough not to).

No, I haven't edited my game, it's just that the only AI artillery I see, i capture inside of cities. I never see it in the field.

[Grrr]

I too have yet to see Artillery of the AI's on the field.

[I-iZ-1337]

I've seenz the AIz with catz tho, but they never uzed them d00dz.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Grrr
I too have yet to see Artillery of the AI's on the field.

hi ,

seen it , when you play "deity" , ...

have a nice day

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by nato
Well no one but Firaxis really knows why design decisions were made the way they were. The game could be simple because:
1. By intentional design
2. For the AI's conveniance
3. Ran out of time

Probably some combo of all three. I guess I tend to think it is more 2 and 3, and hence my post. If it was 1, maybe the less than perfect reception of the game will make them want to change course. In any event, expansion packs offer a real opportunity to change their decision and add features, if they wish.

Endless moaning about Firaxis-is-evil is useless. It just turns all threads into the same discussion. We've heard it all before. I say this even though I lean to the whiners side slightly! In any event, since my idea is arguing for change, it seems counter productive for whiners to turn it into the same old argument.

Anyway, if you really believe there is no hope ... WHY ARE YOU HERE? GET A LIFE!

Nato et. al.,

Firstly apologies if I am considered one of the whiners in the throngs of the disconented. It has not been my intent in postings to do another Firaxis is evils Firaxis S&cks thread.

I've made my peace (at least to myself) with the Firaxian way of doing things. So my response comes from a cynical yet resigned realism. It is my belief that the TBS genre is at a crossroads.

I believe that Sid/Firaxis's vision of TBS is one that targets the new consumer, not the remnant consumer group of die hards. It remains to be seen if a simplified game will hold the long term appeal that its predecessors did. (and yes I believe it is simplified despite adds of culture and strategic resources. Even these two adds have had their sets of issues resulting in preferentially razing vs capturing and re: strat resources often times causing games to be more a matter of luck when scarce resources are involved. But I digress....)

As to your 3 points, Re: point 1 My point was this. As far as Firaxis is concerned, sales have done fairly well. Critical responses only appear to be coming from boards like this while it has gotten rave reviews from the gaming magazines. Truth of the matter is from a commercial POV the game was a success. (sure it was rushed even by their own admission and buggy as a consequence but the inherent design of keeping it simple is prolly justified in the Firaxian culture/mind set as the appropriate design decision.) A couple of adds for folks already familiar with the game and now wanting more to be thrown in for an expansion pack makes for a decent marketing strategy.

I agree with your point though that all three points probably played a role in the shaping and subsequent release of CIV3. I simply think though that from Firaxis's POV they prolly think they have a success on their hands and more to the point think they were absolutely correct in abandoning the complexity/feature laden approach they were following subsequent to CIV3.

Finally in response to your question:
"Anyway, if you really believe there is no hope ... WHY ARE YOU HERE? GET A LIFE!"

I wouldn't say I have no hope. Matter of fact I do. I just think that perhaps our hope lies with Brian at BHG as he really was the mastermind of CIV2 and SMAC. So again I appeal to Brian to remember his roots and after he completes RON, return to the TBS game approach.

Og

P.S. In any event I still find myself from time to time firing up CIV3 as a kind of diversion. Not nearly as immersible as the others mentioned but a kind of CIVlite alternative instead of playing solitaire. All in all an average to good game but not something I'm gonna have an addiction over as was the case with CIV2 and SMAC. I do keep watching though!

P.P.S. I applaud your attempts to get it through to Firaxis that features and AI can be an attainable goal. My apologies if my cynical realism (i.e. my belief that Firaxis thinks CIV3 is a success as is) throws the proverbial bucket of cold water on your optimism.

[Raion]

If Civ III was Civ II or SMAC or SMACX, then what would some of you do?

Smile!
Or
Not Smile!

So, basically the flavor of CIV III is different, and it is that difference that some contend that a game 'catches on'.

I do not know, but I had to 'catch on' to Civ in the Past, and SMAC.
Especially SMAC with globs of yuck on Planet!
I still am not use to that - as 'its yucky'.

I like the terrain in Civ III better, as not having the 'yuck' factor of SMAC.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Raion
If Civ III was Civ II or SMAC or SMACX, then what would some of you do?

Smile!
Or
Not Smile!

So, basically the flavor of CIV III is different, and it is that difference that some contend that a game 'catches on'.

If it was made differently, some would love some would hate it. Some love CIV3 as it now stands and hate SMAC for exactly those differences. (hey thats individual opinion everyone got one right)

My posts were speaking to the larger issue as to what is best for the TBS games future. (I don't know the answer to this)

Is it best to recruit a new generation of fans via the current implementation of CIV3 (IMHO simplified CIV style games) vs. providing more fully featured versions?

On The One Hand you've potentially shortened the learning curve thus allowing better immediate acceptance.

OTOH you run the risk of completely pissing off your core hard core consumer group. I submit much of the reason why there aren't as many complaints vs. earlier days is that some have already started walking away from the game. Notable exceptions being the trolling JT does every so often .

Only time shall tell what the future of the CIV genre will be.