Unlinking personalities to A.I. civs

[Shogun Gunner]

I like the idea of A.I. civ's having a personality. I guess my wish is that a particular trait didn't always go to same civ. When I see Mongols, Zulus and Greeks all in one game -- I know there will be trouble. I'll still bust them up, however!

A little bit more surpise by unlinking the trait from the civ and not revealing a country/leaders tendencies. This allows you to form an opinion of the other civs through your own play and experience.

You can tell too much about how the game will go when Herodutus the Historian tells you who the happiest civs are. There in front of you, whether you wanted it or not, is a listing of the civs and their strategy.

[jrhughes98]

If this occurs, realism will be sacrificed.

------------------
JRH

[Dr Strangelove]

I think gameplay could be improved by programming civs to change personalities under certain circumstances. Historically even civilizations that we think of as typically pacifist have had their periods of militaristic expansion, and even warrior nations have their periods of peace. Through much of its history Egypt was content to remain within its domain along the Nile, but there were also a few Pharohs who mounted expeditions of expansion. Certainly China could not have been forged into a single empire without military escapades. On the other hand the Aztecs, before they won their empire, had once been a weak tribe, literally kicked around the mid-Mexican plateau.
Each "peaceful" nation should have a small chance each turn of converting to a militant nation. Peaceful nations placed under sufficient duress (by falling behind or loss of territory) should have an increased chance of "going rogue". Militant nations should have a small chance of converting to peaceful nations every turn, and if continually successful, this chance should gradually increase (sort of a "rise and fall" thing).

[UltraSonix]

The solution to this is simple and already in SMAC - a "randomize leader's personalities" option [or something similar to that] before the game starts.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Biddles]

I was just going to suggest that each civ should have it's preset personality (SE bonuses/penalties) and then an option to randomize them as in SMAC should exist.

Then I read Ultrasonix post.

Must be something good in the Melbourne water.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[UltraSonix]

It must be - and with all that rain falling lately, we'll be able to get more of it!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[jrhughes98]

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove on 10-29-2000 11:26 PM I think gameplay could be improved by programming civs to change personalities under certain circumstances. Historically even civilizations that we think of as typically pacifist have had their periods of militaristic expansion, and even warrior nations have their periods of peace. Through much of its history Egypt was content to remain within its domain along the Nile, but there were also a few Pharohs who mounted expeditions of expansion. Certainly China could not have been forged into a single empire without military escapades. On the other hand the Aztecs, before they won their empire, had once been a weak tribe, literally kicked around the mid-Mexican plateau. Each "peaceful" nation should have a small chance each turn of converting to a militant nation. Peaceful nations placed under sufficient duress (by falling behind or loss of territory) should have an increased chance of "going rogue". Militant nations should have a small chance of converting to peaceful nations every turn, and if continually successful, this chance should gradually increase (sort of a "rise and fall" thing).

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 10-29-2000 03:53 PM I've said this in a few topics but never gotten any response, so I am trying again.. P.S. This is also in the Tribes 0.1 and An AI Question threads. There should be sub-personalities as I mentioned in another thread. It may take me a while to dig it up but hopefully I will find it. Here it is: (It was in my Tribes 0.1 Post) 10. Civ Personalities [Dark Cloud] There should be 5 basic personality types- -Warlike -Expansionist -Neutral -Perfectionist -Pacifist And there should be 2 sub-personalities for each- -Warlike has 1. Fight to the Death (Never gives up after being attacked, almost never gives up when losing a war.) 2. Backstabber (Attacks when least expecting- attacks allies, etc) -Expansionist has 1. Settler Type (Builds many cities) 2. War Type (Attacks others cities) -Neutral has 1. Warlike (If insulted will attack - will only pay tribute sometimes) 2. Passifist (If attacked will attack- will pay tribute always) -Perfectionist has 1. City Developer (Builds up cities) 2. Unit Developer (Builds up armies) -Pacifist has 1. Researcher (Only builds the newest units and buildings) 2. Developer (Only builds the cheapest units and buildings)

To expand on what you are saying, Dr Strangelove, I think every AI should start out in a neutral state (that DarkCloud has described) and go from there, but with each nation having a small chance of making some kind of aggression (declaration of war, espionage, demanding tribute, etc.), and a small chance of making some kind of move towards peace (signing cease-fire, peace treaty, strategic alliance, forming a federation, exchanging and/or giving techs, giving/exchanging units, etc.) each turn.

------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 30, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

This is a good idea as then you could assign traits without offending real life countries!

[Shogun Gunner]

Thank you DarkCloud. That is essentially my point. I don't want to see Zulu's on list in my Civ II games because I know what their strategy is going to be before I even see one of their units.

I don't think we need to adhere to "realism" as it pertains to Zulus or anyone else in human history. The idea is this is a simulation and everything and anything might be different from true history.

[Stuff2]

I don't like the idea of having a predefined civ personalities. I don't think that russians, greeks, zulus and vikings always should be agressive, expansive and unreliable. Let the personalities be randomed at start and let them also change during history.

[Deathwalker]

Personnaly I think civs with more peronality wold be a good thing, but I am not sure if they should be linked to the real life civs?

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm sure that if you looked back in the history of any civilization you would find a leaders who fit any of the suggested personality types. Among American leaders you might assign James Polk, who fought the Mexican American War, or Teddy Roosevelt, who advocated the "speak softly and carry a big stick" policy, as military expansionists, while assigning leaders like Thomas Jefferson to the role of pacifist perfectionists. Historically you also find that sometimes pacifists leaders become expansionists while some militaristic types do extrodinary things for the internal development of their countries. Thus Jefferson, who abhorred things military and also the old style European mindset of treating peoples and territories like pawns on a chess board, couldn't pass up a terrific deal like the Louisiana Purchase. Teddy Rooseveldt may have been one of America's most famous Jingoists, but he also fostered a new role for the federal government of preserving the environment and protecting the people from big companies.

What I'm saying is that Civ3 could offer a selection of leaders for each nation, each having his or her own historical personality. For the US the expansionist would be Teddy Rooseveldt, the pacifist would be Thomas Jefferson. I also think that it would help gameplay if the personality of each nation had the capacity to change periodically over the course of the game. An even crazier idea would be to give each nation a dynasty, in which the name of the leader changes every 20 years (or 5 to 10 years in a Republic or a Democracy).

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove on 10-31-2000 11:28 PM What I'm saying is that Civ3 could offer a selection of leaders for each nation, each having his or her own historical personality. For the US the expansionist would be Teddy Rooseveldt, the pacifist would be Thomas Jefferson. I also think that it would help gameplay if the personality of each nation had the capacity to change periodically over the course of the game. An even crazier idea would be to give each nation a dynasty, in which the name of the leader changes every 20 years (or 5 to 10 years in a Republic or a Democracy).

Great idea! This would give some variations to the negotiating segments. Too many games are "Once at war, always at war" diplomatic relations. Keeping up would be crucial and very difficult if Civ III has large number of civs allowed as discussed in other threads.

[Maccabee2]

The solution to this is simple and already in SMAC - a "randomize leader's personalities" option [or something similar to that] before the game starts.

This is the most simple solution to the problem, and I hope Firaxis implements at least this.

[Maccabee2]

Ultrasonix, I meant to credit you for that above post. I forgot to put your words in quotation marks.

Now to quote another,
"To expand on what you are saying, Dr Strangelove, I think every AI should start out in a neutral state (that DarkCloud has described) and go from there, but with each nation having a small chance of making some kind of aggression (declaration of war, espionage, demanding tribute, etc.), and a small chance of making some kind of move towards peace (signing cease-fire, peace treaty, strategic alliance, forming a federation, exchanging and/or giving techs, giving/exchanging units, etc.) each turn.

------------------
JRH

JRH, what a great idea! By allowing each civ to begin neutral in its temperament, it could allow the AI to react to its environment, both related to terrain and other civs. This would make a truly revolutionary diplomatic model if it could be implemented.