About health and protective border tolls

[Ralf]

Every conceptual idea doesnt necessarily have complicated and roundabout in its explanation and execution. Heres two examples:

The health concept:

The basic idea is that "full health" means that the foods-, shields-, coins- and lightbulbes-production continues maximal and problem-free, like in Civ-2. Beneath full health means that all those four areas suffers gradually and accordingly. You can counteract this, by building city-improvements like Granary, Bathhouse, Sewersystem, Farmacy, Hospital. Maybe an added food-rations & workdays parameter to combate above.

The protective border tolls concept:

The basic idea about "protective border tolls" is that any trade generated between any indevidual AI-empire and the human player, is city-screen tweakable through empire-dependent "economical strangulation" slider-bars, working from 0-100%, with 10% increments. Any AI-civ (or human player) can then choose to deliberatly strangle its trade with a hostile civs, either partly or totally - either alone or working together with allied civs - and instead try to promote maximal trade with more friendly civs.
Some other immune-modifiers can perhaps be implemented in order to give any AI/human player some means of bypassing the effects, besides working on nice and good relations and diplomatics.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 03, 2001).]

[Kumiorava]

Excellent ideas Ralf!


I like how the trade concept opens up new fronts for diplomatic relationships - especially alliences would finally offer other than just military purpose. A few allied civs imposing trade sanctions on anotherone could quite easily inflict some major damage on that civs economy and research. Might make people think twice before lobbing nukes on every other player, even if the others are too far behind in tech to retaliate militarily. Also, if someone's getting too far ahead techwise, you can lay simple trade sanctions on them to try and slow down their science output. Perhaps allied civs could take it even further by creating "tariff free borders" that would give an extra boost on traderoutes between the allies.


Lot's of ideas available there. However, I won't elaborate this any further, as it would hurt the beautiful simplicity of Ralf's concepts.
[This message has been edited by Kumiorava (edited January 03, 2001).]

[Ralf]

Glad you liked it Kumiorava!

I realize that above ideas can be tweaked better here and there. It was hastily written down. Im open for suggestions.

But, the basic trick is to keep any added city-screen parameters (like health, religion, or whatever) as instantly understandable and as game feedback overview-able as possible.
Yet, at the same time, only bother with ideas that really ADD as much as possible to that famous juggler-act of the just-one-more-turn Civ-game enigma.

Theres only so-and-so much any average future Civ-3 strategy-gamer humanly can digest, in terms of added city-screen parameters and game-feedback info, you know.

The more complicated an idea is to explain to any fellow player, and implement for the game-designers; the more likely it is that this or that idea acts as a cuckoos hatchling; pushing other concepts and ideas out from the city-screen, and out from the game. If not for any other reason: at least as a result of its shere size and complexity.

This is why the "Keep It Simple Stupid" civ-3 design loadstar, is so damn important!

[Kumiorava]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-03-2001 06:51 PM This is why the "Keep It Simple Stupid" civ-3 design loadstar, is so damn important!

I couldn't agree more. And if Sid's words are worth anything,we might very well indeed see something of the like of your trade toll model in the game:

quote: From Sid's message: We think it will be fun to be able to corner the market by specializing in the production of oil, or wheeling and dealing with other civilizations to achieve mutual economic benefits or to cut off resources to a powerful enemy.

Sounds good to Kumiorava.

[Youngsun]

Ralf

quote: the basic trick is to keep any added city-screen parameters (like health, religion, or whatever) as instantly understandable and as game feedback overview-able as possible.

Yes that should be the way. I agree.

quote: Theres only so-and-so much any average future Civ-3 strategy-gamer humanly can digest, in terms of added city-screen parameters and game-feedback info, you know.

What about good old fans of CivI & II series? Do you really think game series like Civilisation can survive without giving good recognition to hard core fans by favouring new easily betraying fans who would throw civ away anytime if there is better RTS in their sight?
Who get first priority hah? Hard core fans or newbies? for this kind of game genre.... Think about it Ralf.
If anyone who haven't played civ series but enjoys complex strategy game will be attracted to civIII no matter what. People who don't like complexcity don't like even civI or civII and my sister is a good example. People who like wargames or history related games will love civIII even if that is damn complicated. Why? because they enjoy the complexcity! They like to push their brain to the limit. As I always
pointed out Ralf there are two types of complexcity.
If represented well, complexcity ensure game longevity if not the game becomes difficult to digest as you said.
So it's not a matter of simplicity or complexcity Ralf.
It's matter of fun or no fun OK? Simple game? Oh yea that can be very boring indeed if not represented well.
So put your energy to make the game fun and stop this nonsense of complexicty vs. simplicity which might discourage many posters to put new more elaborate ideas

"Keep It Fun Stupid" rule should apply to CivIII.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 04, 2001).]

[Kumiorava]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 01-04-2001 03:42 AM What about good old fans of CivI & II series? Do you really think game series like Civilisation can survive without giving good recognition to hard core fans by favouring new easily betraying fans who would throw civ away anytime if there is better RTS in their sight? Who get first priority hah? Hard core fans or newbies? for this kind of game genre.... Think about it Ralf. If anyone who haven't played civ series but enjoys complex strategy game will be attracted to civIII no matter what. People who don't like complexcity don't like even civI or civII and my sister is a good example. People who like wargames or history related games will love civIII even if that is damn complicated. Why? because they enjoy the complexcity! They like to push their brain to the limit. As I always pointed out Ralf there are two types of complexcity. If represented well, complexcity ensure game longevity if not the game becomes difficult to digest as you said. So it's not a matter of simplicity or complexcity Ralf. It's matter of fun or no fun OK? Simple game? Oh yea that can be very boring indeed if not represented well. So put your energy to make the game fun and stop this nonsense of complexicty vs. simplicity which might discourage many posters to put new more elaborate ideas "Keep It Fun Stupid" rule should apply to CivIII.

Nobody said the game can't be complex. The trick is to keep the underlying ideas simple enough to be grasped easily by everyone, while also keeping them relatively painless to implement into the game. The simplicity of the basic concept behind the original Civ series that made it so wildly popular: Take control of a nation and build a milennial empire. All of us could elaborate almost infinetly on that. In fact, that statement doesn't do a whole lot of justice to the game. But it's enough to make it appeal to all us closet megallomaniacs.
Now, complex ideas also have their place. That's what spwans new strategies (although the best ones tend to be simple - take the ICS for an example). This forum has certainly seen it's share of good complex ideas since the coming of Civ3 was announced in the summer of '99. Read the List, and you'll see what I mean.

In the end, it'll probably be the simplest and most straight forward suggestions that make it into the game. Simple basic aspects of the game can be used to create an endless number of more complex ones. Just look at chess, the mother of all TBS games. It's been around for ages, and it still capivates.

Civ2 is not very elaborate or cryptic in itself, yet it's kept us beating at it for almost 5 years now. "Keep It Simple Stupid" is really the mantra that applies best to TBS. If you get that right, fun comes out of it naturally.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 01-04-2001 03:42 AM So put your energy to make the game fun and stop this nonsense of complexicty vs. simplicity which might discourage many posters to put new more elaborate ideas.

I think Kumiorava sums it up pretty good in his post, but i will add the following anyway:

Youngsun, it ISNT the complexity of more alternative game-strategies; more ways to play the game; more ways to win, that in itself, is the problem.

(infact: the more fertile ground for alternative game-paths/game-strategies/game-customization Firaxis manage to squeese into the game - and the more complex game-situations these new paths and strategies results in - the better it is for the overal fun- and suspence-factor of the game, i think)

Instead it is more often the sheer complexity of the suggested ways how to achieve these alternative game-strategies - these new ways to play the game - thats results in BIG headaches. Both from an game-manual explanation- and from an game-AI programming point of view.

I have said it before, and i say it again, Youngsun:

If Civ-3 was suppose to be a standalone 100% multiplayer game only, there the AI was reduced to be the messenger-boy between human players: An obedient executor of human player commands only: Then the whole complexicty/simplicity discussion would only deal with what was understandable from a human player manual-reading point of view.

The problem is that as soon a programmer is forced to simulate "intelligent desicions" in such a large, multi-optional and open-ended game like Civilization - then built-in AI-limitations easily start to rear its ugly head back and forth.
There are some reasonably good level-the-road AI shortcuts and principal ways to deal with it, in a game like Civ. But ONLY if one understands the basic dilemma, and as a result of this, tries as much as possible to adjust any AI-related upgrade-suggestions with this in mind.

Either one get it, or one DONT get it.

Heres a couple of threads thats explains my ways of looking at the Civ-3 development. I dont necessarilly expect you to read them of course. But, on the other hand: i you really want us to stop talking past each other, in terms of whats important...
Below the links, follow a much shorter clean-write of the "Arguments why its nearly impossible..." topic. If nothing else - at least read that.

The “lost interest in continuing playing, then halfway trough the game” phenomena
Arguments why its nearly impossible to program a "almost human" AI:
Should the map-generator be scrapped?
AI personality files
Civ-2 also in Civ-3. Is it only me?
Poll: strategy-game or world history simulator?
The pitfalls of expanding city-areas in Civ-3
A third state between anarchy and order


"First of all, i DO agree what many AI-improvements can be done, in order to raise CIV-3 above CIV-2. I just think we average Civ-fanatic should be a little more aware of the built-in limitations in so called "artificial intelligence".
Artificial Intelligence has ONE major advantage over humans, and that is a huge advantage in pure numbercrunching capability. AI-Programmers can use this to setup a bunch of expressions, conditions and variables - then letting a flood wave of oncoming tasks fall through a logical boolean maze, and repeatedly getting relevant and speedy task-solutions.
By comparison humans alone compare rather pathetically (but only in terms of speed, that is).

There is a snag, however (that tips the scale heavily back in favor of the human player):

Considering today’s computer- and programming-technology, above approach only works really outstanding if the world is relatively confined (like the 8x8 square-world of chess), the variables are simple (only black and white tiles/pieces, and only 6 of the latter) and the rules are few and distinct (I don’t know how many rules chess has, but they certainly aren’t many, and there is nothing fuzzy about them either).
If any of above three factors (world size, possible variables and rules complexity) - not to say all three of them, is added to, the AI: s ability to "analyze several moves ahead" and "follow a game plan", with "intuitive" and "long reaching" tactical maneuvers, is SEVERELY limited.
To rub salt into the wound most Civ game-sessions take place - not in 100% known setup-enviroments (like in campaign games) - but, instead on random computer-generated maps, not previously analysed by the AI-programmer.

Thankfully, no one asks for an IBM Deep Blue-AI in the upcoming CIV-3 game anyway. Still, many of the upgrade-suggestions found on Civ-forums often ask for the impossible - an almost human AI, that "schemes" several moves ahead, and then moves around hordes of coordinated army-units, with tactical brilliance.
Why is it impossible (and perhaps also unnecessary)? To understand this we have to come to grips with the principal difference between human (living) intelligence and artificial (dead) intelligence:

What the human Civ-player can do (and the AI simply cannot do) is to literally OVERVIEW (experience) the game situation, and, within a blink of an eye, sort out huge parts of not-so-promising strategic/tactic solutions, and instead concentrate directly (and only) on those very few plans and ideas that actually DO seem promising.
We can describe this as a "bird eye sort out" ability, something unique the living (in our case; human) intelligence.

By comparison, the game AI (or any silicon-based intelligence for that matter) is 100% dead and non-experiencing (of course). It lives in a 2-dimensional "flat" world, figuratively speaking - by that i mean it cannot possible "overview" anything.
In practice this means that if a Civ programmer tries to create something "almost human" in terms of AI-software, he is forced to write an AI that meticulously analyzes and evaluates all the myriads of possible combinations of choose-, build-, upgrade and move-possibilities that each and every individual game-turn has to offer, no matter how irrelevant or less promising 95% of these possibilities are.
The reason for the latter, is (again) the lack of an living "bird eye-sort out" ability. Because of this, the programmers has to gather ALL possibilities BEFORE they can let the software evaluate and rank any appropriate countermeasures.

Also - he has to program it to analyze each-and-every of these combinations; at least 3-4 game-turns AHEAD! (or "deep", using chess-language). Again, remember that the AI cannot "overview" anything from above. To compensate it has to take the "flat world" approach in order to gather constantly changing game-situation data. Like in computer-chess.
This is (as we all know) not that difficult to achieve then it comes to a relatively simple and clean-cut strategy (perhaps more tactical) game like chess. But, in a MUCH more complex and option-divided game like CIV-3; the massive amounts of calculations involved to mimic any hardcore human Civ-veteran playingstyle is absolutely staggering and mind-boggling. Today’s programming-technology is simply too primitive, and our home computers are, at present state, just too slow to achieve anything near this.

Thankfully however, the AI difficulties for the upcomming Civ-3 isnt necessarily so struggling that it first seems. There are basically two reasons for this:

One is that above comparison with chess is - to a certain degree, misleading. Chess is in some ways a very different beast than Civilization. Then playing chess it can be enough to do one (1) bad tactical move in order to loose the entire game. Provided that the opponent is good enough he can exploite that single rash mistake ruthlessly and grind you into submission. In this respect chess (at least on the higher levels) is perhaps a 95% tactical game and only about 5% strategical.
Playing a turnbased computer strategy-game like Civ is a different story. If the human (or the AI-) player makes a few unadviced unit-moves - so what? Nothing that drastic will happen, that cant be repaired in later stages of the game.
One could argue that Civ is a 95% strategical game, but only about 5% tactical (give or take). Above is actually good news in terms of AI-developing. This means that the Civ AI developers can concentrate most of their efforts on tinkering with the overall strategical logistics, rather then wasting (to much) time on trying to mimic the human pathfinding and unit-moving tactics.

I have ALWAYS won the games over the AI primarily as a result of better logistics (= better resource management + more effective unit-improvement and city-improvement strategies). Strengthening the AI:s ability to handle the overall strategical LOGISTICS are the key to a better Civ AI. To summarize it in one famous semi-quote:

A successful AI civilization "marches on its belly" (Napoleon Bonaparte)"

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 05, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: The trick is to keep the underlying ideas simple enough to be grasped easily by everyone, while also keeping them relatively painless to implement into the game.

And you know how empty can it be by saying "we want this" or "we want that" without any explanation of how it is going to be implemented?

quote: The simplicity of the basic concept behind the original Civ series that made it so wildly popular: Take control of a nation and build a milennial empire. All of us could elaborate almost infinetly on that. In fact, that statement doesn't do a whole lot of justice to the game. But it's enough to make it appeal to all us closet megallomaniacs.

I'm not talking about very principle of the game here which is obviously "empire management". I'm talking about that when you suggest a new concept you are responsible to show other people what you are trying to portray and how this should be implemented Otherwise people will guess based on their imagination and when those expected or guessed features are ended up unmatched to the original, people will get upset or confused.

quote: Now, complex ideas also have their place. That's what spwans new strategies (although the best ones tend to be simple - take the ICS for an example). This forum has certainly seen it's share of good complex ideas since the coming of Civ3 was announced in the summer of '99. Read the List, and you'll see what I mean.

Now you got me all wrong here. I'm not here to defend complex ideas or accusing simple ideas. When you suggest a new idea or any idea, you need to show other people how you want it to be implemented and people do that by giving examples ,cases or even providing graphic aids. Then other people get some ideas of what you are really trying to say. As people get to know what's going on then they can criticise, counter-suggest or add more to it so the idea can contain as many people's ideas as possible. Also that is what this forum is all about(Encouraging people to take part to shape or to have their say for better CivIII)

quote: In the end, it'll probably be the simplest and most straight forward suggestions that make it into the game. Simple basic aspects of the game can be used to create an endless number of more complex ones. Just look at chess, the mother of all TBS games. It's been around for ages, and it still capivates.

Now, Don't be confused with ideas and implementations.
Ideas are all simple and straightforward because they are the principles while an implementation requires details which might look quite complex. Different people can have different vision about the exact same idea Kumiorava and what's worse Firaxis too will possibley have different vision about the same idea.
That's why you need to clearly show/demonstrate how you want the idea to be implemented and the process can be sometimes very complicated to other people's eyes. However that's the best avaiable way to reduce any possible misunderstanding. How can you compare chess and Civ? Does chess gives you the feeling of running an empire? The only thing chess is good about is its good AI due to its limited environment isn't it?

quote: Civ2 is not very elaborate or cryptic in itself, yet it's kept us beating at it for almost 5 years now. "Keep It Simple Stupid" is really the mantra that applies best to TBS. If you get that right, fun comes out of it naturally.

Now then who will call civ2 a simple game? Anybody? perhaps you Kumiorava. Do you think civ2 is a simple game? We all know the answer don't we? Let me clarify the very characteristics of civ. It is a civilisation simulatorwhich is based on human history. Who would deny that? then is our history or civilisations of past and now are simple in nature?
However we know it is almost impossible to make a simulator like a realworld but how can we make it close to reality? I didn't say reality itself can be fun all the time and it can be very boring sometimes that's why we need to draw a line which can stand at the point where we can get most fun while tasting something that are closeto reality. Fun comes out naturally? You have to earn it through hard work and making things simple doesn't guarantee fun.

quote: (infact: the more fertile ground for alternative game-paths/game-strategies/game-customization Firaxis manage to squeese into the game - and the more complex game-situations these new paths and strategies results in - the better it is for the overal fun- and suspence-factor of the game, i think)

Yes I fully agree.

quote: Instead it is more often the sheer complexity of the suggested ways how to achieve these alternative game-strategies - these new ways to play the game - thats results in BIG headaches. Both from an game-manual explanation- and from an game-AI programming point of view.

Yes I understand Ralf but we need that feedback from players point of view too. Players's voice should get the highest priority then it's all down to the programmers to decide which part of the idea can or can't be implemented but in this way still some portion of players' idea can be survived.

quote: If Civ-3 was suppose to be a standalone 100% multiplayer game only, there the AI was reduced to be the messenger-boy between human players: An executor of human player commands only: Then the whole complexicty/simplicity discussion would only deal with what was understandable from a human player manual-reading point of view.

OK Is this official Firaxis's plan to make CivIII to be like that?

quote: Heres a couple of threads thats explains my ways of looking at the Civ-3 development. I dont necessarilly expect you to read them of course. But, on the other hand: i you really want us to stop talking past each other, in terms of whats important... Below the links, follow a much shorter clean-write of the "Arguments why its nearly impossible..." topic. If nothing else - at least read that.

I read them and I think it's all due to fundamental difference of human beings and computers. Human players can see whole strategic map as it is but cpu see it through given numbers for each square.(like the ability to see the forest itself rather than concentrating each tree) I reckon most of player are frustrated by unreasonable behaviour of AI or stupidity of AI not incompetence of AI. People cry for "better AI" in that sense I believe and they are not asking something very smart or human like AI they just want some neglected area of AI to be fixed and if more AI enhancement can be done, well.. that will be nice. So don't pressurize yourself too much for pursuing very competent AI Ralf. Just ask people what they want to be fixed then about half is done already. The most urgent thing to be fixed is that unreasonable behaviour of AI which engage in diplomacy I reckon.

quote: Thankfully, no one asks for an IBM Deep Blue-AI in the upcoming CIV-3 game anyway. Still, many of the upgrade-suggestions found on Civ-forums often ask for the impossible - an almost human AI, that "schemes" several moves ahead, and then moves around hordes of coordinated army-units, with tactical brilliance. Why is it impossible (and perhaps also unnecessary)? To understand this we have to come to grips with the principal difference between human (living) intelligence and artificial (dead) intelligence:

Couldn't agree more here.

Also I share your view for the rest of your reply.


[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 05, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 01-05-2001 10:40 AM Now then who will call civ2 a simple game? Anybody? perhaps you Kumiorava. Do you think civ2 is a simple game? We all know the answer don't we?

But it really IS a simple game, Youngsun. Sure there are many priorities one has to juggle with simultaneously, and the available game-strategies are pretty numerous, yes. One for each civ-player perhaps.

But the game-mechanics itself is VERY transparently designed in a way i have not seen in other civ-building clones (CTP/CTP-2, for example). Now, what the heck do i mean with "transparently designed", you may ask?

Well, heres an example: I have played many earth- and space-based strategy-building games where i had rather foggy idea how this or that gradual improvement actually added to the overal output. And IF i could see an exact output-change, i still often couldnt understant why the output changed the way it did. The reason to the latter was that the value often first had to be mangled through some interconnected boolean fractional-numbered math-formula, before it finally could be presented, as an changed output-number on the screen.
I simply lost the connection - it all ended up with that i just added "yet another gradual improvement", because - in one way or the other, that i didnt clearly understood - it supposed to be beneficial.

Civ-2 wasnt like that. You understood that this city-improvement added exactly 50/100% of lightbulbes/resources to that city:s-output, and you could see that queue of lightbulbes/shields increased with exactly that amount.
You could also see that this tile-improvement added exactly this amount of tile-output, and you could also see, within a blink of an eye, exactly how the inner-relationship between all used tiles, and how it all added up to that specific citys overal output. Every output on that city-screen was shown in non-numerical graphical form; whether it was unit shield-costs, or whatever.

To have that kind of city-screen feedback in such a easy and instantely understandable graphical format, is in my view an example of Civ game-developing KISS-philosophy in it purest form.

My God! Who the hell cares about any damn "inner relationship", anyway???

Well, my point is that you got that info at no cost (just within an blink of an eye). The benefit was (and is) that each added tile-improvement, city-improvement or unit, felt like 100% understanable in terms of costs/benefits, and therefore it felt like an very meaningful addition to that city.

This is what i mean with "transparent" game-mechanical design, Youngsun. To let the player overview, not only how feedback changes/adds up on the surface; but, also let him overview why feedback changes/adds up like they do - beneath the surface.
In short: revealing the "inner workings" and the "under-the-hood" relationships, in a dead-easy graphical "within a blink of an eye" format - THAT is a big quintessential part of that magical civ-gameplay enigma, i think.

And once you understand above; the game becomes very easy and very uncomplicated at its inner core, no matter how complicated it may appear to be, when it comes to the multi-optional strategies it could produce.

As a comparison: Check out below thread, from the CTP-2 section, there one guy tries to sort thing out about the city-area tile-improvements, while another guy five posts further down finally gets it right, with a lengthy read-a-couple-of-times explanation + a rolleyes-smiley (meaning; dont you see how "simple" it is).
Observations about tile-improvements

Other keep-it-simple Civ-3 game-design view-points of mine, is:

- NO unit workshop ala SMAC
- NO Social engineering ala SMAC

quote: Let me clarify the very characteristics of civ. It is a civilisation simulator which is based on human history.

No! No! No! It isnt that at all!

Any dedicated attempts on simulating our civilisation, based on human history can (and should) ONLY be tried out with help of a powerful, versatile and easy-to-use standalone Civ-3 scenario-editor.
The MAIN game, by comparision, should only deal with historic- and modern world changes/realities, in its principal and quintessential form. Firaxis shouldnt paint themselfes into corners, then it comes to the main game.
This for example means: Keep beyond 2040 AD SciFi-fantasies out from the main game, and into some great futuristic scenarios instead.

quote: I reckon most of player are frustrated by unreasonable behaviour of AI or stupidity of AI not incompetence of AI.

"Stupid" is not the same as "incompetent"? Are we talking Orwellian new-language here?

The problem is that the "incompetent" overal AI-empire logistics (= weaker city-area management and less effective unit-improvement and city-improvement strategies) can be much easier combated, then any "stupid" AI-unit pathfinding problems, or "unreasonable" AI-diplomacy. The latter is actually much harder to combat.

The big irony of it all is:

IF Firaxis could manage to develop a game that really equaled any civ-veteran in terms of effective city-area management, unit-improvement, city-improvement- and city-trade strategies, and...
IF they, on top of that dealt with the AI city-placement problem, by bypassing the whole damn city-founding AI-settler solution, and...
IF they added a really good implementation of anti-ICS, anti-BAB, Rise-and-fall and some good uphill struggle parameters for the world-conqueres, THEN...

...they could really develop a much stronger Civ-3 AI-resistense (much better then SMAC) - then they ever can hope to achieve by trying the hopeless task of mimic human player unit-pathfinding abilities, or even human player diplomatic abilities.
Dont missunderstand me, Youngsun. I WANT a stronger AI-diplomatics. But with emphasize on stronger - not necessarily more fractionized options ala CTP-2, that the AI cant handle effectively anyway.

quote: People cry for "better AI" in that sense I believe and they are not asking something very smart or human like AI they just want some neglected area of AI to be fixed and if more AI enhancement can be done, well.. that will be nice

Now, who has low expectations here? Have our rolles switched, suddenly? Who is now satisfied with "only marginally better then Civ-2"? Recognize this quote, Youngsun?

"What about good old fans of CivI & II series?... Who get first priority hah? Hard core fans or newbies? for this kind of game genre"

Well, when it comes to the AI-logistics: i definitly say the hardcore fans.
NOT by hoping for anything unrealisticly stupid, like a "pass a turing-test" kind of AI. I understand the problems of unit-pathfinding, and also in some degree the AI-diplomacy problems.
Its not that much that Firaxis can do about this in such a complex game like Civ.

But, then it comes to successfully combating The "lost interest in continuing playing, then halfway through the game" phenomena - i really have some good hopes!!!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 06, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: But it really IS a simple game,

!?! Is there any other game out there which you might call complicated?

quote: But the game-mechanics itself is VERY transparently designed in a way i have not seen in other civ-building clones (CTP/CTP-2, for example). Now, what the heck do i mean with "transparently designed", you may ask?

Complicated but transparent I would say not simple and transparent. Who would oppose civIII to be transparent?

quote: To have that kind of city-screen feedback in such a easy and instantely understandable graphical format, is in my view an example of Civ game-developing KISS-philosophy in it purest form.

Now you're trying match "transparancy" and "simplicity" together here but they are two completely different things Ralf. Things can be transparant while it is still complicated or things can be simple while it is still blurry. That's why you call civII simple but you really should call it transparent,easily understandable or perhaps intuitive.

quote: And once you understand above; the game becomes very easy and very uncomplicated at its inner core, no matter how complicated it may appear to be, when it comes to the multi-optional strategies it could produce.

Now let's make it clear once for all.

quote: *Complexity: 1.State or things that are composed of many interconnected parts. 2.Association or assemblage of related things. 3.A cluster of interrelated parts!, units, etc. *Simplicity: 1. State or things that are composed of few things which has no relationship! among them. 2.Freedom from complexity. 3.A group of things that are not related each other. *Transparency: 1. State or things that are easily seen through, recognized, or detected. 2.Things of easily understood; manifest; obvious. 3.Things of candid; frank; open.

You see Ralf? What you were trying to portraying was Transparencyafter all not Simplicity. You already mentioned inner relationship of civII and called it simple? Come on Ralf. If you can't believe my quote check your own dictionary man.

CivII has complicated game features which means many of its components are inter connected or inter related and it is tranparent which means it was easily understood by players period!.

So if you pursue thing that are simple, you are pushing for a thing that has no interrelationship at all and I don't think you really have meant simplicity for that. I reckon you were just confused with "transparency" and "simplicity" that's all.

quote: No! No! No! It isnt that at all!

Now I'm really surprised. !!!

quote: Any dedicated attempts on simulating our civilisation, based on human history can (and should) ONLY be tried out with help of a powerful, versatile and easy-to-use standalone Civ-3 scenario-editor.

You know why scenario got popular? because main game' inability to produce the true taste of accurate/detailed historical game features. And now you want CivIII should inherit that inability? I'm very disappointed from your comment Ralf.

quote: The MAIN game, by comparision, should only deal with historic- and modern world changes/realities, in its principal and quintessential form. Firaxis shouldnt paint themselfes into corners, then it comes to the main game.

You know what? My dream about civIII is that I can start from stone age and throughout the game everyone of my actions are reflected to later stage of the game as form of my civ's fate. I don't want dead end futuristic scenario or only WWII scenario. I want to experience all of them... all age I mean because that is itself history.

quote: "Stupid" is not the same as "incompetent"? Are we talking Orwellian new-language here?

I never encounted so many problems to make someone understand my words. Do you think word "SAME" and "SIMILAR" have the same meaning or similar meaning? You were supposed to put "similar" into your statement not "the same".

quote: Stupid: lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind Incompetent: lacking qualification or ability to do given task; incapable

If a person is stupid that means he/she is not able to do anything that are supposed to be performed alright by ordinary person.

If a persone is incompetent that means he/she is not able to perform given specific task regardless of his/her ordinary daily life.

Examples.
Now Jack is incompetent at his job but he is not necessarily stupid.
John is stupid but he is very competent at throwing a dart.

Is that clear Ralf now?

quote: The problem is that the "incompetent" overal AI-empire logistics (= weaker city-area management and less effective unit-improvement and city-improvement strategies) can be much easier combated, then any "stupid" AI-unit pathfinding problems, or "unreasonable" AI-diplomacy. The latter is actually much harder to combat.

I'll be specific on that.

1.The present AI is incapable of recognising relative power of it's own civ and makes a mistakes to declare war on me even if my empire is 100 times stronger than it's empire. I did not ask something unreasonable in this case.-can be easily fixed

2.Even the most civilised and friendly AI will betray human players for petty things such as "one occasion of denied transfer of technology to AI-controlled allied civ". Life long AI ally will turn on you anytime.
-can be easily fixed

3.AI gang up on human players. You know you will be isolated eventaully so you never make real friend from the beginning.(No tech transfer or financial aid to AI civs)This was supposed to check unstoppable master human players but even if your empire's status are in the middle or lower still this happens.
-can be easily fixed

Do you think it will be hard to fix such basic error like problems. I don't think so. What I want from Firaxis is that make "AI reasonable" that's all so I don't have to suffer from this kind of headache. I believe most of voters who voted for better AI, felt this kind of frustration which was caused by easily fixable AI behaviours.

quote: Dont missunderstand me, Youngsun. I WANT a stronger AI-diplomatics. But with emphasize on stronger - not necessarily more fractionized options ala CTP-2, that the AI cant handle effectively anyway.

I didn't like CTP style too.

quote: Now, who has low expectations here? Have our rolles switched, suddenly? Who is now satisfied with "only marginally better then Civ-2"? Recognize this quote, Youngsun?

Low? how high can it be? Do you really believe something human like AI will be intoduced in civIII?
I thought you would agree on this Ralf.

quote: Well, when it comes to the AI-logistics: i definitly say the hardcore fans. NOT by hoping for anything unrealisticly stupid, like a "pass a turing-test" kind of AI. I understand the problems of unit-pathfinding, and also in some degree the AI-diplomacy problems.

Unit-pathfinding can have less effect if different combat model & tile-management are introduced.

quote: Its not that much that Firaxis can do about this in such a complex game like Civ.

Finally you're saying Civ is a complex game.

quote: But, then it comes to successfully combating The "lost interest in continuing playing, then halfway through the game" phenomena - i really have some good hopes!!!

I hope Firaxis can tackle the problem by adding new interesting features halfway through so people get renewed excitement even after they're done pretty much.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 06, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 01-06-2001 11:08 AM You know why scenario got popular? because main game' inability to produce the true taste of accurate/detailed historical game features. And now you want CivIII should inherit that inability? I'm very disappointed from your comment Ralf.

Our world is a very complicated and contradictive place to say the least. I dont think there is one single social science, or one single political arena where you cannot find experts and scholars with completely opposing viewpoints over the same subject. History is NOT an exception. Its basically a mine-field, Youngsun - its both relative and subjective. Mostly in terms of what the indevidual (trapped in his own narrow-minded pre-conceptions) chooses to emphezise or what to leave out.
The latter is also all the more good reason why any futuristic beyond 2040 AD fantasies should be left out from the main game, and instead fleshed out into a some nice scenarios.

Civ-3 shoudnt be more attached to historical details, then Civ-2 was. I think Civ-2 got the right mix, in this respect. After all: we are talking about a GAME first and foremost. Anything more detailed should be played out in scenarios.

DONT mistakenly see this that i dont WANT changes. Besides the bleeding obvious: a really nice graphic facelift, i also want more balls to juggle (the health-concept + more), 20-25% more unit-types, CI:s and techs. Imperative under-the-hood changes dealing with ICS, Bigger-Always-Better and Rise-and-fall + gradually added world-domination parameters, making it more of an uphill struggle. An extended economical model (check out the Sid-link, in Kumioravas second post). A new combat-model that deals with the "Stan/Oliver-effect". Also some level-the-road AI-suggestions, like tweakable extensive AI-templates/personality-files/pre-designated invisible AI-city placements. Everything designed to make the a AI-competition much stronger - at least on a strategical/logistical level. And more ideas still...

Better AI not so important? Check out below thread, and remember; of all registrated Apolyton members only 20-30% produce posts regurlary (a guess), and of all visitors, only 20-30% is registrated members:

Civ3: Which Aspect of Improvement Is Most Crucial?
AI got 33%, customizability got 12%. Historical accuracy? Well, only 6%

The reason why creating/playing scenarios is popular, by the way, is that you can tailor-cut exactly how you want things to appear on the screen, simply by creating/choosing to play this or that specific scenario. Isnt that great?

Dont look at this in a "glass half-empty" kind of way. Look at it in a half-full kind of way, instead. Check out, these two topics:
Civ3 editing tools: What do *you* want to see?
Should the map-generator be scrapped?

The latter topic has the wrong title. Its more about bypassing the problems with the city-founding AI-settler - and by doing that, adding a whole new range of scenario-creating possibilities. Cornmasters comment was: "I can just dream of the scenarios I'm going to be able to make with this awesome editor and the feature listed here. *drool*"
This together with most of the stunning great features mentioned in the "Civ3 editing tools..." thread, i certainly agree with him.

quote: I never encounted so many problems to make someone understand my words.

I would say the same about the lack of conclusions you draw, from reading my clean-write of the "Arguments why its nearly impossible.." topic.

quote: I'll be specific on that. 1.The present AI is incapable of recognising relative power of it's own civ and makes a mistakes to declare war on me even if my empire is 100 times stronger than it's empire. I did not ask something unreasonable in this case.-can be easily fixed 2.Even the most civilised and friendly AI will betray human players for petty things such as "one occasion of denied transfer of technology to AI-controlled allied civ". Life long AI ally will turn on you anytime. -can be easily fixed 3.AI gang up on human players. You know you will be isolated eventaully so you never make real friend from the beginning.(No tech transfer or financial aid to AI civs)This was supposed to check unstoppable master human players but even if your empire's status are in the middle or lower still this happens. -can be easily fixed Do you think it will be hard to fix such basic error like problems. I don't think so.

OK, these problems that you mentioned CAN be fixed and tweaked. Thats not unreasonable - and i hope they do!

But will that actually cure the problem that i described in this thread. Please, read it:
The "lost interest in continuing playing, then halfway through the game" phenomena

quote: Low? how high can it be? Do you really believe something human like AI will be intoduced in civIII? I thought you would agree on this Ralf.

Well, as i explained a few lines below that quote:

Im NOT expecting anything unrealistical like a "pass a turing-test" AI. I understand the problems of unit-pathfinding, and also the AI-diplomacy problems.
The reason why the latter is such hard-to-solve problems is that premises and circumstances, are constantly changing in unpredictable ways, from turn to turn. Theres no given "firm point" so to speak - no given templates to work from. Everything have to be re-calculated, each and every turn.
Below link deals with the unrealistic 32+ AI-civ issue, but the same basic principals can be applied to a 6-8+ AI-civs, altrough in a lesser scale:

A software engineers answer to the 32+ civ issue

Now, thankfully Civ isnt like chess: One or two really bad moves, and your loosing the game (provided that the opposing chess-AI/player is skilled enough to exploit those mistakes, of course).
In Civ it really doesnt matter that much if some AI-units do some erratic moves, or the AI-diplomacy delivers some stupid responses (although damn right annoying!). Nothing that drastic will happen, because (unlike chess) Civ is much less of a tactical game, and much more of a logistical/strategical game.

Im repeating myself here, but because i seems to have "problems to make someone understand my words"

IF Firaxis could manage to develop a game that really equaled any civ-veteran in terms of effective city-area management, unit-improvement, city-improvement- and city-trade strategies, and...
IF they, on top of that dealt with the AI city-placement problem, by bypassing the whole damn city-founding AI-settler solution, and...
IF they added a really good implementation of anti-ICS, anti-BAB, Rise-and-fall and some good uphill struggle parameters for the world-conqueres, THEN...

...they could really develop a much stronger Civ-3 AI-resistance (much better then SMAC). It would be a quite noticeable and significant upgrade, i believe.

quote: Unit-pathfinding can have less effect if different combat model & tile-management are introduced.

I agree on "different combat-model". Can you give me a link to a thread, there you think the problem is dealt with in effective ways? Im curious!

quote: Finally you're saying Civ is a complex game.

Well, Civ IS a complex game to simulate "intelligent decisions and strategies" on, from an AI programmers point of view. But from a human civ-veteran players point of view, its pretty easy (partly because of its easy-to-understand "transparent" feedback-friendly design).

But also, you dont have to think abstractly several moves "deep" in order to win.
By comparison Chess is a MUCH harder game, in terms of that it forces you to think abstractly and intelligently several moves "deep", or ahead. Ironically, its MUCH easier to create a really good AI for a chess-game, then it is for a Civ-game.

If you lay two and two together, this should tell you something about how important it is not to OVERLOAD the game with too many fuzzy-logic rules and complicated varíables. How important it is to weigh every suggestion on a golden scale. How important it is NOT trying to squeeze a whole world of parameters into the game, in a mindless "the more, the merrier" approach.

(and i havent event taken the hard-to-digest game-manual explanation problems into account)

quote: I hope Firaxis can tackle the problem by adding new interesting features halfway through so people get renewed excitement even after they're done pretty much.

I dont think you understand what im aiming at. Read the link. Its all very clear:
The "lost interest in continuing playing, then halfway through the game" phenomena

It wasnt the "lack of new features" that was the problem, Youngsun. The problem was that i, about halfway through the game, discovered that...

1/ I had about TWICE as many city-improvements per city, as any computer-controlled city.

2/ When i have 2 quality defence-units plus 1-2 fast-moving attack-units garrisoned in each city, the computer-controlled cities, by comparison, have wasted both time and resources producing 6-8+ slow-moving “cost-effective” crap-units per city (many of them wandering around aimlessly).

3/ Added to above; my cities was much more efficiently placed on the map, and my city-areas had a much more effective and productive output.

I basically discovered that i was virtually unbeatable on a strategical/logistical level. And because Civ is such strategical/logistical type of game - the game was practically over. It didnt feel meaningful for me to continue playing. The challenge was over (i usually played on the equivalent of Emperor-level, sometimes Deity).

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 06, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: Our world is a very complicated and contradictive place to say the least. I dont think there is one single social science, or one single political arena where you cannot find experts and scholars with completely opposing viewpoints over the same subject. History is NOT an exception. Its basically a mine-field, Youngsun - its both relative and subjective. Mostly in terms of what the indevidual (trapped in his own narrow-minded pre-conceptions) chooses to emphezise or what to leave out. The latter is also all the more good reason why any futuristic beyond 2040 AD fantasies should be left out from the main game, and instead fleshed out into a some nice scenarios.

That's absolutely right. However what's got to do with this and my previous statement? I said that I want feel the continuity of time which goes through each era ranging from stone age to modern one and a scenario doesn't give me that kind of satisfaction. I don't want the main game becomes that specific as scenarios Ralf but more enhancements should be done to main game so the main game can be the core game not an insignificant part of the game as CivII has been in relative term compared to scenarios.

quote: Civ-3 shoudnt be more attached to historical details, then Civ-2 was. I think Civ-2 got the right mix, in this respect. After all: we are talking about a GAME first and foremost. Anything more detailed should be played out in scenarios.

Of course civ is a game but it is based on history and what's wrong with the game get close to historical details as long as it can promise good fun? I am not pursuing strict real life examples to be in the game Ralf. If compromise has to made I'll be glad to draw a line but "CivII was alright" kind of attitude doesn't make me so happy Ralf.

quote: DONT mistakenly see this that i dont WANT changes. Besides the bleeding obvious: a really nice graphic facelift, i also want more balls to juggle (the health-concept + more), 20-25% more unit-types, CI:s and techs. Imperative under-the-hood changes dealing with ICS, Bigger-Always-Better and Rise-and-fall + gradually added world-domination parameters, making it more of an uphill struggle.

Now that's all sounds technical to you? But "Bigger-Always-Better" and "Rise-and-Fall" suggestions were made to pursue more accurate historical representaion, wern't they? That's why I like them a lot. I did not say you are a anti change activist Ralf.

quote: Better AI not so important?

Who said that? you? me? certaintly not me. It's again all down to matter of interpretation isn't it?
I said there are some areas that are realted AI which urgently need to be fixed such as AI-diplomacy,etc. then next priority should be given to improve overall AI standard. "Fix the problem first then improve" shouldn't that be the motto to any software developer?

quote: I would say the same about the lack of conclusions you draw, from reading my clean-write of the "Arguments why its nearly impossible.." topic.

What?
1.Didn't you get my message of "civ is a complicated game"?
2.Didn't you get my message of "AI-related problems should be fixed first then AI-improvements should be given next priority"? Should I tell you the difference between "problem fixing" and "improvment"?
3.Didn't you get my message of "civ is a civilisation simulator so it has to be faithful to history"?
4.Didn't you get my message of "fun comes first no matter how the game becomes complicated or simplified thus "complexcity vs. simplicity" has no ground in this forum"?

While I was trying my best to use easy transparentwords to deliver what I mean to prevent any possible misunderstanding, It was you who used no-tranparent words which can cause lots of misunderstanding and what's worse even trying to be picky on my words! Remember this?

quote: Stupid" is not the same as "incompetent"? Are we talking Orwellian new-language here?

and things that were unnecessary and unrelated to disscussion topic(explanation of a word meaning)consumed 10% of our conversation due to your unnecessary brake on my words or joke whatever.

Also I was trying my best to make the conversation constructive so if I think what you're saying is matched my thought I unhesitatingly agreed while you're vigorously pursuing only differing/contradicting matters between us.

While I was explaning the urgent need for fixing AI problem you disregarded my concern then bring up those numbers of voters who voted for better AI which has quite dubious figure about whether who voted for AI problem fixing,asking for supreme AI or both. What for? to intimidate me?

You even created words that I never have spoken or never will speak of.

quote: Better AI not so important?

Remember the "word fiasco" begin with your post and I have been always responsive on that matter and I never picked on your words before that happened.

quote: OK, these problems that you mentioned CAN be fixed and tweaked. Thats not unreasonable -and i hope they do!

Glad to hear that Ralf OK I take back "you disregarded my concern".

quote: I agree on "different combat-model". Can you give me a link to a thread, there you think the problem is dealt with in effective ways? Im curious!

When I said that I did not have any particular idea but we all know the combat model has to be changed. We can work together on different combat model if you want.

quote: Well, Civ IS a complex game to simulate "intelligent decisions and strategies" on, from an AI programmers point of view. But from a human civ-veteran players point of view, its pretty easy (partly because of its easy-to-understand "transparent" feedback-friendly design).

How come you think "Complex = Hard"? Things can be complex and easy. Life isn't black and white. Simple things can be hard as well.

quote: But also, you dont have to think abstractly several moves "deep" in order to win. By comparison Chess is a MUCH harder game, in terms of that it forces you to think abstractly and intelligently several moves "deep", or ahead. Ironically, its MUCH easier to create a really good AI for a chess-game, then it is for a Civ-game.

Your words back up my previuos statement. Chess is less complex than Civ but it can be harder to someone.

quote: If you lay two and two together, this should tell you something about how important it is not to OVERLOAD the game with too many fuzzy-logic rules and complicated varíables. How important it is to weigh every suggestion on a golden scale. How important it is NOT trying to squeeze a whole world of parameters into the game, in a mindless "the more, the merrier" approach.

I agree. But CivII needs to change. I didn't say "the more the better" rule should be applied to making of civIII.

quote: I dont think you understand what im aiming at. Read the link. Its all very clear:

I understood Ralf. You were asking "more challenge" fromeven after you have secured pretty much needed defence,territory or whatever.

quote: 1/ I had about TWICE as many city-improvements per city, as any computer-controlled city.

ICS was beneficial to AI overall. the more cities they have the more power they get. that's why AI of civII negelected proper city management. If Anti-ICS measures, which is new featureto the game, can take place in the game, this problem will disappear.

quote: 2/ When i have 2 quality defence-units plus 1-2 fast-moving attack-units garrisoned in each city, the computer-controlled cities, by comparison, have wasted both time and resources producing 6-8+ slow-moving “cost-effective” crap-units per city (many of them wandering around aimlessly).

CivII has no "stacked combat concept" so quantity doesn't guarantee victory over quality in civII.
So Stacked combat concept which is new feature to the game will fix this problem.

quote: 3/ Added to above; my cities was much more efficiently placed on the map, and my city-areas had a much more effective and productive output.

Have you seen AI-controlled settlerthread?
There I suggested human settlement regardless of human controlled civ or AI-cotrolled civ should be conducted by AI-contolled setters until they research right technology for organisaed settlement. This will reduce the gap between human players and the AI for the city founding ability and also encourage the real historical display of how human beings expanded themselves on the globe without any centralised government intervention.

[Ralf]

Youngsun, i have finally come to the conclusion that any further discussions about the difficulties and prioritys concerning AI-programming, is more or less meaningless. At least with you. We are simply to far apart - at least then it comes to this subject.

You simply dont understand what im trying to say here; neither in this tread, nor in my other AI-related linked threads. Unless no one else posts anything on the subject; then, this is my last post under this specific thread.

About our differences in what to prioritize in Civ-3, and what to leave out. Well, ultimately its all up to the guys (and girls?) at Firaxis. Lets leave it like that shall we.

About the combat-model: Heres an idea i had about a month ago. The linked title is maybe somewhat misleading, and the idea was modified/simplified after a couple of posts. I got a little carried away in the beginning.

RISK-II style combat - simultaneus, still not realtime

[Roman]

Just to add my drop to the boiling pot:

It is clear that the majority of Civ III players will come from the ranks of previous Civ fans. I think these people can and often want to handle more complexity in the next game than in the previous one. These people (including me) want some new concepts implemented and are happy to see the complexity of the game somewhat increased.
I think that the climate created on this forum discourages some people from saying so for fear of being accused of putting impossible demands on Firaxis and having suggestions that involve too much detail and imply too much micromanegement.
While I do agree that many suggestions are quite out of their place (I recall whole threads about floating glaciers and how these would have vast effects on the game), there are some good conceptual suggestions out there that might not be totally simple, but certainly deserve to be at least considered.
[This message has been edited by Roman (edited January 08, 2001).]

[Roman]

My final comments on this matter:

I think the debate about historical accuracy and realism versus gameplay is not terribly productive. In my opinion historical realism in itself serves to enhance gameplay, by allowing you to relate to the game. For example I played SMAC twice, because even though I liked some of the concepts I could not relate to a Sci Fi game anywhere near so well as to a game based on alternative historical simulation.
Many people do not care about what the graphics will be like or what mmusic will play during the game, much more important to most hardcore gamers are the concepts and how they relate to the real world.

Don't get me wrong I understand that world is too complex to be accurately simulated in any game, but that is not the issue. All we have to do is simulate some of the concepts and we will end up with a great game.