Randomness to keep the game fresh.

[Bluevoss]

Something I've always wanted to see in a game like Civ1,2; randomness. Not just in maps and such, but in units. Why not have a game where units work slightly different each time you play.

Think about it - perhaps the phalanx in your current game is a little more powerful but a little slower than the normal values. But the legion costs a lot more than normal. How would that effect your stratagy? More phalanxes? More legions? Would you skip the offense?

What I'm saying is that the first time you play one of these games, its always a blast to see what works and what dosn't. There is no right stratagy, since everything is new. Nothing turns me off more than someone telling you to "always do this" or "never do that". Thats when the game turns stale - you just fall into your usual pattern. But if every attribute were to vary within logical bounds, it could make the game a lot more fun.



------------------
Bluevoss-

[Chronus]

I think this is a great idea! Maybe this could work with buildings too. A library, for instance, can generate anywhere from 40%-60% more science beakers, etc.

My only concern is the reduction in strategy. It brings more realism, IMO, but more chance as well. Perhaps it could be an optional feature?

[Theben]

It would have to be optional, IMHO. Too many strategists play the game, who don't even want random events.

2 things I've always wanted: 1) to not have full access to enemy information. In SMAC you could clicks on enemy units and get their exact information. A combat % chance of victory screen would pop up before you engaged the enemy- although this could be turned off, your and their total strengths were given on the screen. This should be changed to some sort of Scouting mission- whether presented to the player before combat or abstracted into the information given when the player seeks it out- and it could be wrong. See COMBAT in the List 2 for more details.

2) RCE's- Random Combat Events. Like random events, they influence the player's course of action. But they are checked for each and every time combat occurs. They could range from zero effect (which would occur most of the time) to a minor bonus/penalty (poor scouting due to bad weather) to a "pearl harbor" (defense halved and enemy firepower doubled; could only occur when a nation launches a surprise attack or units are attacked by an enemy they weren't aware was present). You get the idea.

[Bluevoss]

One thought I've had was to write my own version of this - you could read in the game text files and have a computer program slightly alter the file values of specific things before writing it back. It generates the new game file with all the effects altered.

In Civ2, it really wouldn't work because the combat values are too small. Phalanx is a 1/2/1 unit. What can you really do with that? In CTP2, a hoplite (same thing) is 10/15/1. All combat values are larger, giving you more room. In fact, it would have been quite easy to do, other than the fact that the game is a real boner, so whats the point?



------------------
Bluevoss-

[Adm.Naismith]

Randomly changing game value every game, you risk to overkill the game AI.

A human player can live with changing game parameters (enjoing or not is another matter: be a newbies forever is no fun), but usually non-cheating AI can't manage at all uncertainity (they move according with set of rules, not always they can change their action according with changed values if they alter the game deeply enough (and if not, who cares).

A heavy cheating AI can ignore these changes, but I suppose no one will like the result

AFAIK a bit of randomness in battle results is already included, to CivII and SMAC. I think that having no guess of the battle more likely result, must be more for AI tactics that for unknow strenght of the force involved in battle.


------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Ralf]

Lets see - so far we have...

- Randomly fluctuating unit-values
- Randomly fluctuating city-improvement values

Why stop there? Why not introduce randomly fluctuating values for tile-improvements and government-types as well, while you guys are at it?

Why dont I like this idea? Well, heres a comparison:

What if the cook couldnt trust the cooking nature-laws anymore? What if sugar suddenly and randomly could change to salt? What if any ingredient in the middle of any cooking- or baking-procedure, suddenly and randomly could change their effects and influence, in totally unforeseen matters?

What do you think the end-result of these cooking-sessions most often would be?

About random unit-values:
Are you guys thinking on reintroducing the infamous CTP "Phalanx killing tank syndrome" all over again?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 15, 2001).]

[Steve Clark]

This is where scenarios come in. As Adm said, randomizing would cause overkill of the AI. So it's best to create a scenario with its custom rules.txt and events.txt. You want a variety of 1/2/1 Phalanxes? Create (or play) a Romans scenario with 20 different kinds of phalanxes/legions.

[Bluevoss]

Ralf,

I'm not saying to vary the units by some huge amount (not sugar into salt). I'm just saying a gentle nudge this way or that. Phalanxs would still be defensive. Legions would still be offensive. Phalanxs would have no real greater chance of killing a tank than they do now.

And, yes, government effects should vary (SLIGHTLY!). So could production, so could ANY value in the game. Slightly enough that over vast numbers, it might make a slight difference, but just enough to make the game a tad less predictable.

Lets multiply all combat values by 10. So a phalanx is now 10/20/1. Say it was randomized within the bounds of [7-13]/[15-25]/1. It would still be a defensive unit. However, what if they randomized to 12/17/1's. Maybe, you might consider using them to help attack a city, since they have a better attack against rival phalanxs then they once did. Maybe you wont. But the unit maintains its basic configuration but with a slight change.

You know, when Pacman first came out, there was nothing more depressingly pathetic than people who would buy hintbooks on the game, and place maps on the consoles so they could stear through the level more effiecntly. The point of a game is to play, to try new things from time to time, based on your judgement, logic, and insight. You think the South was adding up combat factors before they launched picket's charge? Was the defeat of Napoleon's Old Guard a matter of numbers, or a calculated risk.

Games are about learning and creativity. Work is about the aplication of a learned skill, over and over and over.



------------------
Bluevoss-

[Ralf]

Well, Bluevoss, i was deliberately exaggerating a little, in order to get my point across more clearly. I realise, of course that you, Chronus and Theben, was talking of mostly small variations or "gentle nudges".

However, does that nullify my principal objections in my "cooking-arguments" completely? And what about the AI-overkill problems?

As i see it; Unit- and Event-randomness sounds good in theory, but peforms not-so-good in practical gameplay-fun. Just look at the way many players often reload saved games, just because this or that battle-outcome, or random disaster delivered a negative result.

Catastophes preventable by improvements by the way, is an attempt to overcome this cheating behaviour.

[Brent]

Say you've created a bunch of horsemen. Pick any one of them. Say occasionally it can only move one square in a place where it would normally move two. Or three instead of two. Would people appreciate this sort of thing? I think it would a good random variation.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Brent on 01-16-2001 02:51 PM Say occasionally it can only move one square in a place where it would normally move two. Or three instead of two. Would people appreciate this sort of thing? I think it would a good random variation.

I really dont think most players would appreciate that kind of thing.

They, most probably, would report that as a BUG, at first.
Then they would look at it as an constantly irritating annoyance-factor. How some influential game-magazine reviewers would look at it? Hmmm... I can just imagine the sarcastic remarks).

[Steve Clark]

Keep up the good points, Ralf; you are becoming one of my Civ3 heroes.

You bring up a well-worn point that we have seen in many game releases: features that are perceived as bugs. It really bothers me that many gamers come on to forums DEMANDING a patch to fix a bug where in fact, that was a purposely designed feature. It's a sad state of the maturity of gamers whose first reaction to something they don't understand is to blame others for their lack of patience, intelligence or experience. But you're right, randomness in the way static features move would cause so much chaos (not to mention totally tripping the AI) that the game would be unprogrammable and unplayable.

[Brent]

uhhh, glad I could help, Steve. I guess...

[EnochF]

Introducing random fluctuations in the abilities of units is just inviting the game to screw me over on a regular basis. In other words, I try to move my Horseman two spaces to capture the Barbarian Leader, except that something random happens and my Horseman only moves one square, the the Leader disappears the next round. Or I send out my Stealth Bomber to knock out some enemy tanks, and the next round, by random chance, it doesn't have enough fuel to return to the home city. Or an enemy catapult fires at my Musketeers walled up in my city, and something random happens, and my Musketeers fight at two-thirds normal capacity and lose, and my population drops.

Trust me. If bad random things can happen to me, they will. All the goddamn time.

The only solution is to keep bad random things the hell out of my game.

Introduce trouble factors, fine. Include a disease factor if you like, or a prone to fires factor, or a crime factor. Make them more than nuisance factors, if you like. Make crime and disease serious obstacles in the mid-game. But keep that random crap out of my game. Random chance hates me.

[EnochF]

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound so grumpy. It's true, though. Random events are always a downer, at least for me. It's a Bad Idea.