Announcement

**Centauri18** · February 2, 2003, 20:01

I could care less that Civ 3 wasn't a modification of Civ 2 and I like it just fine the way it is. Sure, they need a few more Civs (Incas, Dutch, possibly Thai, definitely Israel - it would be so cool to play as Israel and conquer Rome and Babylon - maybe the Sioux, since we need another North American civ. Maybe we could ass another South American civ as well, since otherwise the Incas would have it all to themselves) but that's about it. And a slightly smarter AI would make things interested.

**WarpStorm** · February 2, 2003, 20:10

Originally posted by sabrewolf
maybe they could be pressurized to release the code and let the freeciv guys have a go at it. in 2 months you'd have a bug-free perfect scenario editor with scripting, etc. and a gam with an AI which could start 2000 years later on a 1 tile island and still beat the best of us

And just how would you go about pressuring Infogrames into giving out the source code for one of their hit titles?

2 months

It took the freeciv guys 8 years to get where they are now. (According to their website they are looking at having someone write modules to teach the AI about diplomacy, democracy, the value of towns, and they are looking at putting scripting in).

BTW, putting scripting in the editor is easy. Putting it into the game is the hard part especially since it wasn't built with scripting in mind.

**Master Zen** · February 2, 2003, 20:22

It think it is one of the following:

1) Infogrames doesn't give a damn and is more interested in world sales domination that perfecting the game itself.

2) Firaxis has just given up, it's only purpose now is to correct MP but screw the editor, leave it as it is.

It would be said if 2) is correct since as I said, Civ3 has huge scenario potential and good scenarios make for new expantion packs which make for extra bucks! I for one would shell out $20-30 for an XP with a perfect editor and 8 or 10 or more really good scenarios (WW2 scenario a MUST!, good defensive units make for a good WW1 scenario too)

**sabrewolf** · February 2, 2003, 20:35

Originally posted by WarpStorm
And just how would you go about pressuring Infogrames into giving out the source code for one of their hit titles?

my comment wasn't meant that serious

(note those smilies)

2 months

It took the freeciv guys 8 years to get where they are now. (According to their website they are looking at having someone write modules to teach the AI about diplomacy, democracy, the value of towns, and they are looking at putting scripting in).

i was exagerating, as you surely noticed.
the trouble about AI is that it isn't "intelligence", it's just simulated. the computer uses formulas and algorithms (a maybe a random factor) to calculate what's best. these algorithms are fixed and hardcoded and don't adapt.
you can win a game against 10 oponents by just killing one after the other - because this sort of intelligence wan't programmed

BTW, putting scripting in the editor is easy. Putting it into the game is the hard part especially since it wasn't built with scripting in mind.

ofcourse i know it's too late now. but actually it can't be much too hard. in fact, as a application developer i know it's easy - just needs enough time and a good concept developed.

i could imagine something like the 'crontab' in linux/unix-OSs. every minute (or in the game every turn), the computer polls if a certain defined incident happens (e.g. specific year reached, a certain city captured/destroyed, a great wonder built, etc.), something else happens (e.g. create unit, send message, victory, etc.).

most tutorials and scenarios in other games have something like that. e.g. in AoE2 when you crossed a certain line, or killed a special unit, the next quest started. that's what i call interactivity...

**WarpStorm** · February 2, 2003, 20:37

Firaxis is busy fixing MP. That has to be their highest priority as that's what they've been paid to do. They have not given up. I was playing a new scenario from them just this morning.

AFAIK, Infogrames sees no incentive in the editor as it means people will be playing Civ3 for longer (a bad thing from a publishers point of view). A publisher wants games to sell a lot and then be forgotten so that you buy 'The Next Big Thing'.

Firaxis has been working on the editor to cater to their hardcore minority (the vast majority of players neither buy expansions nor uses editors in the games they buy, hell, most never patch their games). But as I said earlier, right now their priority is getting MP working better.

**WarpStorm** · February 2, 2003, 20:44

Sabrewolf, I just think it is ludicrous to assume that people who after 8 years don't have as good a product as Civ3 could miraculously solve the problems in Civ3 that they haven't solved in their own.

**Centauri18** · February 2, 2003, 20:46

I think a Civil War feature would be cool in Civ4. Or even in Civ 3. England had the War of the Roses, for instance. Even Germany wasn't a completely united nation until only recently - historically speaking. And there was the huge war in China between the Communists and the Nationalists...

**MrBaggins** · February 2, 2003, 23:07

Originally posted by WarpStorm
*snip*
BTW, putting scripting in the editor is easy. Putting it into the game is the hard part especially since it wasn't built with scripting in mind.

"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis

**Master Zen** · February 2, 2003, 23:46

LOOOVE that idea Centauri18, bad governments gotta pay the price!

**wilbill** · February 3, 2003, 02:16

Originally posted by sabrewolf
the trouble about AI is that it isn't "intelligence", it's just simulated. the computer uses formulas and algorithms (a maybe a random factor) to calculate what's best. these algorithms are fixed and hardcoded and don't adapt.
you can win a game against 10 oponents by just killing one after the other - because this sort of intelligence wan't programmed

True, if you're referring only to the Civ 3 AI. But AI's can be programmed to "learn" and adapt - remember those robotic "pets" that were a modest fad a couple of years ago? Or the better chess programs, for that matter, can remember and adapt to a human opponent's style.
Honestly, I think there's a limit to how good most Civ series players would want the AI to be. A large per centage of the people who post on these boards seem to enjoy winning against 10 opponents "by just killing one after the other." How many of us would really want to play against an AI that was capable of beating our best game 50% of the time or more? Actually, I think I would, but I might be fooling myself.

**ellie** · February 3, 2003, 04:17

Well

to answer your question. I personally was dissapointed with the game. My main two issues were combat (which i think was made simplistic for the animations) and performance. It managed to slow down my husbands v.quick pc somehow.

But whats the point in raging on about it ;p it just annoys others and gains me nothing.

**Centauri18** · February 3, 2003, 04:22

Those things really happened.

**Alex** · February 3, 2003, 07:40

Criticism is gone, for the most part, because those who dislike the game have long gone to other places and because Firaxis managed to fix the most glaring errors or shortcomings in the game with the latest patches (and especially with PTW, which really improves the single-player game, taking the AI into account).

Anyway, all that happened left me a sour taste in my mouth.

**ACooper** · February 3, 2003, 17:35

Sure was a lot of fun with Libertarian and Yin26 around though. Even If they were big pains in the rear.

**player1** · February 3, 2003, 18:58

But it's interesting to note that Libertarian disapeared in same moment when Civ3 patch which included stack movement command was released.

Announcement

criticism gone?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment