Is MP truly Civ 3?

[Chronus]

I've been reading the MP strategies with much interest (nice work, Fried!) but a little dismayed as to what I'm reading. No ... I'm not refering to the quality of the strategies or discussions ... I'm referring to how the game is played.

Here's my beef: when Civ 2 MP came out, I was estatic. I envisioned great empires with trade routes and elaborate cities and such. Instead, we got cheesy-quick, one vs one, under 100 turn games which made constructing buildings worthless and created a heavy emphasis on "the one with the most units wins". Perhaps I'm wrong, but most of these games appeared to be this way simply because of the PLAYERS enforcing some early deadline rule, as opposed to the problem being the nature of the game itself. The funniest part was watching these people brag about what Civ 2 experts they were. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But how can one consider himself a Civ-god when the "player rules" eliminates over half of the game? (i.e. no purpose in buildings or teching or diplomacy). Yes, I realize most people don't like the long duration of a regular game . . . my point is: were these kinds of quick games truly Civ games?

Anyway, sorry about the ramble. My question is: are there people out there playing TRUE Civ 3 MP games to the bitter (or near bitter) end . . . or just tons of "we'll play until the year 400 BC" stuff? Another question for those who do not impose a deadline: does the MP environment heavily favor the war-monger over the builder or is this just a function of shortening the game?

I ask because I'm curious and I can't get online just yet to find players. I'm staying at my parent's home, helping out dad until he can walk again, and their computer is pathetic

Thanks for any input.

[DaveMcW]

In a true 1v1 duel the one who builds the most swordmen wins. Most of the players on gamespy choose this option because they don't want to commit to a 24-hour game.

To make the game last longer you need to add more humans (which really slows down the turn rate) or more AIs. A game with 8 players on high difficulty should last at least until 1000 AD, assuming nobody quits.

[notyoueither]

Good question.

It can be. I have seen 30 hour games with more than 2 people go down to the wire with nuclear exchanges and final victory decided by the space ship. On the other hand, I have seen 30 turn duels more than once as well.

It is different though. The presence of other humans will change things no matter how many AIs you include.

[Inverse Icarus]

thats why i play with a small group of friends, the games last longer, alliances are formed from game to game, it's really a lot of fun.

[Underseer]

To be honest, I haven't touched, nor considered touching any of the MP aspects of Civ III (even though I bought PTW). But if I were going to mess around with it, it seems a weekend LAN party with RL friends would be the ideal way to enjoy the game. Unfortunately, no one I know in RL plays Civ anymore.

[Alex]

There are more warmongerers in an MP environment than builders. RL friends is the way to go.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
In a true 1v1 duel the one who builds the most swordmen wins.

I would agree with every comment in this thread except this one. I've heard this utterly untrue statement so many times I think my next thread is going to be entitled "Swordsmen Sink In Rivers, And Other Ways To Win Without Iron."

It IS Civ3, but it's a very different approach to the game. More people that I play with are preferring games which, by prearranged agreement, ban war to a certain year, etc.

Also bear in mind that I play on the ladder (you knew that shameless plug was coming somehow) and so players here are a bit more aggressive than the norm - people play differently when ranks are at stake, I suppose.

[Sallandair]

MP "IS" truly civ3

Although the arguemnts are sound about players not playing until the bitter end, but there is something in mp that the AI has always failed to do. SUPRISE YOU!

Come on, try to tell me that the "TRUE" and natural way of building a civilization is going with near zero tech and buying it off an AI (as most successful Diety players do). Or saving "history" so you can reboot to get a better outcome of a battle. This can't be done in mp.

Btw, where are the Aztec, the Romans, the Vikings now?
Some civilizations get to see the bitter end - quite early. But yes, there are many games that last into the building of spaceships. You have to find the right people to play as in any game.

As for those 1 vs 1 who gets the ore....
Bring your swordsmen to the my walled city on the hill fortified with spearmen and catapults. While you are deciding on Construction or Map Reading, I will be deciding on Mono or Fuedalism.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Alexnm
There are more warmongerers in an MP environment than builders. RL friends is the way to go.

hi ,

its good to see a game where people dont make war until they have a more less build empire , ....

its also more intresting to fight with ships , air units and several ground units then with archers , warriors and spearman , ......

indeed friends are the go in most cases , because new people just prefer to go to war at the first the best turn , .....

and then when you start a new game with two groups and one of the groups uses a player who feels its needed to go to war on the first turn he has horseman while all the other have agreed to build first , .....

but that is what you get with MP , but luckely there are others who build first

have a nice day

[MrBaggins]

MP is a solution to a symptom: Single player opponents (I.E. the AI) are single dimensional.

It doesn't adapt to its situation, and the game designers will have probably included some slightly dumb strategies when it comes to city placement, and improvements... so although their empire grows, it doesn't grow anywhere close to optimally. Add in balance breakers such as city capture using force concentration and you have a forgone conclusion.

Hence... the human player can catch the AIs... then its game over because the current system rewards those that are ahead. The same problem is evident in MP games... not that its a problem that there is a winner... just that trailing civs should be able to remain competitive.

MrBaggins

[Sallandair]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
MP is a solution to a symptom: Single player opponents (I.E. the AI) are single dimensional.

So true. Sorry folks, but PTW makes you become a better player by giving you situations that you will not see vs AI. Complain all you want about warmongers, but if it happens in real life, then you should expect it in an mp game. Only 1% of the time since the Julian Calendar had started has there not been war some place on this world.
Sit back and think about it for a second. Just like true civilizations of yesterday and today, you are now corresponding with actual people who can either hold a truce or turn around and back stab you without a thought. There will be the builders and there will be the warmongers. Do you invest into your economy or do you invest in your defense budget. Hmmmm, mp makes it more like reality than playing some narrow-minded AI that you can keep selling the world map to every turn.

[MrBaggins]

I'm not convinced that MP is ultimately the be-all-and-end-all of Civ, anyway...

Yes it solves the problem of the AI, simply by removing it... but the AI (if it wasn't deeply flawed) would be the ideal opponent in Civ: it doesn't get tired, have scheduling restrictions, or get ansy and leave when you've beaten it up. MP Civ *STILL* has fundemental game balance flaws, just as the SP game does. MP is far-far-far from a panecea.

My view is that the AI can and should be improved, rather than disregarded:

What... essentially IS intelligence, as it regards to playing civ?

You can split it into 3 categories:

Tactical and Strategic
Empire Growth/Development
Diplomacy

The process of intelligent play is:

* Situational perception (discovering the pertinent game state involved)

* Assigning weightings to each discovered state

* Using a conditional system (developed through reasoning and previous 'historical' discoveries of what works) to find the most benefical course of action, using the weighted discoveries

* Implimenting that course of action

There are a few specifics to the perception... notably:

* Continental awareness, since it affects the ability for you and your opponents to travel, and your ability to expand. Useful for strategy, empire development and diplomacy

* Historical growth trends of your opponents. The best way to know who is a threat is not their state now necessarily, but their relative growth in various areas; production, military and science. This allows you to figure who is a threat... and should be defended against... and thus who could be an ally against that threat and so on.


The discovery and weighting processes really aren't that difficult. A computer can't *think* and adapt like a human, but an intelligent designer can distill the essense of the conditions that a human player uses to make their decisions, and have the computer use the same reasoning.

The AI could be developed with a learning AI, or more likely... the scripting for the AI should be 'open' so that the designer and modmakers can tweak the conditions to further improve the decision making ability of the AI, based on player reports of how the AI was beaten by their strategy.

MrBaggins

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Sallandair


So true. Sorry folks, but PTW makes you become a better player by giving you situations that you will not see vs AI. Complain all you want about warmongers, but if it happens in real life, then you should expect it in an mp game. Only 1% of the time since the Julian Calendar had started has there not been war some place on this world.
Sit back and think about it for a second. Just like true civilizations of yesterday and today, you are now corresponding with actual people who can either hold a truce or turn around and back stab you without a thought. There will be the builders and there will be the warmongers. Do you invest into your economy or do you invest in your defense budget. Hmmmm, mp makes it more like reality than playing some narrow-minded AI that you can keep selling the world map to every turn.

Wars have been prevalent, but empire conquest much less so...

Force concentration= victory, but the ability to concentrate forces disminishes as you move further from your core empire. It becomes more difficult to resupply, reinforce, incorporate and govern distant conquered cities and so on and so forth. The recent ability of the US to power project, effectively, is pretty unique and requires a massive support commitment.

Empire expansion through conquest is unrealistic.. essentially. Its the premier successful strategy in civ, and that is because their loss is your gain, you get ahead, and when you are ahead, you win. The support requirements, and homefield advantages of defenders are too low, for conquesting war... it needs balance.

MrBaggins

[Sallandair]

Well written words McBraggin. I have just two small points to add. Improve the AI - that would be the best solution. Unfortuntately that will not happen until civ4.
Most warmongers do not soley "expand by conquer" only (unless one considers elimination). I do agree it's not the be - all - and - end - all of Civ, but one can never replace the "human factor" as a great alternate. Thanks again for an excellenct post.

[MrBaggins]

The spelling "McBraggin", i'll assume... was a typo, and that you didn't intend offence, and so I don't need to speak with a moderator.

I don't see Civ4 as necessarily the "hope" for a new AI now...

Firstly, Firaxis is limited by its parent IG, as to time constraints. Their developing a game, means that they have limited staff, with an ability to dedicate limited time to the problem. For commercial reasons, much effort is put into the graphical portions of the game, since relatively contemporary graphics are a virtual necessity to sell a product with wide market acceptance... gaming sites and magazines 'tease' with graphics. AI is, sadly, not something you can 'show' in a preview. Most previews and reviews do not delve deeply enough into the game, to find out how well the AI performs, and more, how it can be exploited. Beta testing rarely finds the myriad 'final exploits' that the 'infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters' find after release.

Secondly, when the product is released, for the most part, development stops. Patches are possible, but rarely do massive fixes in AI occur... there isn't enough budget to write and rebalance the game... generally speaking, although 'expansions' theoretically could. Developers, however, tend to get touchy about their product qualitively, and feel that the game is right, just so... unless there is an obvious flaw.

Thirdly, Firaxis is opposed to scripting languages...

"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

Unfortunate... since given a scripting language... especially a versatile one, the infinite monkeys... I.E. us... could set to work on building the better AI- given that enough of the game engine was exposed, and enough flexibility was present in the scripting language.

So where does that leave us?

Well.. Civ4 may or may not have the best AI since sliced bread... who knows? they might *just* work on the AI and make it adaptive, by pooling player strategies on a central server, ultimately making AI's play just as well as human players and removing the need for MP.

In the meantime however, there are alternatives. CtP2 has an incredibly versatile scripting language, much like C, and it exposes most game objects and allows you to control most events and aspects of the game, down to the nuts and bolts, diplomacy included.

Other alternatives are the 'from scratch' efforts by the Alternative Civs teams, such as Clash of Civilization. Personally I feel that this is reinventing the wheel a little, and like the grunt work done in terms of the graphics engine, but whatever floats their boat.

My contention is that a truely good AI will come, not from a commercial gaming house, but a fan designed or modified game. The exception will be, if a gaming house starts with an adaptive AI as an idea, and builds a game around it.

MrBaggins