Strength of AI vs. Number of Civs

[Telamon]

Yes, I recognize that more civs means computational time to complete turns. However, I think that many people out there with Ghz monsters would like the option, at least, of playing against a number of civs that would make a PII cough up blood.

In response to Ralf, the fact is that each computer civ will use the same game logic (code) as they grow and expand. Of course, the values of civ-dependant variables will cause them to function differently. I am not neglecting hardware problems, ect. I am stating that in a well crafted game, one should be able to change #define NUM_CIVS 8 to #define NUM_CIVS 32 and, assuming an adequate amount of resources is available, go on to start up a game with an arbitary number of civs.

[Mike the Nuke]

Mr Paraya (excuss my spelling please)


Thanks for the info on increaing the number of civilizations above 8. I, personally, never utilized more than 5-6 in recent games as the map became too crowded and all you did was fight one civ or another. Your explanation makes sense. Yes, games need to keep smaller systems in mind. I wouldn't want to buy a $2000 system just to play a game. On the other hand, how about some code that scans the system and allows only what the systme can handle. Those with smaller systems could then only ustilize (with out special mods) 7-8 civs. Those larger systems could then handle larger civilizations.

My greatest concern is the lack of the Hot Seat function. Without it the game is useless to me, my family and friends. We thoroughly enjoyed CTP I once the Hot Seat patch (1.2?) came out. The Hot seat option is available in other Civ type games. Why not your highly anticipated new CTPII? You can never satisfy everyone with new gadgets and widgits, but this one already existed. At least keep functions you already had or at least guarentee your continued efforts to fix whatever bugs are in, of which in over 100 Hot Seat games in CTP I, I never found. If the game has Hot SEat, I'll buy, If doesn't I will not touch it. I already have enough games to play with by myself. Skip the multiplayer over internet garbage as a way to play other human opponets. Those sites only thrive for a year or so, then die off slowly (in some cases) or quickly (in others) as the game grows older or new games come out. I have plenty of muliplayer games (over the internet) that cannot be played that way as there are no longer sites for them. Unlike some 'fly by night, short attention span gamers' I'll play a game for years, if it's good. I still play CIV I and II and even AOE I (even though it has unit limitations I hate).

thanks

P.S. don't be afraid to get technical, if necessary to explane a situation. And don't throw in the towel on ideas because they seem impossible. Often the most impossible things become the easiest to solve once the fog of urgency (ie your 'bean counters' pressuring to get the game out before Christmans) is removed. I thought CTP I was a great game, even with some unit ratings I did not agree with.

thanks

[Ralf]

I have always had the opinion that 6-8 simultaneously playing AI-civs is as much as any AI/hardware can handle - at least if one priorities a reasonable AI-quality out of the equation. To nevertheless increase the number of AI-civs limit somewhat, below could act as a nice workaround:

6-8 fully fledged independent AI-civs + another 6-8 neutral, more passive max 5 city miniatyre AI-civs.

The latter can neither build wonders, conquer cities nor have diplomatic relations between themselfes - only with the human and the fullblood AI-civs. Also they share the same AI-logistics between them (altrough different from game to game), yet acts like independant (but less active) civs. These miniature AI-civs only make sense however, if anti-BAB (bigger always better) is implemented intelligently, giving small empires an advantage that bigger empires dont have (for example; significantly less happiness problems building huge cities).

If its worth it in the end? I dont know - perhaps not.

Theres so much that talks against the 32+ (some even seriously discussing 100+) civs, both from a AI-programming, system resources, map-size, turn-waiting, minimum system req and plain game-structural common sense. I want AI-quality before quantity - and adding 32+ AI-civs definitly only going to give me quantity.

Finally, someone perhaps says that "adding more Civs puts stress on the game resources much the same like PBEM/Hotseat would" (jbs).

Thats not correct. In PBEM/Hotseat/Internet games the human players does all the initiatives and decision-making, relieving the AI from that othervise strenuous duty. All the AI has to do is to act as the go-between messenger boy, carrying out the orders.

As long as only human players does the decision-makings however, the number of player could be *much* higher then 8 (if one dont mind some awfull lot of waiting, that is).
Still, from Activisions point of view, it is perhaps NOT commercially viable to invest energy in trying to develop software that can handle 8-32 multiplay. After all: how many of the casual average strategy-gamers out there, is likely to participate in upto 32 multiplayer sessions?

Perhaps PBEM/Hotseat is hard to implement because of some other technical reasons - but thats another issue. In many ways Play by e-mail and Hotseat is ideally suited for turnbased timeconsuming strategy-gaming. It works much better then Internet multiplayer, from the players point of view.
I hope they get around to add upto 8 player PBEM/Hotseat support further down the road, however. Either by a downloadable patch, or together with an commercial add-on scenario-package.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 05, 2000).]

[rremus]

As wise man say, software programming is all about managing coplexity. Not enough CPU time to compute actions for 100k units? But not each unit need to make a 'decision' individually! Organize units in armies and make the AI 'think' for the whole army rather than each individual unit in it.
Also, not enough CPU time? There's plenty in the human turn! Just use the idle time to plan possible actions and then use the computer turn time only to choose the best pre-computed action in the context of whatever the human did!

[MidKnight Lament]

I don't want anyone to take this too personally, but I find it constantly surprising how people who know so (relatively) little about the game tell the programmers (who immerse themselves in the code at least 5 days a week) what they should be doing. Suggestions are fine, but don't assume to know the answer to everything! Actigrammers are probably pretty cluey people. (I've had no reason to think otherwise thus far.)

A little bit of trust is required. I know some people will wince at that, but there it is.

------------------
- MKL
"And of course Henry The Horse dances the waltz!"
Shameless Plug: http://www.poetic-license.org .............All welcome.

[Grumbold]

The (semi-)technical explanation was very welcome and I am glad to see the unsupported setting to go beyond 8 remains available in CTP2. A soft limit of 8 is quite understandable given the constraints of practical testing limits and tight deadlines. I only wish more game designers would make their code this flexible.

[MadWoodster]

quote: Originally posted by rremus on 11-06-2000 03:20 AM As wise man say, software programming is all about managing coplexity. Not enough CPU time to compute actions for 100k units? But not each unit need to make a 'decision' individually! Organize units in armies and make the AI 'think' for the whole army rather than each individual unit in it. Also, not enough CPU time? There's plenty in the human turn! Just use the idle time to plan possible actions and then use the computer turn time only to choose the best pre-computed action in the context of whatever the human did!

I have to disagree with this. How can you compute actions when the person before you hasn't done their go, you don't know what they are going to do and how it is going to affect you.

[Gedrin]

MadWoodster: This is a fairly simple thing to do in principle really. Any good chess, checkers, othello, etc... does this. The really smart ones also compare their expectations of what the player would do with what they really did and modify their routines for guessing the opponents probable move. However in this case the practical limits of doing this with N civs are reached very quickly.

As for 32 civ support: Well why not simply play on an easier level? I mean if you control 10% of the map would you rather have the other 90% controled by 1 civ or 31? Divide and conquer is a time tested strategy... if you want to do your dividing by setting the max civs to some really high number then ok but it makes it a little easy no? Well at least I've found the 32 civ games I've played to be far easier. The opponents are always too small to mount any sort of defense.

Some may say, "yeah but you make contact sooner and so you have less room to grow." Well so do all your opponents so this is a uniform dissadvantage, not a player one. I'll grant that my scores were lower but the amount by which I was winning was always much much higher... which is why I stick to 8 these days. (Although I do like a large max civs since then the cities that revolt [happens alot with my mods] are not all barbarians.)

Meanwhile, those civs you have no contact with keep each other at a uniformly low power level.

Now it would be nice to have an arbitrarily large number of civs on the science and diplomacy screens and if you have enough hamsters in your processor then power to you. But if you really wanted a more 'difficult' game then start the AI's with more settlers.

Gedrin

[rremus]

quote: Originally posted by MadWoodster on 11-06-2000 08:02 AM I have to disagree with this. How can you compute actions when the person before you hasn't done their go, you don't know what they are going to do and how it is going to affect you.

I also have to disagree with you One easy way is this: Mark the elements that the units took into account when computing its decision (during human player turn). When the computer turn make its decisionn, if any of this elements changed then then decision has to be made again. If not, the decisions already made are fain and thus the process is skipped. Of course it depends on how many elements are took into account when a decision is made. I'm pretty sure the 'decisions' took by the computer for units on a continent on wich the human player does not have any cities/units would be in most of the time valid...

Anyway, the main idea is that I'm convinced that a medium computer of today could handle a large number of civ. I wonder if the player could handle such large number of civs. There is the problem of recognizing units nation (colors will of course be out of question!), remebering at least the dimplomatic status of the civs around you and understanting what is going on from the tens of messages each computer turn would generate (Cubans are building Pyramids, Jamaicans are at war with Romans etc...)!

[Maccabee2]

Thank you for the enlightenment, Pyaray. Now, we understand what motivated Acts judgement call. I may not agree with it, but I understand it.

Just a short thought:

"Also, it's really not cool to make a game where the minimum spec system can't play the "full game". "

While it might not be cool to the marketing gurus, it might be cool to us your customers to have the packaging actually provide useful technical information as to the software's performance at different levels of hardware (read buyer's CPU speed, etc.) Imagine! The software box providing a synopsis of its real performance rated to my CPU instead of my finding it out after I buy it.
We are your free focus group. If I'm in the minority, ignore me. If, however, the majority want more options, and those options are reasonably possible (not easy, but possible) then there's your marketing plan.
Food for thought.

[Pyaray]

quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 11-06-2000 04:36 PM While it might not be cool to the marketing gurus, it might be cool to us your customers to have the packaging actually provide useful technical information as to the software's performance at different levels of hardware (read buyer's CPU speed, etc.) Imagine! The software box providing a synopsis of its real performance rated to my CPU instead of my finding it out after I buy it. We are your free focus group. If I'm in the minority, ignore me. If, however, the majority want more options, and those options are reasonably possible (not easy, but possible) then there's your marketing plan.

Well, I can't say I disagree with you, but I can't agree with you fully either. There is sort of a set standard for how specs are printed on the boxes. You'll notice that pretty much all companies print their specs in the same way ("minimum spec" and "recommended spec". As anoyingly uninformative as this way is, it still confuses a lot of people. Remember, this has to go to the lowest common denominator. But I do agree that this information could be more useful, I'm just not sure how we could accomplish that goal. In the end though, it's not my choice, and I don't have any say over it. And I have serious doubts that the people who do have the choice read fan sites.

Pyaray