Please don't lower the game to the AI's it's level.

[kolpo]

I want a game with in depth startegies, long term planning and that involves a lot of thinking.

I'm fully aware of the fact that humans are better in that then computers but please do NOT lower the depth and strategical level of the game to the level the AI can understand it like humans.

I rather have a game with long term in depth planning with an average AI then a simplified game an 4 years old person can understand with a good AI.

You can still let the AI cheat or give him other advantages to make him better(only on high difficult levels of course). But a tbs that doesn't require brains and strategy to play is simply not fun.

[Bleyn]

Just out of curiousity, is there something you've seen either here or elsewhere that specifically leads you to fear that QS might limit the depth of the game for the sake of the AI?

Or is it just vague eminations from your anxiety closet that are overwhealming you? If its the second, I'm sure we can find ways of helping you to beat up on the snorklewhacker behind those eminations.... cause I sort of doubt that a lack of depth will ever be a problem with MoO3.

[kolpo]

Originally posted by Bleyn
Just out of curiousity, is there something you've seen either here or elsewhere that specifically leads you to fear that QS might limit the depth of the game for the sake of the AI?

Or is it just vague eminations from your anxiety closet that are overwhealming you? If its the second, I'm sure we can find ways of helping you to beat up on the snorklewhacker behind those eminations.... cause I sort of doubt that a lack of depth will ever be a problem with MoO3.

It is because I think that they in civ3 in some cases choosed a better AI above in depth strategies and while I find civ3 in general a good game is that the thing that went wrong the most in my view.

But because I didn't wanted to end in a war between the radicals of "civ3 sux!" and "civ3 is perfect" didn't I mention civ3 in that post.

I also feared a: colonies as many plantes as possible, invent the biggest weapon, build a gigantica flied of ships with that weapon, attack->victory type of game. And where there is nothing else to achieve and no other strategies in the game, where you need just 4 brain cells to win(1 for colonize, 1 for research,1 for build ships and 1 for attack)

Many space empire games I played(like pax imperia, the worst game I bought ever) where like that.

[Deimos]

IIRC, your second concern has been addressed by QS. Stormhound mentioned in a previous thread that actually wiping another race out will be a Herculean task, much less all the other races.

[Sencho]

You're correct. Wiping out an empire won't be easy in Moo3, possible, but not easy.

Moo3 is about strategic depth, so the AI, if anything, will be pulled up to accomodate that.

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by Deimos
IIRC, your second concern has been addressed by QS. Stormhound mentioned in a previous thread that actually wiping another race out will be a Herculean task, much less all the other races.

This is the actual tendency of the TBS genre to render the eradication ( or the genocidal ) thing more obsolete and emphasize to a more hybrid empire building where the player should do well in peaceful compounds like diplomacy in order to succeed. In Civ III it is much more difficult to conduct extensive genocides next to the prequels and related classics; now MoO3 seems to level this to a more stable civish relationships between races until the end of a long game but don't get me wrong - wars should take place as often , and harshly, and the stuff available to read yet shows us they will be quite attritional instead of genocidal.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by kolpo


It is because I think that they in civ3 in some cases choosed a better AI above in depth strategies and while I find civ3 in general a good game is that the thing that went wrong the most in my view.

But because I didn't wanted to end in a war between the radicals of "civ3 sux!" and "civ3 is perfect" didn't I mention civ3 in that post.

Funny but I thought FIRAXIS developed Civ3 while QUICKSILVER is developing Moo3. Why should the design document of one reflect in the desing of the other? Considering they have both been in the works for a long time now (with Civ3 released) to automatically assume Moo3 will be poor because another game wasn't to your liking is paramount to saying it will rain today because you stubbed your toe.

I also feared a: colonies as many plantes as possible, invent the biggest weapon, build a gigantica flied of ships with that weapon, attack->victory type of game. And where there is nothing else to achieve and no other strategies in the game, where you need just 4 brain cells to win(1 for colonize, 1 for research,1 for build ships and 1 for attack)

Many space empire games I played(like pax imperia, the worst game I bought ever) where like that.

Yes, I am hoping that this is better as well. I have faith in Alan (loved the Moo bible) and with everyone else at QS that this game will exceed most expectations.

[kolpo]

Funny but I thought FIRAXIS developed Civ3 while QUICKSILVER is developing Moo3. Why should the design document of one reflect in the desing of the other? Considering they have both been in the works for a long time now (with Civ3 released) to automatically assume Moo3 will be poor because another game wasn't to your liking is paramount to saying it will rain today because you stubbed your toe.

But It COULD happen that they will maybe make the same mistake like civ3 they also have a lot of there fans who demand good AI and that pressure could maybe lead to the same mistake. I just wnated to give a warning.

I didn't meant that MOO3 will be bad. I just feared a little bit that they COULD maybe make the same mistake.

But I'm not pessimistic nor optimistic about that we simply can't know how it will be(like my quote says)

[Deathray]

Well, the fact is that simple games with good AI (such as chess) can produce very complex strategies. I can't see MOO3 being a simple game though. And don't let the AI cheat, whatever he says, just don't. Cheating AI is BAAAAAAAD. Do it properly. AI & Balance are fundamental parts of the game that need to be done well.

[Comrade Tribune]

Let the AI do whatever is necessary to be challenging. High level AIs DO cheat -it´s in their genes.

But, please, kill the rush strategies in the cradle!

What I mean is: The following (CivIII) strategy should NOT work:

01 Hurry to build up a temporary advantage

02 Rush your neighbour

03 IF all players are eliminated: WIN

04 Goto 01

[Zealot]

I really agree that AI that cheats is really bad and no fun.

But I also like to play a game that I can win (or lose) in a short amount of time.
In MoO 2 MP, I can win a game on a 1v1 in one hour, top!
In starcraft, it can be done in 15 minutes.

But if ou don't want to play a game to rush, fine, tell others that that game isn't allowed to rush! But sometimes I don't have enough time to play a whole 6-players, 6-hours (or more) moo 2 game, but I still want to play!

I hope I'm not thread jacking, but the rush strategies have been mentioned.

[LDiCesare]

I second the opinion that cheating AIs are bad. Or, if they cheat, let it be by knowing things they shouldn't rather than giving them unfair production advantage (e.g. civ): It's OK to cheat by letting them plan things much better than they should because they don't know things, but not to give them production advantages.
I can't stand 2 AI kinds:
The one in which the opponent, having less resources, is able to output more production: It gives a sense of being unfair, like if suddenly in chess a pawn changed into a rook when in the middle of the board. I can't do that!
The one which doesn't attack or seize opportunities (CTP2 if someone ever tried that, and even MoM, in which the opponents were never a danger at any level). MoO never had this flaw, I expect it will remain thus.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Zealot

But if ou don't want to play a game to rush, fine, tell others that that game isn't allowed to rush!

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was speaking about Single Player; simple rush strategies should never work against the AI; this is the nail in the coffin of any TBS. And no, you should not be able to finish a TBS in an hour or less. There is something dead wrong with the game if you can do that.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was speaking about Single Player; simple rush strategies should never work against the AI; this is the nail in the coffin of any TBS. And no, you should not be able to finish a TBS in an hour or less. There is something dead wrong with the game if you can do that.

Huh?
And what are you talking about? There's some bad communication here. I just gave my opinion about rushing in a game.
And really don't think that a TBS game can't be finished in one hour! In fact, it's even more funnier! For example, in MoO 2 MP, you can destroy everybody with Frigates loaded with MIRV nuclear missiles.
Is it easy to win? No, unless you're playing against a newbie. You still need to know the game pretty well, and have good strategies.
Is it fast to win? Well, it's a lot faster that having to wait for plasma cannons if your ultimate goal is to destroy your opponent!

MoO 2 is a great game, and its MP shows how balanced it is. Because all that technology available can be used to untie tied players. Sooner or later there will be a player that can achieve supremacy over the others, and that is different than having to build, build, build lots of ships. Yet, you can win a game if you just rush and use some appropriate strategies.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Zealot
For example, in MoO 2 MP, you can destroy everybody with Frigates loaded with MIRV nuclear missiles.

I can believe that that is technically possible in MoO2. If so, it´s a design error. With a TBS, like with a puzzle, you should need to use just about everything that´s in there to win the game, especially on the higher levels. There simply shouldn´t be a shortcut like you describe.

I realize it takes some skill to find those shortcuts, but those skills should be employed by the playtesters, and the shortcuts they find should then be killed. (Only the shortcuts, not the people who invent them, or at least only in the gravest cases. )