Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts

[darcy]

as you grow more powerful, the AI will just hate you for no reason, eliminating diplomacy

But your growing power *is* the reason. If we ignore all roleplaying, the only point of allying with enemies is to buy time while keeping the balance of power. If one player grows more powerful than all others, he is the biggest threat and the natural target of all attacks. I can see no error in that strategy.

That said, I do hate it when the AI treats me differently just because I'm not an AI, but I don't think that is what you meant here.

[jscott991]

Really? So Canada and the United States should be bitter enemies?

Relations between countries are usually defined by historical factors and friendship more than balance of power concerns. Even if Britain, Canada, Australia, and Mexico became concerned over America's growing economic power vis a vis the rest of the world, do you think they would break alliances with the United States or go to war to chastise them?

Its a pretty child-like simplification of diplomacy. Even Europa Universalis has a more complicated version of diplomacy than this and EU has some serious flaws with the "badboy", balance of power issue.

Originally posted by darcy

But your growing power *is* the reason. If we ignore all roleplaying, the only point of allying with enemies is to buy time while keeping the balance of power. If one player grows more powerful than all others, he is the biggest threat and the natural target of all attacks. I can see no error in that strategy.

[Grumbold]

Countries should hate and fear you if you are more powerful than them and do nothing to appease them on a regular basis. What they shouldn't do is declare war against you unless they have a lot of allies or somehow feel they can gain something from it.

I think people are annoyed about the maximum fleet size because one of the main reasons given for the necessity to take starship combat into hands-off realtime mode was the size of the battles. If the maximum size falls from thousands to 216 then the fear is that typical battles might be say 10-20 ships, and under those cercumstances the players feel willing and able to micromanage their activities. There's also that feeling of grandeur in fielding a vast space armada. If the US can deploy hundreds of naval vessels to defend it, an interstellar starfaring society shouldn't be limited to a few hundred. That was the feeling of scale that MoO1 got right and MoO2 lost.

[jscott991]

I agree with you Grumhold about the space battle scale. The scale should be larger and favor thousands of ships rather than smaller and favoring dozens. But, its hard to say how this will effect the game without knowing how many ships you will be building and maintaining over time. If you can only build a few ships a turn, like in MOO2, 216 is not going to be a big deal. If you have thousands of ships but can only use a few at a time, that will ruin the game easily.

Personally, I have trouble believing this change has anything to do with multiplayer. QS and IG are not my favorite companies, but they surely realize that MP is going to be a very small part of the MOO experience. I can't believe they would make a decision that would harm single player without other reasons (like the game running too slowly or the AI not being able to handle lots of ships).

[vmxa1]

I am not sure if Moo2 have a limit on ships other than that impossed by command points and cash.
Well it does have a limit of 100 per side in a given combat.

[kalbear]

Because of the way initiative works, MOO2 might as well have an upper limit of about 30 ships. Maybe 40. Playing with any more doesn't make it any more epic, it just makes the battle long and stupid.

Moo1 didn't have an epic feel to me because of the stacking rule. It was nice to have swarms of 32K scoutships, but it was also kind of grotesque how effective they were (go BHG go!). To me, they felt like one big ship. They certainly maneuvered like one.

[darcy]

Relations between countries are usually defined by historical factors and friendship more than balance of power concerns....

You're roleplaying a political leader again, whereas I treated the game as an abstract set of rules. These two approaches are mutually exclusive. I agree with you that the behaviour would be unrealistic for a political simulator; however, in the context of a strategy game the concept of friendship is irrelevant.

[jscott991]

You are simply wrong Darcy. I'm sorry to be so blunt. You are treating MOO3 like chess or bridge, an abstract strategy game. It is not an abstract strategy game in any sense. If it were, why have races in it? Why not call the sides "red, blue, green, black, etc."? The MOO games and even Civ all are trying to varying degrees to be more than the type of game you seem to think they are.

[Apolex]

Yeah, but do you want the AI to be a roleplaying simulation of a race, or the best competition that it can be? If you were playing MP with 5 other people, and you became the big dog in the galaxy do you think your nice "Canadian" neighbor next door would be happy and helpful with your success, or would they secretly plot with your enemies to bring you down and at least have a chance at winning? If he/she's trying to win, the latter. An AI trying to win should do the same.

However, again it comes down to personal preference. Do you enjoy and prefer the game to be more like Risk, or more like a pretend role-playing galaxy? On one hand I do get annoyed in Civ and MOO when your 'friend' turns on you. However, if I was playing a game and managed to make 4 other allies with no other ambition than to see their big-brother win, then that would be unchallenging.

I do feel that multiplayer will allow people to play the game types of their preference. You can probably find 4-5 roleplayers and have a great time in a game like that. Some of the more strategic-only minded people will likely find each other as well and play games of their fancy.

[RolandtheMad]

It is simple enough - the middle road should be taken. Some AIs should be loyal until the end and other AIs should ruthlessly backstab you, just like in real life. You never really know which is which but we should be told if the truely loyal AI exists. This would be beneficial for both types of players. Risk type players could go on about business as usually with no true allies anyway, and role players could try to figure out who is truely loyal and who isn`t.

[jscott991]

I have never heard anyone defend the irrational turncout AI that Civ and previous MOO games featured. I guess people have individual tastes, but this seems a little bit of a stretch. You want a game to be challenging, but at the same time you want to feel that you are playing something worthwhile. Having the AI turn on you irrationally is not a fair way to increase the challenge rating of a game. Why not just deduct 25% of a player's resources when he gets that powerful? Why not change the math calculating his combat results? Having the AI turn on you for no reason other than that you are growing in power is just as arbitrary as any of those methods.

The AI is supposed to represent the leaders of their race; leaders who, if not responsible to their people at least have interest in staying in power at home. That is the whole point of having races and government types and a setting to begin with. No ruler would foolishly throw his people away in a war with their former friends just because of their increase in power. What is the point of the elaborate diplomatic model if this is what diplomacy is all about? It makes no sense and it has business being part of a game that purports to be a serious strategy game, rather than Risk or Chess.

[Kc7mxo]

It is simple enough - the middle road should be taken. Some AIs should be loyal until the end and other AIs should ruthlessly backstab you, just like in real life. You never really know which is which, but we should be told that the truely loyal AI does exist if indeed it does.

I agree. They should be assigned personality attributes at the begining of the game, like in civ. Maybe you could have spies peek at his autobiography during the game to find out what his attributes are. Or each race yould just always be the same.

Like those darlocks. Grrr. I hates them. Sneaky thievesees. I hates them forever! Glasses their planets i will, yessss. . . .

[Apolex]

Originally posted by RolandtheMad
It is simple enough - the middle road should be taken. Some AIs should be loyal until the end and other AIs should ruthlessly backstab you, just like in real life.

I like that idea too Roland. Randomly assign play-types to your AI opponents. That's just like what happens if you randomly join a MP game: you're not sure how each person is going to play. That would give both styles of play a good fun challenge. We'll have to wait and see if MOO3 has anything like this, or if the races are all governed by basically the same diplomatic strategy (ala Civ 3).

[viciouscycle]

MOO3 is just a game. It may be a complex strategy game but it is still a game with one goal and very specific parameters. Games are competitions above all else and the diplomacy mechanics will always need to be geared toward that simple fact. Diplomacy in life is so much more complex because life isn't just a competition. There are no victory conditions in life. Comparing diplomacy in a game to diplomacy in life is pointless.

MOO3 may be far more complex than Risk but the ending is still the same: somebody wins, somebody loses. MOO3 isn't a simulation that is trying to be as realistic as possible... it's a game that's trying to be as enjoyable and competitive as possible.

A game where other players simply go on about their merry business while you rise in power and win the game isn't very fun. MOO3 is a game about conflict... a game about competing empires. If there were different victory conditions, say a team victory condition of some sort, it would make diplomacy different.

In the end, every action you and your oppents take in a game are done with one thing in mind: winning the game.

[Kc7mxo]

There are no victory conditions in life.

That is most assuredly disputable.