Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts

[jscott991]

The player might be trying to win the game, but the computer should be trying to simulate rulers of alien states. Otherwise what is the point? Why not just play Deep Blue at Chess, a real game?

[kalbear]

I think that misses the point of the 'game' concept. Moo3 is fundamentally a game first, a simulation second.

It is not particularly fun for most people to play a game where no one ever attempts to challenge them for the victory. There is a very clearly defined set of goals in MOO3, and ignoring this fact for the sake of more realistic race relations only makes a worse game as a result.

What is the fundamental difference between playing a computer at a game of chess, and playing MOO3? Moo3 is only simulatable. Chess is not. There's nothing else, really - both are games, where the goal is to win, not to role-play the part of a kingdom. Chess players don't cry when they lose a knight because it was their best friend, nor do they lament the loss of a queen because she was great in the sack.

[jscott991]

The difference between an alien ruler doing the best for his empire and a player trying to win a game is what?

Its only gamesmanship. The computer as opposing states would do just as much to oppose you and provide a challenge as a computer playing only to win the game. The difference is the first computer nation would play rationally and the second might behave irrationally, such as discarding an age old alliance and declaring war for no reason other than that their ally has grown too powerful.

Frankly, the fact that this is being debated shows how far strategy and simulation has fallen in the RTS age. If people are really arguing that they want irrational computer players because they provide more of a challenge, then true TBS is really dead.

[kalbear]

Well, not exactly what I meant. I've talked about this before.

There was an AAR that showed this brilliantly, I thought. One of the AIs was a long-time ally, and shared several worlds with the player. Another AI was also an ally, and was a bit weaker overall.

The player ended up going to war with two other factions, one of which was quite far away from his colonies. Seeing a moment of weakness, that first ally broke their agreement and attacked.

The second ally stayed on the side of the player throughout the deal.

Basically, I want AIs that will be good game players. I don't want an AI that stays in an alliance because they'll otherwise be crushed - I want that ally to go out and try and win through other means, perhaps get other groups to attack or sabotage me. I don't want an AI that will break my alliances with them for no reason - I want one that will do it because that will possibly help them win the game.

So, the difference between an alien empire trying to do what's best vs. winning? Winning means you might take losses on a grand scale. It's a coin flip sometimes, and sometimes it might not work out. It means they'll actively take chances for bigger gains.

I'll say it another way.

What I don't want: when I control 80% of the galaxy, the lone AI left decides that a stupid outpost is worth going to war with me.
What I do want: When I'm in the lead, my AI ally tries to get others against me, and prepares for a time when I might not be ready for a multi-front war.

[jscott991]

There's absolutely no point to having a diplomatic model at all if that is the game you want Kalbear. There is no point to putting in all these elaborate agreements and treaties if you want the AI to break the agreement in order to "win a game." You should just be enemies with everyone all the time, just you would be in a game of Chess or Hearts or Poker. Your version of a strategy game is horribly simplistic.

I have no doubt, though, that MOO will be just what you want. The AI of all the Civ/MOO type games behaves in this manner. Its irrational and a cheap way to increase the difficulty, but it does make the EU system look brilliant. I'm sure that pleases Paradox.

[kalbear]

And the game you want is what, to always have you win by being able to be in long-term alliances where no one ever attacks you, ever?

That sounds like a horribly boring game to me, personally - like a game of Diplomacy where no one ever breaks any agreements no matter what. If you're into that kind of carebear game, by all means, but I'd actually like some teeth and competition from the AI.

Betrayal is just as much a part of politics as is loyalty. Having one without the other dilutes both. I'm in full agreement with Roland in this matter - the AI should do what works best for it and what fits it's needs the best.

Are you saying that, in a game, if you weren't in the lead and you could see that someone else was going to win that you had an agreement with, you'd let them win?

[jscott991]

First off, you will not be in a long term alliance with that many computer players, so I fail to see how that will effect your long term chances of winning or losing the game in the slightest.

Betrayal is a part of politics, but it should not occur for no reason. It should not occur because you have grown too strong. Why would your ally betray at the moment he is likely to have the least success? Or better yet, as happens in the Civ games, why would your ally betray you when you become his equal or slight superior, just when you are starting to become a valuable ally?

The fact is you want to play Chess. You want a pure wargame, with no semblance of a simulation. Irrational AI players who are interested only in scoring points and engaging in gamesmanship. Again, I wonder why include the diplomatic model at all.

[RolandtheMad]

Originally posted by kalbear
Are you saying that, in a game, if you weren't in the lead and you could see that someone else was going to win that you had an agreement with, you'd let them win?

Yes?

[kalbear]

Because a diplomatic model simulates the kind of banter and talking in a strategy game, in general? That's the sort of thing that would otherwise be impossible to have. Making deals with other players happens all the time, just like breaking them does. It sounds like the AI is much more rational than most RL people, and certainly plays nicer than, say, I do when deciding when to break an alliance. From reading kebzero's latest AAR, sounds like he plays pretty mean too. "Ooops, I accidentally razed the Meklon homeworld...sorry bout that".

I'll state it clearly: I do NOT want an irrational AI. I want a challenging one, who doesn't care whether it's doing the 'right thing' when betraying me. I want them to do the right thing because without doing so, they'll not win the game.

So yeah, I do want an AI that isn't interested in simulating political pandering and detente, but is interested in fulfilling winning conditions. I don't want that AI to attack if it's suicidal, and I don't want them to attack if they will simply be destroyed. I absolutely do want them to attack me just as I might be getting useful, because I'm also a threat at that point but not too strong to take care of.

Or rather, I want the AI to have the potential to do these things. I want an AI that will weigh the pros and cons and decide. I don't want one that will attack me merely because I'm the biggest threat to winning, but I do want them to be aware that I'm the biggest threat and make allowances towards that, contingency plans, that sort of thing.

Again, I don't want the AI to attack when it can't possibly win. I haven't said that and continue not to do so.

This sounds a lot like CT's arguments from before. I'm not looking for a galaxy empire simulation in MOO3. I'm not looking for EU in space, nor am I looking to role play the part of a galactic leader. I'm looking for a fun strategy game with multiple opponents - and in any multiplayer game with a zero-sum victory condition, diplomacy is absolutely part of that. It's just not the diplomacy of a simgalaxy type of game.

This isn't a lack of depth on my or MOO3's part - it's a totally separate goal. I won't play SimCity 4 expecting to crush other cities around me. I'm not looking to rule all of Morrowind. I'm looking for a strategy game, one with many options and multiple strategies for victory.

Though I have to say, the talk about making a sim galaxy type game is sounding more and more interesting.

[Harry Seldon]

The player ended up going to war with two other factions, one of which was quite far away from his colonies. Seeing a moment of weakness, that first ally broke their agreement and attacked.

I think this is a fantastic move by the AI and I agree with Kalbear that this is desirable in my gameplay. Alliances are important but they should be a means to an end. I would be more than willing to form an alliance with a race to keep them from crushing me only to stab them in the back when they turned it to me. I want to WIN. Notice both empires didn't attack, just the strongest with the best chance of winning. It was beautiful subterfuge. I don't necessarily like to play MP games so it heartens me to see this AI respond more like my cutthroat friends would if I was playing them.

Finally, I have something truly nice to say about what I've heard about the game.

[Harry Seldon]

Originally posted by RolandtheMad


Yes?

Seriously? Roland, you never struck me as the type to come in second place. Are you sure you're not flexing your diplomatic subterfuging muscles in anticipation of your first conquest?

[viciouscycle]

The AI in Civ3 does not allways betray you. If you can beat another civilization into submission and basically turn it into a vassal state, it will be a loyal ally for the rest of the game. The AI in Civ3 isn't too bad... there are parts of the game that I don't like at all but the AI isn't one of them. The problems that have been cited regarding betrayal is when you have a substantial lead over the rest of the civilizations.

If you don't have an AI that reacts to rises in power by other opponents and merely plays a role, the challenge of the game is gone. Diplomacy, even in the real world, isn't about maintaining roles and static states. For example, France and the U.K. have been allies and enemies throughout recorded history. Diplomacy is a dynamic system.

Diplomacy in a game is a usefull tool if you know how to use it. That's part of being successfull in a TBS. If you can't figure out how to use diplomacy to help you win the game, then you're missing out on part of the fun. You have to carefully weigh your options when signing trade agreements and alliances and rights of passage and make sure that what you're doing will help your cause the most and help your opponents the least.

Having multiple empires in the game is what makes diplomacy necessary. You can play TBS games with just two players but that gets boring quickly and then there really is no need for diplomacy or trade of any kind. If you ever played any board games with friends where you could have multiple "sides" in the game, you would understand how important diplomacy, even on the side, really becomes. But you are all still trying to win the game! Chess is totally different because it is two players only.

Now I agree that I don't want an irrational AI. Far from it. I want an AI that is doing its best to win the game and make things fun and challenging. If all the computer is there for is to play a role, then you have a simulation, not a game. And I'm not saying that wouldn't be interesting, but it's not what I'm looking for.

[kalbear]

I'll disagree about Civ3's AI - they did very stupid things, like challenge me with their cavalry when I had advanced armor. Just because they could take a couple cities.

Bastards. The AI should have a setting - 'understand irrational players'. Meaning that players have a very irrational view of their own territory and look unfavorably when they get attacked for no reason.

I loved it in SMAC when the computer player would rename towns it took. It was such a trivial thing - didn't change a thing in terms of gameplay - but boy did it piss me off. If I did it to them, it'd piss them off too. Heh.

All this talk of simgalaxy makes me wonder about the customization ability of MOO3. Is it possible to do more of a simgalaxy approach in the game through editors? Likely, I'll have to wait a month and see how well they do it in GalCiv.

[RolandtheMad]

This goes in to how I expect the AI to respect my borders and how I would respect their borders in turn.

So, yes, I`d help another win if I was their ally. Who knows what could happen? Maybe by not having to concentrate on military I could get a tech win. Sometimes it is fun to simply be part of a winning team. Why must you always turn on the ally at some point? Why not carve up the universe between you?

I suppose I`m more in the roleplay group than the 'play to win' group. If I 'play to win' I`ll eventually find an unbeatable strategy (which is in *every* game, and will be in this one), then the game loses all challenge and fun. Roleplaying has many possibilities. You can roleplay the space Hitler set on conquest, or just another leader looking out for his people. The problem is that only the first one is really viable if provisions aren`t made.

To give an example of the usefulness of being a true ally - one time in Moo2 I started out poorly and in a poor position and I had a massive Meklar ally. For awhile it didn`t look like there was going to be much action in that game so I concentrated on tech. I gave this underdeveloped Meklar lots of my newfound tech but they still couldn`t seem to fend off the Sakkra hordes on the far side of their borders. I assume that since I was such a good ally yet neutral towards the Sakkra who I hadn`t encountered yet, they decided to turn over their people to my superior leadership and spare the citizens inevitable death and slavery under the Sakkra. It was a good move for all involved. The Meklars significantly boosted my industry and I went on to crush the Sakkra and all others in that game.

Also, what this game desperately needs are vassals and protectorates. I fought and fought for this back on Delphi but it was not to be. Oh well. Maybe they`ll be kind and throw it into an expansion.

[Harry Seldon]

Ahhh! But both specific scenarios you mention were wins for you (I'm a little suprised by the moo2 one; that good fortune never fell my way). I'm eager to try to win in nonmilitary ways as well. Even in the other MOO games, a diplomatic win still required an extensive military campaign. I'm not saying I would always attack an ally, or even want an ally to always attack me. And I would agree up to a point that if I had no real chance to win I'd prefer one of my allies to win. I just wouldn't want it set in stone. That's the feeling I get when I read

what this game desperately needs are vassals and protectorates

That almost sounds like forced alliances that MUST be honored. As I said, I'd like to keep the option open to attack an evenly matched opponent after lulling them with an alliance rather than racing for resources to see who will be the dominant force in our relationship.