AI in MOO3

[Grumbold]

Very difficult to define rational rather than irrational dogpiling. If you brush them off and destroy them its easy to accuse them of being irrational, yet it might have been their last best chance to prevent your victory.

My definition would be based around EU2 I guess. In various builds countries would declare war on you because your "badboy" status was so high they felt they ought to, yet they had made no prewar preparations and often would be incapable of backing up their words with action.

A nation that manoeuvers into a combat position, declares war and achieves a short term victory could be considered rational, particularly if you have been ignoring the diplomatic moves that would have soothed them. It is especially rational if (to go back to Eu2 again) their DoW will encourage others to join in against you. Unfortunately to really make it work you need the concept of occupied territory, so that a condition of peace may be the return of all lost territories plus a forfeit. That way 5 AI's may individually get badly hurt but eventually collectively demand a high price from the player as a condition of peace.

[Stuie]

Irrational would be my long-time ally with whom I have multiple diplomatic agreements suddenly attacking me for no other reason than the fact that I might win. I agree that those with whom I do not have decent diplomatic relations should become more and more hostile the stronger I get, and even my allies should be harder to appease if I'm warmongering all over the universe. But they should be harder to appease, not impossible to appease.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Grumbold
You only have to look round the world now to see all the smaller players scurrying to get nukes and biologicals to increase their leverage while indulging in brinksmanship of the highest calibre to avoid getting crushed.

Or to indulge in their maniacal tendencies to TAKE what they want by force while trying to prevent the bigger kids on the block from helping the smaller due to the increased threat.

Don't be confused with life and a game, just because a nation is small doesn't automatically make them a victim and unlike the game realm in reailty there is usually someone bigger around who will help the small, picked on nations. The UN coalition, led by the US to free Kuwait from Iraq is a prime example of a smaller nation being helped defend against a larger agressor.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Stuie
Irrational would be my long-time ally with whom I have multiple diplomatic agreements suddenly attacking me for no other reason than the fact that I might win. I agree that those with whom I do not have decent diplomatic relations should become more and more hostile the stronger I get, and even my allies should be harder to appease if I'm warmongering all over the universe. But they should be harder to appease, not impossible to appease.

I agree with this. Most of the previous 4X type games before Civ3 woulkd automatically have the AI declare war on the human player simply because the human player was becomming powerful. A "real" example of this would be if England had suddenly cancelled all treaties and declared war on the US during WW2 when it became obvious that the US was becomming powerful and would contribute the majority of the winning war effort.

It doesn't make sense to have an AI who you have been peaceful with and/or who has been an ally in fighting others simply declare war out of the blue, even if you have done much diplomacy, as is the piss-poor attempt at AI that most game companies throw in for added challenge. If you haven't attacked a particular AI and have binding treaties, they shouldn't attack you unless severely provoked. Civ3 was the first game in which I have seen the AI act "rationally" in all my years of playing various 4X games.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


Or to indulge in their maniacal tendencies to TAKE what they want by force while trying to prevent the bigger kids on the block from helping the smaller due to the increased threat.

Don't be confused with life and a game, just because a nation is small doesn't automatically make them a victim and unlike the game realm in reailty there is usually someone bigger around who will help the small, picked on nations. The UN coalition, led by the US to free Kuwait from Iraq is a prime example of a smaller nation being helped defend against a larger agressor.

I think you read more into my comment than was there. There is virtually no nation at this present time that does not aspire to having a nuclear capability. Either because it makes them more powerful or because they fear the consequences if someone they are on bad terms with gets them first. The small guys are not the victims, no. Neither are the big guys who already have nuclear weapons and like to mould the world to suit their interests.

[Kc7mxo]

Civ3 was the first game in which I have seen the AI act "rationally" in all my years of playing various 4X games.

If you were willing to ignore the AI's extrodinarily long memory. . . Stupid thing would start a war, you'd whoop it, and it would never forgive you. Damn zulus.

[Sombra]

Here is a link http://www.twistedmonkey.net/

It shows a review of MOO3 .He likes the game very much but complains about the "the broken Diplomacy" He claims that "The AI will always go to war".

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


I agree with this. Most of the previous 4X type games before Civ3 woulkd automatically have the AI declare war on the human player simply because the human player was becomming powerful. A "real" example of this would be if England had suddenly cancelled all treaties and declared war on the US during WW2 when it became obvious that the US was becomming powerful and would contribute the majority of the winning war effort.

It doesn't make sense to have an AI who you have been peaceful with and/or who has been an ally in fighting others simply declare war out of the blue, even if you have done much diplomacy, as is the piss-poor attempt at AI that most game companies throw in for added challenge. If you haven't attacked a particular AI and have binding treaties, they shouldn't attack you unless severely provoked. Civ3 was the first game in which I have seen the AI act "rationally" in all my years of playing various 4X games.

You and I have very different opinions of Civ 3 so I won't go there. European history is absolutely chock full of examples of alliances of convenience and switching power blocks all attempting to either obtain dominance, crush a hated enemy no matter what the cost or just survive while keeping one eye out for the Pope in case they get threatened with excommunication. One minute the Turks are the enemy and it is every mans duty to support the crusade. The next the French are aiding the Turks to put a check on the power of the Emperor. Alliances don't last. Thats real politics.

In this century only years after being the terror of the continent Germany was one of the bastions of the West against Russia, whom the Allies almost fought at the time. The minute Russia gets weakened NATO stats bickering internally because its different members were really only allies of convenience, not lifelong idealogical soulmates.

A game turn in these things is usually 1 or more years. Can a nation/ planet/ civilsation be fighting one another one century, allies the next and warring again by the third? You bet. Just about every country on our planet has done it and its that sort of behaviour we try to model. Should aliens be more reliable and trustworthy?

So should an "ally" which you drop a bit of tech to occasionally declare war on you when you are at peace? Absolutely not. Should they decide to take a chance when you're embroiled in another internecine war and they figure sooner or later they're going to be next because you're running out of victims? Hell yes! Especially if the diplomatic model allows them to ally with your other enemies as a matter of convenience.

[Sombra]

There's a fair amount to complain about as well, unfortunately. The first thing anyone will notice is that the graphics look like absolute ass. The menus and UI resemble some interfaces I saw back in the 386 days, and a lot of the pretty things you saw even in MOO2 while navigating your fleets, planets, etc, have now been placed with just straight charts and control panels, which at some point makes me feel like I'm playing a spreadsheet. On the plus side, once you get engrossed in the game, you won't notice the graphics anymore, so this is negligible. The diplomacy, though it includes a bunch of cool new features, seems fundamentally broken to me. I've designed races that have no greater purpose or ability than to sweet-talk alien nations, and I've been unable to keep even them out of pointless, arbitrary wars. When alien races get upset with you, there's never any context in their messages as to why they're mad, and a lot of times I have no idea what we're going to war over. Also, once you're in a war, good luck ever ending peacefully. Every time I've ended a war with a race, they declared war on me again within 3 turns. Finally, the queuing system for building stuff absolutely sucks. The icons showing what a planet is building are absolutely useless unless you delve several menu levels deep into a planetary information screen, changing things around is a pain in the ass, and you can only queue up 3 things at a time. This means that a lot of times, you'll drop the ball and forget to update a queue once the initial 3 items you set are done, and the viceroy will waste countless system resources building **** that you don't need or want. Quicksilver: It should be easier to look at and update the queue for any planet, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you set the queue limit at 3. It seems arbitrary and stupid to me. Sorry.

so this is negligible. The diplomacy, though it includes a bunch of cool new features, seems fundamentally broken to me. I've designed races that have no greater purpose or ability than to sweet-talk alien nations, and I've been unable to keep even them out of pointless, arbitrary wars. When alien races get upset with you, there's never any context in their messages as to why they're mad, and a lot of times I have no idea what we're going to war over. Also, once you're in a war, good luck ever ending peacefully. Every time I've ended a war with a race, they declared war on me again within 3 turns.

http://www.twistedmonkey.net/

[Grumbold]

Perhaps once he's played another 10 hours he will have a pretty good idea why they declare war. Who knows?

I'm reminded of Civ III and many other games where the feelings espoused in the first flush of acquisition by reviewers and forum regulars alike was markedly different to those same peoples' opinions a month later (mine included.)

[kalbear]

Interesting. I'm not familiar with SM's reviewing style - what games he likes/doesn't like - but he makes some fairly good points. What I don't get is that virtually none of the AARs have this kind of warmongering feel in diplomacy - at least not by the AI itself. I wonder if he made some wacky Ithkul diplomat race and went after the pacification of the universe, the hard way. That would be...well, really funny.

He's also the third reviewer we've heard from in a row that's talked about the massive complexity of the 'simplified' game.

[Grumbold]

Yeah I'd expect it of magazine authors who probably were hoping for a list of spaceship powerups and instructions about which keys to press to warp, dock and switch between weapons. Interesting coming from someone who claims not only to know Moo2 but to have played it.

[Kc7mxo]

So should an "ally" which you drop a bit of tech to occasionally declare war on you when you are at peace? Absolutely not. Should they decide to take a chance when you're embroiled in another internecine war and they figure sooner or later they're going to be next because you're running out of victims? Hell yes! Especially if the diplomatic model allows them to ally with your other enemies as a matter of convenience.

The english didn't invade the US while we were off fighting in afghanistan. Heck, they were there helping us. And we're basically a bunch of rebels who gave them the finger two hundred years ago. . .

Alliances between countries of cultures friendly to one another can often last a very long time. Thats the kind of alliances I'd like to see in games. I don't want to see the meklars (who I've been allied with for two hundred years) suddenly invade me when I happen to declare war on the Sakra.

[darcy]

I don't mind if the AIs all turn against the winning player, after all that's the logical thing to do for someone who wants to win the game himself.

What I don't like is being treated any differently just because I'm not an AI. Artificial sympathy among un-allied AIs is a really cheap workaround and on the same level as other artificial AI cheat bonusses.

[Alexfrog]

I think I might understand his (the reveiwer who said stuff today and complained about the diplomacy) diplomacy complaints....

if he was trying to sweettalk everybody, as he says, it would piss of the Sakkra and other races like that.....they only respect strength and tough words. If you sweettalk them they will attack you.

Also, the AI races wont just let you sit there undefended, just because your diplomacy skills are good....you need SOME defense....at least for SOME of the races to not attack you. (the peaceful ones like trilarians wil likely want peace with you no matter what, unless you are lizards.)

Thinking about it makes his diplomacy comments make more sense....
I think he doesnt know about how different races respond better or worse to different ways that you address them....like if you act nice to the Sakkra, they WILL attack you...you gotta be really tough with them.