AI in MOO3

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
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.

A lot of you people who complain about dog piling do not understand the principle on which Alliances and other Diplomatic treaties are made.

Alliances are built on mutual gain for all parties who enter them. If they do not get anything out of the Alliance then there is no reason to continue to uphold that Alliance or treaty.

Take for example your long time ally who "all of a sudden" declares war on you. You say there is no reason...well it should be obvious, the goal of the game is to win and since your getting to big and your ally isn't growing as fast as you, there is no reason to continue the current alliance as it is not beneficial to themselves.

Many of you falsely point to modern day alliances such as NATO or whatnot as examples of how alliances should't be broken. Once again, you fail to understand the idea of mutual benfits for the parties involved.

Ofcourse Britain is not going to declare war on the US while it is embroiled in Afganistan, why should it? Are its intrests being threatened directly or indirectly by the US? No. The US has no territorial aspirations on Britain nor does current US actions infringe on Britain's sphere of influence. In fact stability brought by US control over the troubled region would be in Britain's best intrests.

But what if Afganistan was the lastest in a long line of American invasions and it is becomming clear that the US is going to gain total world dominance soon if nothing is done? You bet that Britain would be busy collecting a group of allies to stand up to the US before it was too late.

So before you start tearing your hair out saying "Why the **** did they declare war on me?", ask yourself this, if you were the AI and you watched yourself rampaging across the galaxy, what would you do? Thats right, you would start looking around to see who you could buddy up with before your "friend" decided that your colonies would be best served by joining their empire.

[Kc7mxo]

A lot of you people who complain about dog piling do not understand the principle on which Alliances and other Diplomatic treaties are made.

Alliances are built on mutual gain for all parties who enter them. If they do not get anything out of the Alliance then there is no reason to continue to uphold that Alliance or treaty.

Yes they are. So when my best buddy the Meklar whose rear I saved five cycles ago in the great harvester war and who I returned all his planets to declares war on me because he wants to "win", I'm sure I'll be having a great time.

Take for example your long time ally who "all of a sudden" declares war on you. You say there is no reason...well it should be obvious, the goal of the game is to win and since your getting to big and your ally isn't growing as fast as you, there is no reason to continue the current alliance as it is not beneficial to themselves.

Jealousy should not always lead to war. I can't say how many allies I had in Civ2 who attacked me because I was strong, and then died. That served their best interests, real well, and made the game so much more fun didn't it? <== Sarcasm

Many of you falsely point to modern day alliances such as NATO or whatnot as examples of how alliances should't be broken. Once again, you fail to understand the idea of mutual benfits for the parties involved.

Ofcourse Britain is not going to declare war on the US while it is embroiled in Afganistan, why should it? Are its intrests being threatened directly or indirectly by the US? No. The US has no territorial aspirations on Britain nor does current US actions infringe on Britain's sphere of influence. In fact stability brought by US control over the troubled region would be in Britain's best intrests.

But what if Afganistan was the lastest in a long line of American invasions and it is becomming clear that the US is going to gain total world dominance soon if nothing is done? You bet that Britain would be busy collecting a group of allies to stand up to the US before it was too late.

And what we're saying, if you were at all listening, is that NOT whats happening. I can play a tottally peaceful game of any strategy game I've ever had, and at some point, just because I'm "winning," the AI will attack me. That is NOT fun. at least not for me. I don't play these games just to "win," I play them to have fun. And when I'm recreating history, I'd like what happens to be just a little more realistic than having mexico invade the US because we're a superpower. You get me?

So before you start tearing your hair out saying "Why the **** did they declare war on me?", ask yourself this, if you were the AI and you watched yourself rampaging across the galaxy, what would you do? Thats right, you would start looking around to see who you could buddy up with before your "friend" decided that your colonies would be best served by joining their empire.

You're making false assumptions. Quit it. Not everyone plays civ and moo to stomp all over the neighbors, break treaties, steal technology and glass planets. Not to say that the above isn't fun, but its not the only way to have a good time.

No AI I've ever played with can compete with a Human for very long. After a while the human understands the how the game works, and how the AI plays. Then the challenge is gone. But that doesn't mean that the fun has to vanish too.

I've had a great time with civ2 and moo just playing the game out to see how things end up. I've enjoyed games of Medieval TW just seeing what the AI does to itself, and for an instant forgetting I'm just another college student in a nation filled with millions of them, and instead pretending that I'm back in the middle ages ruleing an empire with trusted Allies and hated Enemies.

Unfortunately, due to current game design, I tend to only end up with the latter, not matter how I play.

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Yes they are. So when my best buddy the Meklar whose rear I saved five cycles ago in the great harvester war and who I returned all his planets to declares war on me because he wants to "win", I'm sure I'll be having a great time.

Hey it was your decision to go save their butts, maybe next time you'll realise that saving their butts is pointless and you'd rather just have the harvesters tire themselves out killing the Meklar before kicking their ass.

Originally posted by Kc7mxo Jealousy should not always lead to war. I can't say how many allies I had in Civ2 who attacked me because I was strong, and then died. That served their best interests, real well, and made the game so much more fun didn't it? <== Sarcasm

Well they died because they waited too long. I hope the AI in MOO3 doesn't wait till its hopeless before trying to check the human player's advance.

Originally posted by Kc7mxo And what we're saying, if you were at all listening, is that NOT whats happening. I can play a tottally peaceful game of any strategy game I've ever had, and at some point, just because I'm "winning," the AI will attack me. That is NOT fun. at least not for me.

The point of the game is to win. If having opponents do what is neccessary to accomplish that goal is not 'fun' for you, I suggest you try another game. One where the point of the game is to make buddies...

Originally posted by Kc7mxo I don't play these games just to "win," I play them to have fun. And when I'm recreating history, I'd like what happens to be just a little more realistic than having mexico invade the US because we're a superpower. You get me?

Mexico isn't going to invade the US because the universe does not have a victory condition that the US is about to meet which gives all Americans a free pass to heaven and sends everyone else to hell. But if there was, everyone would be piling on the US, including Mexico.

Originally posted by Kc7mxo You're making false assumptions. Quit it. Not everyone plays civ and moo to stomp all over the neighbors, break treaties, steal technology and glass planets. Not to say that the above isn't fun, but its not the only way to have a good time.

Last time I checked, the point of the game WAS to stomp on the neighbors (or atleast enslave them), break treaties, steal technology and glass planets. That the game isn't what you want isn't the developer's problems. If there were enough people who liked going around making buddies with everyone, then MOO3's victory condition would probably be "make friends with 10 different races:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo No AI I've ever played with can compete with a Human for very long. After a while the human understands the how the game works, and how the AI plays. Then the challenge is gone. But that doesn't mean that the fun has to vanish too.

Thats why multiplayer is all the rage today. The fun of the game comes from the challenge.

Originally posted by Kc7mxo I've had a great time with civ2 and moo just playing the game out to see how things end up. I've enjoyed games of Medieval TW just seeing what the AI does to itself, and for an instant forgetting I'm just another college student in a nation filled with millions of them, and instead pretending that I'm back in the middle ages ruleing an empire with trusted Allies and hated Enemies.

Unfortunately, due to current game design, I tend to only end up with the latter, not matter how I play.

Well, I guess there just ain't enough of you pacificsts out there. Until then your stuck with games who cater to people like us who like their aliens well done, preferably with a laser rifle.

But at any rate, its pointless to complain. The point of the game is to win. If you don't like that...don't play. It will save you 50 bucks too.

[Zed-F]

The question is, what makes better gameplay: a game where AI nations behave realistically (i.e. help their friends, don't backstab them without a really good reason, etc. -- i.e. don't play as if their goal is to prevent you from winning) or a game where the AI nations do recognize that they are in fact competing with the human nations to "win" and therefore take unrealistic actions in an attempt to prevent the human player from winning. Most human players will take unrealistic actions or abuse the AI any way they can in order to win, so there's ample precedent for the AI to do so as well. We routinely backstab or our AI competitors, or at least attack them without provocation, so why shouldn't they do the same to us?

A game where the AIs don't recognize at least to some extent that the human player is the real opponent tends to be too easy. So, there have to be at least some concessions made in that direction, though it's important that the game not be too blatant about it. In fact, there's a continuum of how much the AIs try to gang up on the human, and it's important to pick the right spot along it when designing the game, though that's not always simple. Civ3 has had several iterations where they have rebalanced this, and I expect they will continue to tweak it in future. From other threads I expect that as difficulty increases in MOO3, the amount of AI ganging up on humans factors in will increase as well.

[Draginol]

So why not have one of the possible victory conditions be an allied victory?

That way there's a lesser but still acceptable victory in winning as a team rather than sole survivor.

In that way you can have AI players who won't back stab you.

I tend to agree with KC. When I've just saved the Meklar form annihilation and then gave them back their worlds I want them to feel grateful for it. I want them to acknowledge this. Not just because it's fun but because it's INTUITIVE.

[kalbear]

From what I gathered in the strat guide, some form of alliance victory is possible. At the least, you get victory points for your allies' equipment, tech, etc.

[Kc7mxo]

Hey it was your decision to go save their butts, maybe next time you'll realise that saving their butts is pointless and you'd rather just have the harvesters tire themselves out killing the Meklar before kicking their ass.

So I should just let my allies die. Hmmm.

Well they died because they waited too long. I hope the AI in MOO3 doesn't wait till its hopeless before trying to check the human player's advance.

Ahh, so allies should only sneak attack me if they can win?

The point of the game is to win. If having opponents do what is neccessary to accomplish that goal is not 'fun' for you, I suggest you try another game. One where the point of the game is to make buddies...

If the only point of playing a game is to win, then why do people continue to play them after they've won? Once all the challenge of civ2 on deity left, did people quit playing? Some people can enjoy games other than by crushing their enemies beneath their feat. Although that is really fun too.

Mexico isn't going to invade the US because the universe does not have a victory condition that the US is about to meet which gives all Americans a free pass to heaven and sends everyone else to hell. But if there was, everyone would be piling on the US, including Mexico.

Yep. No victory condition. For me, one of hte biggest attractions of Civ2 was creating a new history. Not getting to alpha centauri. Who gives a rip about that? Winning is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. In other words, its not the destination, its the journey.

Last time I checked, the point of the game WAS to stomp on the neighbors (or atleast enslave them), break treaties, steal technology and glass planets. That the game isn't what you want isn't the developer's problems. If there were enough people who liked going around making buddies with everyone, then MOO3's victory condition would probably be "make friends with 10 different races:

I'm not asking for a barney universe. I'm just asking for one that simulates somewhat realistic politics.

Thats why multiplayer is all the rage today. The fun of the game comes from the challenge.

All the rage. Right. And the percentage of people who own civ3 and play multiplayer is sooooo high. And challenge is why that silly sims game is one of the most selling games in history.

Well, I guess there just ain't enough of you pacificsts out there. Until then your stuck with games who cater to people like us who like their aliens well done, preferably with a laser rifle.

Firstly, I'm not a pacifist. I like to fight wars and crush my enemies as much as the next fellow. But I also am a fan of history, and I'd just like to see an AI behave in a remotely realistic fashion when it comes to diplomacy.

But at any rate, its pointless to complain. The point of the game is to win. If you don't like that...don't play. It will save you 50 bucks too.

Complaining is never pointless. How else will people know what you want and what you will pay for?

[viciouscycle]

There is a balance somewhere. The AI should be trying its best to win the game but at the same time it should also be abiding by certain principals of behaviour. One great way to aid this endeavour is to allow coalition victories. A coalition victory would allow your allies to reamain loyal and actually help you win the game if they get to share in the glory.

And, as with many other options in a good game, the coalition victory condition should be able to be disabled if so desired. For those of us who want to be the one and only Master of Orion!

Games will never be able to truly represent real-world diplomatic dynamics no matter how advanced the AI becomes simply due to the nature of being a game: games have victory conditions but life does not. A compromise is necessary between having a fun, challenging game and a realistic simulation.

[darcy]

I'm afraid this is one of these questions where a compromise is impossible. You can either roleplay or play to win, that's mutually exclusive. Trying to make an AI which does a little bit of both will result in one erratic, schizophrenic and generally silly AI.

I'm not saying that the roleplaying aspect doesn't have its merits; however, if you put multiplayer in your game, that's a pretty clear message which path you want to take. There can be no roleplaying in anonymous online multiplayer games, as all roleplayers will be totally crushed by the play-to-win people and quit in frustration.

So why not have one of the possible victory conditions be an allied victory?

That way there's a lesser but still acceptable victory in winning as a team rather than sole survivor.

Allied victory sounds like a tempting solution, but I have my doubts. It seems it would be very easy to win such a game: just ally with all other players. Then all players win. Wars would only be fought against the few stubborn losers who refuse to join the Grand Winning Coalition.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


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.

The US helped fight for France in 1917. They returned to liberate France from German occupation in 1944. For forty years they then protect France practically single handed from the threat of Communist invasion. Now that the US wants to invade Iraq you'd have thought they'd be lining the Champs-Elysses with flags and waving in the GI's again. But they are actively vetoing US proposals in the UN/NATO and having diplomatic talks with the Russian Premier instead. Ungrateful buggers eh?

Unfortunately computer games rarely tend to make the distinction between firm allies, allies of convenience or allies who only care whats in it for themselves. If an Ai goes from ally to enemy some players assume its a total polar swing in attitude. EU was much more transparent because you could see that someone was allied but at -60 relations with you. So basically they dislike you but are sticking with you for now. Repeated stroking in the way of diplomatic contacts, money and help in their defensive wars would be needed just to keep them civil. Any warmongering would see the rating plunge.

Can you tell the difference between 'Allied and worshipful' and 'Allied but hating it' in MoO3? I don't know. I would hope that the language of the diplomats and the spy reports would help. Until everyone's been playing for a month and the expert players have come to a solid opinion I reserve judgement.

[Widely Reknown]

The US helped fight for France in 1917. They returned to liberate France from German occupation in 1944. For forty years they then protect France practically single handed from the threat of Communist invasion. Now that the US wants to invade Iraq you'd have thought they'd be lining the Champs-Elysses with flags and waving in the GI's again. But they are actively vetoing US proposals in the UN/NATO and having diplomatic talks with the Russian Premier instead. Ungrateful buggers eh?

This is a pretty lousy example of an alliance of convenience. The US and France are firmly allied, they just don't agree on every single point in their foreign policy. An alliance does not mean that everybody should obey the strongest member.

You can be pretty sure France would help you out if you were invaded by super-Iraq, though.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


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.

And how you act during the war did a lot to determine how long the AI "remembered". Capture some cities and then stop, no problem (usually), but RAZE cities and the AI would hate you forever, which MAKES sense, IMHO.

People didn't dislike the Germans as much after WW1 as they HATED the nazi's after WW2 when millions of people had been killed in death camps.

There is a distinction.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Grumbold


**snip real world examples**

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.

See this is my issue. I understand that nations and/or empires will look after their own best interest, but I would think that there would be at least SOME sort of diplomatic break-down before war is declared, which seldom happens in the 4X games I play before the AI declares war.

The fact that the AI would suddenly declare war, when everything had been rosey and grand the turn before, when the player has done NOTHING to provoke them is what annoys me about the AI in most 4X games. Yes, I know that human players will do the same in MP, but at least then you'd have a clue by the amassing of ships near the border, etc, not "out of the blue" or simply because the human was doing better than the AI.

Besides, there is no sense in most 4X games of when to fight and when to stop. Even a small country can try to sue for peace if they are facing destruction, yet this very seldom happens, the AI declares and then almost NEVER asks for peace, even when down to their last world/city.

[Jamski]

It would be nice if as you approached their homeworld you would receive envoys begging for mercy. Or even from other civs requesting that you do not completely eliminate a race. Perhas in GalCiv?

-Jam

[Widely Reknown]

It would be nice if as you approached their homeworld you would receive envoys begging for mercy. Or even from other civs requesting that you do not completely eliminate a race.

The first one would be nice, depending on the race. The Sakkra would rather die than surrender, wouldn't they?

The second one would be awesome. The genocide of an entire sentient species should really piss off the more peaceful races. They should at least use some diplomacy to avoid an atrocity like that.

Can't see it happening though -- it would require a too subtle AI to be realistic. Just a IF fleet near homeworld THEN send envoy asking for peace wouldn't really be much fun. And with ethoses(?) out of the game, well...