better a bitter defeat than a bitter victory?

D4everman · January 10, 2001, 03:55

The other night I was playing SMACX and my wife came in the room and asked me "How come you're not playing your new game? You were so excited when you got it.".
She was referring of course, to CTP2.

I really need my Civ fix sometimes. I'm hoping that the PTB come out with a patch to make the AI a little stronger. The latest game that I didn't finish in CTP2 it was 2275, I have obelisks all over the place and a sh*tload of satellites and cores and what have you. None of the AI's even bother me. Hell, I had to start wars just to have something to do. And I think thats what I'm missing in this game.

Remember in Civ2 when the AI would attack you during the endgame for no good reason? (well, the reason was usually to keep you from winning) I used to almost fear the carthaginians. If they were in the game I knew I was going to be fighting them as long as they existed. Remember how an AI civ would declare war if you turned down a request? I miss that.Even though the AI civs cheated and sometimes didn't make sense in their actions it made the game fun. It made a victory taste sweeter.

Even in SMACX theres that challenge that is lacking in CTP2. In my current game of that I'm getting my a$$ kicked inside out (though I still plan on winning...I'm at the top power wise, but that doesn't make me invincible) and that makes it a fun challenge. Some of the AI's in that game have formed an alliance against me, another AI just plain hates me and another knows I'm too far away to really harm it. I wish the AI in CTP2 could do that. But the CTP2 AI kind of gives up once you reach the top of the powergraph.

I had to explain that to my wife...the game isn't fun if you can win too easily. It reminds me of an old cartoon I saw as a kid. (Justice League or something.) Lex Luthor and the bad guys defeated Superman and the other heroes and conquered the world. But then they got bored because there were no challenges and freed the heroes. Sometimes it might be so good to be the king.

D4

Bluevoss · January 10, 2001, 10:42

Yup. It would seem natural in any Civ game that as you got further ahead, nations would become more beligerent towards you. But as you fell behind, more and more would ally with you. The same should be true of any nation in the game - that would keep those runaway AI victories (in Civ2) from happening.

I rememeber an old atari basketball game I had years ago. The further you got ahead of the computer, the harder it played. But as it gained score, it would slow down its pace. It meant that you were always working hard, but never hopelessly behind.

That would really be prototypcial for nations. The Romans, the UK, and the Americans have all learned that the further you pull ahead, the more people hate you. It makes good game science.

------------------
Bluevoss-

January 10, 2001, 11:02

quote:

Originally posted by Bluevoss on 01-10-2001 09:42 AM
But as it gained score, it would slow down its pace. It meant that you were always working hard, but never hopelessly behind.

actually that is happening. look at the diffdb.txt
an ai that is behind you will get big advantages(that's why it is good to ally with a small civ cause it will get advances quickly and often give them to you for almost nothing) while the ai that is ahead of you will have either no advantage or disadvantages