Type Of AI Civilizations

[DarkCloud]

I believe that the AI civilizations should be able to combine several traits; up to 3 into one civ.

The Computer would take 1 trait from column a,b, and c OR not take a trait from two of the columns and merely have 1 main trait.

This will allow for more variety in Civ III

The Types of Traits:

A.
Expansionist- Builds Lots of Cities
Perfectionist- Build Up Cities
Agressor- Conquer Cities
Diplomat- Trades a lot and uses diplomacy

B.
Militarist- Build Army
Defender- Builds Defense
Unconventional- Builds Spies, etc.
Founder- Builds Settlers

C.
Easily Angered- Easily Angered in Negotiations
Forgiving- Forgives wars easily
Unforgiving- holds grudges against other civs
Backstabber- attacks allies

-Does anyone else have any ideas on this subject?

[red_jon]

Yeah, that does sound good (at least it sounds better than the personalities in CTP2).

Perhaps there could be other personalities- such as 'despotic' which makes the AI build hardly any improvements and runs its citizens to the ground. Or one which tries to give its people the highest standard of living?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well i would't want the personalities to be too predictive. ie once you hafve figured out who the backstabber is , you won't go in the alliance with them (in Civ2 all were backstabbers )

but i would like for them to be as complex as they can allow the AI to use it's properties well.

So a perfectionsit civ should switch to 'science oriented' governments, and militaristic one to ' war oriented ones'. maybe you can have a combination of the two personalities. But it wpoiuld be ideal that such differences as terrain where the civ is and some other random factors could deternmine which civ will be prevelant one. Not just Romans and Mongols as it used to be. Expanisonist militaristic civs were doing the best in Civ 2.

Other thypes of charachters should have equivalently sized bonuses on their side too.

perhaps switching of strategies for a civ could be good as well.

Such 3x4 system seems complex and it would be great if the AI could use it effectivley.

A Perfectionist, Defending Forgiver seems to be a sitting duck here . However they might have the best science/ economic bonus for such a strategy. They might not attack often, but still shouyld at least once per game. That would give them the most likeley technological units advantage over attackers.

Or if such civ was attacked and managed to defend, it could switch the war strategy in order to defeat its enemy., and so on...

[Footie Mad]

How about an "unpredictable" trait for a real challenge?

[Inverse Icarus]

i dont think "backstabber" is a real trait.

sure i mean, they do exist in life, but its not really an innate ability.

no one is "predestined" to backstab, they just do it when they see real gains in it.

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i dont think "backstabber" is a real trait.

sure i mean, they do exist in life, but its not really an innate ability.

no one is "predestined" to backstab, they just do it when they see real gains in it.

I agree, who would write treaties with a backstabber? Perhaps each leader should have predetermined trustworthiness in form of a number between 1 and 10 with (1 being a backstabber and 10 being someone who never ever breaks a treaty) and the number would change depending on the leaders actions.

[Utrecht]

I to have a problem with the backstabber concept - no political entity ever considers themselves to be a backstabber - rather they see an opotunitty where the cost (renegging on a treaty) is less than the benefits (taking 2 cities)

Thus, what I would like to see (and probably won't for a couple of years) if for the AI to make some type of cost/benefit analysis of revoking a treaty.

I.e. This treaty is bringing in 3 gold a turn, if I break it can I get a better deal somewhere else (either with a competing civ, focusing resources on internal development rather than diplomacy or by militaristic means)

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Originally posted by Utrecht

Thus, what I would like to see (and probably won't for a couple of years) if for the AI to make some type of cost/benefit analysis of revoking a treaty.

I.e. This treaty is bringing in 3 gold a turn, if I break it can I get a better deal somewhere else (either with a competing civ, focusing resources on internal development rather than diplomacy or by militaristic means)

Now, I have a slight problem with this. Not every Civ leader should use cold, calculating logic to make every single decision. Surely few human leaders do.

And -- most assuredly -- not every Civ leader should be so Machiavellian in their actions. Some could use the cost/benefit model you spoke of, some could be idealistic, some could be honest but prone to make a few rash decisions, etc.

But having every Civ leader so cut and dry in making decisions like this is, in a word, BORING.

Yes, the original poster is right. Some world leaders are inherently more treacherous than others. Some world leaders actually have morals, believe it or not. In fact, I'd say MOST leaders in History have been motivated by some morality or system of values (however screwy they might be) and MOST would prefer to avoid treachery if at all possible.

In fact, I try to play the game as a "do-gooder" some time. It's an interesting challenge.

[Inverse Icarus]

MACHIAVELLI IS THE SHIZNIT.

"the ends justify the means, biatch"
--modern translation

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Think about it this way..

How would you ever know Machiavelli was superior if everyone you played used the EXACT SAME strategy?

[Inverse Icarus]

check my posts.

I never said everyone should use the same strategy.

i'm just saying my strategy shouldn't be excluded.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Check mine!

I ALSO said the Machiavellian strategy should be included.

I didn't realize that your "Machiavelli is the shiznit!" post was tantamount to saying "Machiavellian computer opponents should be included as one possible option".

[Footie Mad]

Another thing I really hope Firaxis will get right is the balance between the styles, in civ 2 the expansionistic, military style was almost always the strongest ai. A public beta would be a very good way of balancing

[Inverse Icarus]

BUMP ON THE BETA.

[Ilkuul]

I like the original idea of having a much wider set of variables determining the a civ's "personality". That way they'll no longer be totally predictable -- Oh no, the Mongols! Now it'll be war to the death! Instead, wonder of wonders, you might get civilized perfectionistic Mongols!

How will this tie in with the leaders' personalities, though?

[Footie Mad]

And add judgement to that, not even the most warmongering civ is going to fight a hopeless war unless they have to.

[DarkCloud]

The traits could rotate and the enemy could use them when the player least expects it...

[Mo]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
The Computer would take 1 trait from column a,b, and c OR not take a trait from two of the columns and merely have 1 main trait.

This will allow for more variety in Civ III

The Types of Traits:

A.
Expansionist- Builds Lots of Cities
Perfectionist- Build Up Cities
Agressor- Conquer Cities
Diplomat- Trades a lot and uses diplomacy

B.
Militarist- Build Army
Defender- Builds Defense
Unconventional- Builds Spies, etc.
Founder- Builds Settlers

C.
Easily Angered- Easily Angered in Negotiations
Forgiving- Forgives wars easily
Unforgiving- holds grudges against other civs
Backstabber- attacks allies

I feel that some of the catagories and choices should change because some of the matchs don't make all that much sense, and the choices aren't mutually exclusive. For example Agressor-Founder doesn't make much sense since you can't conquer cities with settlers. Diplomat-Easily Angered Agressor-Defense etc.. There are also some that see as natural matches where the other matches seem wiered Agressor-Militarist Expansionist-Founder etc... Also The gruges and backstabbing shouldn't affect how easily they are angered in negotiations.

Here are some revised catagories:

Outgowingness/trustfullness
1. Outgowing willing to enter alliances quickly, willing to enter lots of diplomatic afairs.
2. Cautious - will be traditionaly carefull about entering into alliances, but will enter if enough trust is presented.
3. Isolationist - Wants to stay out of foreign dealings. Try to remain neutral.

Military vs Domestic building priorities

1. Foucus on Military
2. Equal Foucus
3. Foucus on domestic improvements

Conflicts

1. Agressive - the slightest provocation/oppurtunity can trigger some retaliation be it informs of trade embargo, war, etc
2. Self Interest - will only get involoved if it is in the direct self interest, or for a close ally
3. Defensive - mainly only enter if their threatend

Grudges

1. Grudgemaster - will hold grudges for ever, will not forgive even if they are now being killed by comon enemy.

2. Middle - Will hold grudges for serious things, but will forgive when he has a lot to gain from it

3. Live for the Day - Will hold only minor grudges for serious actions, mainly interested in getting a good deal

Any feedback would be most welcome. I hope that it solved some of the problems that I mentioned

[DarkCloud]

That seems like a reasonable solution.