Civ Attributes: Are you concerned...?

[Steve Clark]

Are any of you concerned that chosing a civ to play, with its predefined attributes, will limit strategy and replayability?

Are any of you concerned that any of the AI civs, with its predefined attributes, will become predictable?

Adm.Naismith alluded to this in a different way and while it has been said that such things can be turned off, what would be its effect?

I'm just trying to get a gauge on how this might affect strategy. Do you want the civs to be predictable in any way, thus making it easier to play the main game? If you are a hard-core Civ2 player, is this something we should fear or immediately stay away from? To answer my own question, in part, I want an AI that acts and reacts according to game situations, not based on predefined patterns. In Civ2, all civs acted exactly the same, mainly stupid. How will this be improved in Civ3?

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

For one thing, each Civ has its own "aggression setting" as well as individual strategies that the AI will use. These things can all be changed in the editor, and don't have anything to do with the Civ Specific Units. For example, the Indians, as you might expect, are less aggressive than the Romans.

On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.

Dan

[Gramphos]

On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.

What have happened with the peaceful Babylonians that always was destroyed by barbarians?

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
For one thing, each Civ has its own "aggression setting" as well as individual strategies that the AI will use. These things can all be changed in the editor, and don't have anything to do with the Civ Specific Units. For example, the Indians, as you might expect, are less aggressive than the Romans.

On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.

Dan

I think this is one of the first time I've seen a Firaxian address something about the AI and their tendencies.

So you are saying that we can set ALL of the civs to the highest aggression setting and expect to get hit hard early? Or what about the opposite? If I set all of them to the lowest setting, will they focus on a peaceful diplomatic game? How will the AI act or react when something doesn't go their way (setting-wise?). For example, if a non-aggressive civ becomes cornered and the only way out is to fight hard, will it?

In other words, to make Civ3's civs less predictable (e.g., Chinese always growing fast and agressive), just change their settings? But what if I don't want to know what the Chinese will or won't do???

And taking your Babylonians example. With them back-stabbing you EVERY game, isn't that too predictable?

How can one hide or randomize the setting in the file so that a civ's tendency will not be predictable or known?

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Steve Clark


I think this is one of the first time I've seen a Firaxian address something about the AI and their tendencies.

So you are saying that we can set ALL of the civs to the highest aggression setting and expect to get hit hard early? Or what about the opposite? If I set all of them to the lowest setting, will they focus on a peaceful diplomatic game? How will the AI act or react when something doesn't go their way (setting-wise?). For example, if a non-aggressive civ becomes cornered and the only way out is to fight hard, will it?

In other words, to make Civ3's civs less predictable (e.g., Chinese always growing fast and agressive), just change their settings? But what if I don't want to know what the Chinese will or won't do???

And taking your Babylonians example. With them back-stabbing you EVERY game, isn't that too predictable?

How can one hide or randomize the setting in the file so that a civ's tendency will not be predictable or known?

You could, in theory, set the aggressiveness to the maximum for all Civs and set the strategies to be similar or identical (i.e., always build offensive ground units, or whatever).

It was really a conscious design choice, though, for each Civ to play a certain way, and this goes back to the "quality vs quantity" argument.

To my knowledge there's not a "randomize" function right now that changes the AI personalities, but it's certainly an idea I can pass along to the team.

And re: the Babylonians, perhaps I was being a bit dramatic about them "backstabbing", but let's just say I have had a few confrontations with them that ended less than fortuitously for me
Some of the testers seem to really despise Gandhi so I guess a lot of it is just in how you play the game.


Dan

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS It was really a conscious design choice, though, for each Civ to play a certain way, and this goes back to the "quality vs quantity" argument.

Thanks Dan for the reply. While I have advocated for a long time to have a fewer number but quality civs, I certainly didn't expect for quality to mean predictability ("to play a certain way").

[jsw363]

I'm glad that each civ will have personality, but would like the random option as well, so I don't always have to face those backstabbing Babylonians. The Indians were never my favorite opponents either. I wonder if an agressive civ has different tactics for different situations or if it reacts to the same events similarly regardless of the situation...

[mactbone]

Shouldn't this thread be signified as important?

[Steve Clark]

Mac, most folks seem to be enamored with how the graphics look instead of something as trivial as the AI.

[Txurce]

In Civ 2, the Mongols and Babylonians (picking easy examples) respond fairly predictably at the start of each game, based on their own separate tendencies. As the game progresses, they become increasingly similar in their response to your (usually dominant) civ.

The changes in Civ 3 seem to be elaborations on this basic pattern. That we have a more detailed sense of a civ's characteristics when we first encounter them shouldn't be too different from my Civ 2-based distrust of the Vikings and comfort with the Americans. And it's all too likely that all civs will turn equally hostile in the later stages of the game, if you're "supreme."

The same could be true of the UU's. The edge they provide is no bigger than the way one occasionally encounters a Civ 2 nation with archers when you're still researching horseback riding. Dealing with it is part of the fun, and knowing who has the JW (for example) ahead of time becomes moot once you encounter one, be it Aztec or Iroquois.

Possibly more important is the game engine's selection of civs for each game, so that a balanced assortment of traits (and therefore, challenges) are present for stimulating game play.

[jdd2007]

Ive had this idea for a while but i didnt really no where to post it. dan seems to be looking at this thread so here goes- each civ should have a third "attribute:" either aggressive, defensive or balanced. this wouldnt make the zulus, for example, extremely aggresive, easily provoked and warlike. it would just make them so that when they are ALREADY at war, they are more likely to attack rather than falling back on their defenses. the americans on the other hand would protect their own soil before any offensive action be taken. any comments?

[Melios]

I think it should go furthur by having numerical values attributed to AI characteristics. Characteristics like Aggressiveness, Defensivesness, Expansion, Economic, and Scientific.

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.

Yeah, even in Civ2, when the Babylonians were one of the tougher civs (which was almost never) they would always be backstabbing jerks.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Gramphos

Quote:

On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.

What have happened with the peaceful Babylonians that always was destroyed by barbarians?

i'll never forget my FIRST civ2 game, i was rome, and io shared an island with babylon.

i surrounded them with phalanxes (at the time) forcing them into only 3 cities.

every other turn i demanded gold, and i got 200-250 each time.

i really didn't care where they got it.

[DonJoel]

Just for the record the babylonians has my record for most worthless civ in civilization 2. I dont think I´ve never seen them past pathetic, but mostly they never appeared.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Txurce
And it's all too likely that all civs will turn equally hostile in the later stages of the game, if you're "supreme."

IMO, this was handled differently in SMAC. When my faction became 'supreme', the factions second and third on the power-graph would usually (not always) become hostile, but smaller factions that were allied to me stayed cordial and continued to exchange techs with me (as long as they had something to offer ). I´m sure that civilizations will behave more reasonable in Civ3, too.

[mactbone]

Hmmm, an agression setting, so that means in scenarios you can make sure that the Aliens hate your guts and don't end up giving away all the cool stuff

Same with WW2 scenarios, you won't be able to make Germany like you and then backstab them.

[Inverse Icarus]

one of my favorite things to do is to play the ww2 scenarios as Spain or the Turks, and watch the allies and the axis team up against the french.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
For example, the Indians, as you might expect, are less aggressive than the Romans.

On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.

But isn't it a bit bad, as each Civ game is predictable?

That's what in my opinions should be avoided and indeed could be avoided if you use my suggestion for Civ Leaders AI.

Synopsis:

Each civilizations has a pool of leaders, one of which is randomly chosen at the start of the game, and randomally changes 2-5 times during a single game.

Each Civ has several "leaders" (AI hardcoded personalities) that are unique to it (though I suppose Musolini could be similar to Hitler, but I don't want each civ to have the same 5 warlike, expading, paecefull, scientific presets) .

Therefore Rome could start with Caesar - Agressive and Expansive. Then move to Neuron which is self centered and later to Musolini, and the features change each time.

Russia could move from Peter to Stalin to Gorbachov to Yekaterina.

What does it give us?
Unpredictable behaviour - we don't always expect the Romans to be agressive.
Rise and Fall of Civilizations - Romans don't always survive to finish. Greek aren't always the largest civilization.

I'm sure you can see the point.

I suggested it many times here.

Hope you can still do something, or put it on the list for Civilization IV!!!

Btw, if you guys made a good scripting engine, it could be coded in, I'm sure.

[Melios]

Not to be nit-picking, but his name is spelled as Mussolini.

[mactbone]

Read what Dan wrote again, he said it "feels" like they always backstab him. As he explained later, they don't really do it all the time, but him being a human generalizes things. I don't think that the AI should change leaders, if you never change then why should they? What should happen is that they adjust what their goals are depending on circumstances.

[Txurce]

Originally posted by lockstep


IMO, this was handled differently in SMAC. When my faction became 'supreme', the factions second and third on the power-graph would usually (not always) become hostile, but smaller factions that were allied to me stayed cordial and continued to exchange techs with me (as long as they had something to offer ). I´m sure that civilizations will behave more reasonable in Civ3, too.

That should make for a better game. It's hard to draw the line between realism - why would a weak country commit suicide by declaring war on the supreme civ? - and competitive game play: you vs. the AI in hive mode, which ought to do anything possible to stop you from winning the game, including having a pipsqueak civ go down in flames to slow you down.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
On a side note, myself and some other Civ players in the office have grown to really hate the Babylonians. Seems like every game I play with them, they backstab me.
Dan

Easy solution - play the Babylonians

As for the lack of a "randomise" function, that's not a real problem if the game is configurable. I'm sure one will be available for download from Apolyton within a week or two of the release of the game.

[Ozymandous]

I find it hard to believe that a "design decision" was made to make the game predictable in this extreme. I thought the idea of a sequel, be it 2, 3, etc, was to evolve the game? How does having the civ's act in exactly the same way each game promote growth when Civ's have been like this in the game since it was first released back in the early ninety's!!

Hmm, I am glad I found this forum, each day I come here and find more and more clues that Civ3 will be a re-hash of Civ2 with some minor cosmetic improvements. Sure culture is good, units having different zone's of control (or lacking them) is good, but when the guts of the game, i.e. the AI is relatively the SAME as when the game came out 8 years ago I can do nothing but shake my head and look at games such as MOO3 to see how someone can take a basic premise and make it BETTER.

I didn't want to believe that Firaxis looked at Civ3 as merely a "cash-cow" they could slap a new coat of paint on and ship out to people, but every day this seems to become more true. Heh, I guess I should have seen the writing on the wall when Sid Meier was quoted as saying (paraphrased) "I thought we were done with this game, but we agreed we would do another".

Oh well, looks like the key-word for Civ3 will be "predictable". Too bad, I was really hoping for something more than what happened with Civ vs. Civ2, i.e. same game, new coat of paint. Looks like some things never change. *shrug*

(Since when does "quality" mean predictable and less choices?)

[Stromprophet]

I've already made my mind up to play either the Romans or Chinese. Militaristic and Productive. Those are the ones I want.

The only other one I would choose is the Indians, but only because the War elephant is so powerful.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmm, I am glad I found this forum, each day I come here and find more and more clues that Civ3 will be a re-hash of Civ2 with some minor cosmetic improvements. Sure culture is good, units having different zone's of control (or lacking them) is good, but when the guts of the game, i.e. the AI is relatively the SAME as when the game came out 8 years ago I can do nothing but shake my head and look at games such as MOO3 to see how someone can take a basic premise and make it BETTER.

Haven't been paying attention, eh? Culture will radically transform the game. Also, resources will make Civ totally different from any other Civ game before.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Haven't been paying attention, eh? Culture will radically transform the game. Also, resources will make Civ totally different from any other Civ game before.

Ah, yes I have been paying attention, but consider this...

Playing against the "Mongols" (for example) you know you won't have to worry about culture because they always send to many units to attack and you always need more units to defend. The Americans will always be "friendly" neighbors, and ther Greeks will always be expansionistic. When ALL civ's act in EXACTLY the same manner each game it will take a lot of the "what will they do next" factor OUT of the game, which is bad.

Sure, resources will be "interesting and new" for about 2 games, then you'll have seen the entire tech tree and will know what you need for what units and will know what' important or not.

The point here is this... Unless you play MP in some way shape or form, the game will ultimately be very predictable because the AI will act in the same manner for that Civ every single game, everything else is just window dressing to try to cover for the fact of predictable AI behavior.

The only way the game will be dynamic at all, regarding how the AI's act will be if Firaxis has been clever enough to give them "starting bonuses" to counter their natural AI. For example, if the Indians are always peaceful and simply build cities as their main AI "stance" if they were given the "expansionistic" and "industrial" qualities then they would be balanced better.

[Solver]

Dan surprises me. He's lucky to already play Civ3, and yet he whines .

[Steve Clark]

Ozy: Two solutions. 1) Civ3 will be highly customizable for a good reason. Any one of us can shape the regular game into whatever they feel comfortable with (from the looks of the units/terrain, to the addition/deletion of unique units and civs, to the play-style of the AI civs). 2) While waiting for MP, play the custom scenarios. I have said before that in the first 6 months, I predict that perhaps 90% of the Civ3 games I will play will be scenarios.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


Ah, yes I have been paying attention, but consider this...

Playing against the "Mongols" (for example) ....

If you've been paying attention I'm sure you realize that the Mongols are not included in Civ3. Anyway...

I think people are jumping to conclusions when it comes to how the game will or will not play. Why don't we let Firaxis playtest and balance the game and release it? The only way to determine if the game is a predictable rehash is to actually wait and play it. It's amazing to me that there are so many people eager and willing to trash a game before anyone has even played it.