Will the civs actually act like they should?

[drake]

I wonder if civs will actually be different in civ3? Will they have real tendencies and behaviors?

I mean in civ2, the only thing that differentiated one civ from the other was the color on the shield and the flags. There were no clear personalities or styles, although you could say that some civs were more aggressive or better builders etc. However, anyone thats played a few games, knows that there are no distinct characteristics between AI controlled civs.

So I guess I'm wondering if all this stuff being argued about is even worth arguing about. Really, who cares who your opponents are if they're all going to act the same to start?

Yeah, those civ-unique units might help, but will the AI exploit these special units like they should?

Arguing about historical significance as to why some civs should and shouldnt be included is moot if all the civs are going to act the same anyway isn't it?

[drake]

Looks like this is an irrelevent point to you guys

Sure civ is based on history, but it is based very loosely. Unless the countries actually act like they did in history, it DOESNT MATTER!

[drake]

Anyone here actually care to discuss game play? I mean, if we wanted to just talk about history, we should request our own history forum

[Buck Birdseed]

I am very interested, but the question can hardly be answered before we actually play the game! I believe Dan said that there will indeed be differentiation, but how would we know if he's right or not?

[drake]

What I was hoping for snappy, is that we could have some informed speculation. I havent kept up as well on the civ3 stuff as some have. Hoping to get a clue about the subject basically.

I mean, really, arent people wasting their times discussing which civs should and shouldnt be added if they're all going to act the same in the end?

Different city names, foreign advisors and even civ-unique units does not make the civ anymore historically correct. Only an AI that can adapt to each countries legacy.


you're right tho, only time will tell

[Ironwood]

Drake: It looks to me like this thread *is* about gameplay. If all the civs behave the same, what's the point of differentation? All it is is window dressing, otherwise.

I agree. I think the real differentation was lost with Civ2, though it's been a while since I played it (*sniff* lost my disk!). But it has been a LOOOONG while since I played the original Civ at any length, and I remember trembling in fear whenever I found Alexander or Genghis on my borders. Those m***erf**kers were agressive! This refelects the history of the matter.

SMAC had fairly good factional differentation. Anyone who complains about how evern Dirdre and Morgan are war mongers should look again at what happens when Yang and Miriam are nearby. OUCH! I can live with the others, even Santiago (who I actually like), but Yang and Miriam? No.

[Buck Birdseed]

Well, this was posted on the forums a while ago:

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

and IIRC there was some more info from either Soren or Mike saying that the AI would act one predetermined way, but adapt if it was really necessary.

[drake]

Well there a difference between being aggressive and smart and aggressive and stupid.......the AI of civ2 was stupidly aggressive...even when you try to help them they get mad.....hopefully in 3, aggressiveness will have some reasoning behind it, rather than just because.

Speculation speculation..........F@ck it, I'll just wait until its released and see what people say at that point.