VERY interesting bits from a Korean review... - Page 2

Boris Godunov · October 24, 2001, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

As for Korean-Japanese relations, I think you can see they were tense (and still are). What is not in dispute, however, is that Korea seeded Japan. Does this mean Korea should be in Civ3 before Japan? Well, I think it's only part of the story...but an important one.

Yes, but all the Civs in the game were "seeded" by other cultures and civs, except the most ancient. I don't see this as ground for putting in Korea over Japan, and I think Japan's impact on world events, for good or bad, have been far more significant. *Turns on Sony CD player...*

Cheers.

Boris Godunov · October 24, 2001, 12:50

Oh, and as for the France/Persia thing...

While I wouldn't say I believe this, here's a possibility. Look at how the guy entered into war on Persia. He didn't have a previous alliance with France, they simply asked him to ally against a country he hadn't even met. So his war declaration was unprovoked and, frankly, rather evil. France's betrayal of him was not a longtime friend backstabbing, but rather one opportunistic civ giving an opportunistic player his just desserts for warmongering.

In summary, he deserved what he got.

Cheers.

Sarcastro · October 24, 2001, 13:54

Sounds like the "*** for tat" engine works just great!

magnwa · October 24, 2001, 14:51

I see a lot of you guys upset that the France and Persia signifies a somewhat.. mischevious AI. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why. This is not a game that should hand you a win.. this is a game that basically has different civilizations, all wanting to WIN. You're wanting to win. I'm wanting to win. You'd stab me in the back to win. What's wrong with me doing the same? I see a lot of unease and disconcertedness with the fact that the AI's are starting to pull the same crap we pull on them, and it's ironic

Magnwa

SITS · October 24, 2001, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by magnwa
I see a lot of you guys upset that the France and Persia signifies a somewhat.. mischevious AI. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why. This is not a game that should hand you a win.. this is a game that basically has different civilizations, all wanting to WIN. You're wanting to win. I'm wanting to win. You'd stab me in the back to win. What's wrong with me doing the same? I see a lot of unease and disconcertedness with the fact that the AI's are starting to pull the same crap we pull on them, and it's ironic

Magnwa

I think people are worried about the AI doing it for stupid reasons rather than intelligent ones....

Crouchback · October 24, 2001, 15:25

Great post Yin, and its good to see some detail finally emerging.

I'd love to know what difficulty level he was playing at, because that France/Persian stuff was alway happening at medium to high levels in Civ2. They'd get me into an alliance just to force a war on me, then all make peace and even turn on me. Most bloody annoying.

A good AI would be one that can handle defence when attacked, offence when it is best in it's interest, and maintain reasonable and sensible diplomatic relations. Not one that demands help in a war they're not even fighting in the first place. From this preview the AI sounds very bad to me, and the ign.com preview doesn't even mention combat...

David

sekong · October 24, 2001, 17:15

I got 40 point at today's civtrivia, the question about which civ built the earliest ironclad. Korean.

Anyway, it's sign that firaxisian noticed your "point".

I like your design of Korean as a civ. Hope to see/implement in some modpacks.

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 17:22

LOL! That's cool! I just ran over and answered my very first trivia question...because that one had special meaning for me. Now I have a huge 40 points!

(Thanks, Dan, for putting that one in there...)

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 17:25

Quote:

Yes, but all the Civs in the game were "seeded" by other cultures and civs, except the most ancient.

Well, this is partially the point: Korea IS one of those civs that seems to have no traceable seed. It has just been around as long as anybody knows. Anyway, I'll leave this discussion for my other thread about Korea if anybody cares to post about it.

Ah, but I should add: Koreans and Mongols (and Cherokee Indians, of which I am 1/16th) share the 'purple butt at birth' gene code.

Akron · October 24, 2001, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by magnwa
I see a lot of you guys upset that the France and Persia signifies a somewhat.. mischevious AI. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why. This is not a game that should hand you a win.. this is a game that basically has different civilizations, all wanting to WIN. You're wanting to win. I'm wanting to win. You'd stab me in the back to win. What's wrong with me doing the same? I see a lot of unease and disconcertedness with the fact that the AI's are starting to pull the same crap we pull on them, and it's ironic

Magnwa

I have no problem with the computer being aggressive, but I want to have some civ that will make good allies and will be worth talking to. In civ 2, I always felt as if the computer was just one sprawling but incredibly idiotic civilization. I didn't really distinguish the different civs; they all sorta merged into one and i ended up attack them all at the same time because they never liked me. IMO, this lack of diplomacy really hurts the game. I want some AI civs that I can actually talk to and trust, though I also want a bunch of aggressive or manipulating ones as well.

tniem · October 24, 2001, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
Pessimists, you'll eat your words when the game arrives to you!

Only if the France/Persia thing has a reason or doesn't happen very often. If AI continues to suck me into conflicts and then immediately get out of them just because the comp can, that is neither good AI nor is it fun.

Simpleton · October 24, 2001, 18:09

It's great to finally see something on the AI. Thankfully, it's positive news.

I like the fact that the AI can be a slimeball (or is it 2 words? slime ball?). It seems way better than the "I love you, you love me" Barney AI from CTP2!
I think deep down what I most wanted from Civ3 was an improved AI and it "looks" like this is what happens although I'm still concerned about the "Histograph issue" --> see post by myself on this for further info.

PS: Way to dig up good stuff Yin...there may yet be some use for you.....

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 19:19

LOL!

Well, 1 in 100 posts has to be to some good purpose. This is Karma.

Anatolia is the one who found the article, by the way. I hope he doesn't hate me now for posting it this way...but he said he wasn't going to translate it (it might be a bit outdated), so what was a Civ addict to do?!

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 19:25

As for this particular AI issue, it does concern me a bit (of course we lack sufficient evidence to make any sweeping statements). Namely:

Why didn't France attack Persia...or Persia attack France? I doubt there is something sophisticated enough in Civ3 for France and Persia to *pretend* to be at war just so they can trick a 3rd party into conflict and then gang up on him.
And no matter how that happened (either by design or just plain old AI simplicity), one has to wonder: Is Civ3 re-creating human-like diplomatic models or just rather rudimentary challenges for the human player?
I compare this against Europa Universalis, which has some outstanding dimplomatic rules and gameplay. In fact, it's primarily a game *about* diplomacy as, sadly, the combat model is shallow. However, in most cases, the AI in Europa Universalis is reasonable but not a push-over...and though you'll never make EVERYbody happy, you'll understand why you are pissing people off when that day comes.
Otherwise, where is the strategy?

HalfLotus · October 24, 2001, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
As for this particular AI issue, it does concern me a bit (of course we lack sufficient evidence to make any sweeping statements). Namely:

Why didn't France attack Persia...or Persia attack France? I doubt there is something sophisticated enough in Civ3 for France and Persia to *pretend* to be at war just so they can trick a 3rd party into conflict and then gang up on him.
And no matter how that happened (either by design or just plain old AI simplicity), one has to wonder: Is Civ3 re-creating human-like diplomatic models or just rather rudimentary challenges for the human player?
I compare this against Europa Universalis, which has some outstanding dimplomatic rules and gameplay. In fact, it's primarily a game *about* diplomacy as, sadly, the combat model is shallow. However, in most cases, the AI in Europa Universalis is reasonable but not a push-over...and though you'll never make EVERYbody happy, you'll understand why you are pissing people off when that day comes.
Otherwise, where is the strategy?

This goes to whether or not the AI will practice such a strategy in ALL games. Hopefully they can mix it up a bit. In Civ2 modern ages, everyone ALWAYS hated you unless you gave ridiculous gifts.

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 20:37

Yes, it's an interesting way to force situations on the player. But when 'interesting' and 'reasonable' don't mix well, you tend to get detached from the process and view the gameplay as something to be manipulated ... not because you necessarily like or agree with the actions you are about to take but because you know that doing otherwise will artificially tilt that game against you.

By the way, this may well be one of the reasons Firaxis originally only wanted to have 8 civs in the game. My guess is that 'odd' diplomatic behavior increases exponentially with 16 civs in play.

HalfLotus · October 24, 2001, 20:41

I want the ability to maintain alliances and friendships throughout the game. If I trade and fight for the English (I have a crush on the UK

) for centuries, I dont want them stabbing me in the back every game. Although sometimes is fine.

Simpleton · October 24, 2001, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Is Civ3 re-creating human-like diplomatic models or just rather rudimentary challenges for the human player?

If so, this would be somewhat reminiscent of Civ2 where if your ahead everyone attacks you

Hopefully, this is not the case).

Quote:

I compare this against Europa Universalis, which has some outstanding dimplomatic rules and gameplay. In fact, it's primarily a game *about* diplomacy as, sadly, the combat model is shallow.

I bought the game but only played it once mainly because the combat seemed so dry thus, I found the game hard to get into. But I do, one day, hope to play it.

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 20:48

In Europa Universalis, they use a rather elegant approach to diplomatic relations: The Bad Boy Rating. So each time you attack somebody, break a treaty, take some land, etc., you get a higher and higher 'BB' rating, which can only revert back to normal over long stretches of time being 'good.'

What this does, then, is makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE for you sustain peaceful relationships with other nations. They simply don't trust you. Thus, too high a BB rating will eventually put you in a situation in which you are the Public Enemy #1 and the AI civs WILL join together to pounce you into some form of submission.

This is wonderfully intuitive and yet still very fun.

Conversely, if your goal is to maintain peaceful relationships, you certainly can ... within the bounds of religious differences and so on. For example, as England you start off as a sworn enemy of France (1492). Now you can either try to get other nations to go to war against France (Spain, for example) and remain its enemy, or you can with lots of patience and warm "Letters of Introduction" slowly (I mean, it takes some time) actually win France over to liking you ... eventually seeing them offer an alliance. This, in turn, allows you to concentrate on holding your lands on the continent and build peacefully or try to expand in other parts of the world.

It is costly. It takes time and patience. But it is strategic and very satisfying to have a PEACEFUL and DIPLOMATIC way to build your empire.

HalfLotus · October 24, 2001, 20:52

This was supposed to be case in Civ2. All I ever saw was "ENRAGED". Damn stupid AI, I just gave you 6 techs!

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 20:54

Yes. In fact, those artificial methods of forcing war on the player just aren't satisfying to me now after playing EU. I'll be VERY interested in some full reviews of the diplomacy.

Simpleton · October 24, 2001, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26

What this does, then, is makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE for you sustain peaceful relationships with other nations. They simply don't trust you. Thus, too high a BB rating will eventually put you in a situation in which you are the Public Enemy #1 and the AI civs WILL join together to pounce you into some form of submission.

I wonder if the UE model is just a refined one from Civ2 because this is similar to what occured in that game (i.e. If you break treaties, ceasefires, etc. the computer AI players "remember" your past transgressions and are reluctant to deal with you
.)?

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 20:58

I think it's much deeper, though. In Civ2, eventually they just hate you no matter what. That's not the case in EU. And since there are so many AIs in play in EU, when they gang up on you, it can REALLY screw you ... whereas in Civ2, no number of AIs ever really made me worry.

In part this is because EU also has in place elegant restrictions on the number of troops you can recruit at any one time, inflation goes up as you spend more money (thus making sustaining long wars VERY costly), etc. Great stuff.

HalfLotus · October 24, 2001, 21:00

I think Civ2 AI got more aggressive each turn if you more powerful than them (esp. supreme) . No matter how nice you were, they hated you. Not very fun.

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 21:03

Precisely. It's an artificial and not very fun way to keep the game 'challenging' toward the end game when the human player is normally just mopping up the map.

Hmmm. Civ3 really should think about those recruitment caps and inflation ideas from EU ... otherwise those HUGE Civ coffers and nearly limitless unit flows (of vastly superior units, no less) make for some awfully dull end games.

dennis580 · October 24, 2001, 21:06

First of all Dan posted c couple of months back that he was able to play a peaceful game, but he had to give HUGE amounts of tribute and have 2 or 3 strong defensive units per city to do it. He finally decided to go to war because Abe refused to trade him oil.

Here's my explanation for the France and Persian battle. Perhaps the Persians was attcking Him and not the French because his territoy was less fortified and easier to pentrate then the French territory. Then the Persians realizing they in big trouble and cann't possibly fight both France and Him decide to make a peace treaty with France because it's stronger then Him.

I beleive this is probaly what happen.

SerapisIV · October 24, 2001, 21:13

Please...you're ripping on the game for having bad or unrealistic AI based on a few lines of some preview. Wait till the final reviews before you start you conspiracy theories and AI bashing again. Also, comparisons to Civ2 AI are unfounded, because the AI was written by Soren, who never worked on Civ2 or SMAC.

Simpleton · October 24, 2001, 21:15

Quote:

Originally posted by dennis580
Here's my explanation for the France and Persian battle. Perhaps the Persians was attcking Him and not the French because his territoy was less fortified and easier to pentrate then the French territory. Then the Persians realizing they in big trouble and cann't possibly fight both France and Him decide to make a peace treaty with France because it's stronger then Him.

I beleive this is probaly what happen.

I hope your right because this would make for a much more enjoyable and unpredictable game IF the computer actually analyzes the situation as you've described. However, this type of analysis could make for a boring game if your ahead because no one would attack you rather they would attack someone weaker. Thus, if you get ahead you could just coast to victory...ala CTP2.

HalfLotus · October 24, 2001, 21:16

We were comparing Civ2 to EU.

yin26 · October 24, 2001, 21:19

Quote:

Please...you're ripping on the game for having bad or unrealistic AI based on a few lines of some preview.

No ... "a few lines of some preview" and about 1,000 hours of Civ and SMAC that played EXACTLY that way.

Also, do I need to put in every line I post what I already put at the top: "It's still too early to say for sure."

But it if smells like a chicken...