More on econ, and diplomacy, less on warfare

shadowlessasasin · November 22, 2000, 22:06

While most of the Civ games that proceeds their predessesors show signs of improving the economic and diplomatic features of the game, Civ games in general are designed ultimately for the purpose of warfare. There's no denying that.

Wafare in fact is a huge part, much too huge part, of the game. One reason that this is so is that the way AI in Civ games are designed is such that AI are always too willing to go into war with players even if the AI control a civilization that are still throwing spears while the players' civilizations already acquired nuclear bombs. Warfare is further encouraged on the AI's part by the fact that, as the game level gets harder and harder, the AI's chance of winning by poking player's armor tanks with AI's pikemen is greater and greater.

In short, given all the advantages that AI have, it is not suprising that warfare is such a major part of the game.

Another reason that warfare is such an important part of the game is that it is the most obvious "challenge". Games aren't games at all if it isn't challenging. No offense to the designers, but it seems to me that the only challenge that designers think can come out of an empire building game is constant warfare. The only challenge that designers seem to think can come out of a empire building game is giving the AI unrealistic advantages and make us players try to deal with those unrealistic advantages.

In real life, however, warfare, though indeed a very challenging problem to rulers of empire through the ages, isn't the only challenge that any ruler must face in governing the empire. True challenge lies in building their empires to the point where they can use other means of maintainig their empire, their territories, their wealth annd more without resorting to war. How is that possible? The answer lies in economic and diplomacy. Wise rulers understand the importance of diplomatic manuvers. They understand the importance of turning the enemies against each other. They understand the importance of building up an important economy so that foriegn powers dare not destroy their prosperous trading empire, the destruction of which may very well endanger the foriegn empire's own wealth. Manipulation of other factors in governing an empire is important to success of survival of an empire.

Yet, again as I've said, the diplomatic and economic features in Civ games are too simple for all these strategies to be employed. Civ games are designed in such a way that economy, and diplomacy, though important, is not important enough to the point that warfare should be avoided if possible. Very often in games, I find myself being able to maintain a stable economy without having to trade. It is this lack of importance of economy and diplomacy that encourages war.

The best way to cure this is to assign much MUCH more importance to diplomacy and economic and reduce the inclination on AI's part for war. For example, trade should be so important that AI and human players will do anything to avoid war. War, in fact, should be the last resort when all other options fail. This is a concept that should be programed into the AI. AI should be programed to understand that development of a firm economy, colonization of distant continent, keeping good relationship with neighboring empire are important.

The second, and an absolute must, way to cure this is to design the Civ games in ways that warfare, economy and diplomacy are all interrelated. Changes in one variable will have immediate impact on the other. If these mutually influencial features are implemented into the Civ games, then no longer will both human and AI players wage war brainlessly without thinking about hte repercussion it will have on other aspect of their empire management.

UltraSonix · November 22, 2000, 22:12

quote:

The second, and an absolute must, way to cure this is to design the Civ games in ways that warfare, economy and diplomacy are all interrelated. Changes in one variable will have immediate impact on the other

This sounds very good... but how will the AI be able to cope?

And as to "More on econ, and diplomacy, less on warfare", I believe that there should be much more diplomacy, but warefare and the economy can be left as it is.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

Tiberius · November 23, 2000, 04:29

quote:

Originally posted by shadowlessasasin on 11-22-2000 09:06 PM
Civ games in general are designed ultimately for the purpose of warfare...Warfare in fact is a huge part, much too huge part, of the game.

That's true. People can argue only on the fact that this is good or not or they like it or not, but it's true, there's no doubt about it.

quote:

Another reason that warfare is such an important part of the game is that it is the most obvious "challenge". Games aren't games at all if it isn't challenging. No offense to the designers, but it seems to me that the only challenge that designers think can come out of an empire building game is constant warfare.

You're right, again. Unfortunately, when you are not at war, a civ game is almost boring, because of the lack of a challenge, other than war.

quote:

Civ games are designed in such a way that economy, and diplomacy, though important, is not important enough to the point that warfare should be avoided if possible. Very often in games, I find myself being able to maintain a stable economy without having to trade. It is this lack of importance of economy and diplomacy that encourages war.

Exactly! Starting a war has almost no diplomatic or economic consequencies and it's always a good sollution (in Civ).

quote:

The best way to cure this is to assign much MUCH more importance to diplomacy and economic and reduce the inclination on AI's part for war. The second, and an absolute must, way to cure this is to design the Civ games in ways that warfare, economy and diplomacy are all interrelated. Changes in one variable will have immediate impact on the other.

Right. The AI (and human players, too) should think twice before starting a war, because of the diplomatic and economic consequencies. Trade treaties should have a higher impact on revenues, trade embargos should be a scaring threat and generally treaties and alliances should have a higher impact on relations between civs.

Tical_2000 · November 23, 2000, 17:24

I totally agree. Much more significance needs to be put on international trade and relations. I've said it before...trade is the most important operation of ANY nation but in civs games its one the least. However, I do not want to see any more emphasis on gov't and domestic economics because Civ started as a game of international politics not petty domestic political fiascos.

shadowlessasasin · November 23, 2000, 19:07

<>

The lacking of challenge other than war is what makes war a constant in Civ games because that's the only challenge people can find in this game, and the only thing in thie game that makes it attractive.

Therefore, as you've said, it is boring when there's no war. That's why what designers must do is to make economic and diplomatic aspects of the game a little more challenging. A good empire building game should give the players the pleasure of watching their empire grow economically, watching the people prospering and living and more and move better lives because of the wise economic policies that we've made, and watch our empire not just grow through military conquest, but through the thousands and thousands of complicated treaties that we've signed, some of which bring some minor but independent civlization into our "sphere of influence" and others "semi indepedent" nations into our vessel systems. A good empire building ganme allows player the pleasure not only to wage and win wars, but to win in every other aspects of empire building. But to do that, other aspects of managing an empire must be made complicated and more challenging becuase only have us players toiled over trying to perfect a country's economy and diplomacy, as we players have done always in war in Civ games, will we really take pleasure in our accomplishment.

NOW, here comes the part that designers must absolutly avoid IF they really do want to design a new CIv game that allows more chllenges in ohter aspects of Civ empire building game. Designers might be tempted to make a game in which economic is just as challenging because AI players are always brainlessly blocking trade with player's civilization even though this embargo is only going to do harm to the AI civilization. Please PLEASE realize that the challenge of an economic aspect of an empire building game isn't to make the players go crazy and bolistic over the lack of willingness that AI players are willing to trade ,even though it is to AI player's advantage to do so, only to cause us players to resort to war, as British had done in China a hundred years ago, to open the trade port. While war to open trade ports do happen, and definetly make a greaet new feature to the game, it again only make us human players resort to war.
A new concept foundamental to the working of economic system in Civ game should be that each nation is trying to gain all the weawlth it can while hoping that the rival civs are as poor as it can be. This is a concept that should be programmed into the AI because material gains and greed is what makes economy possible. With this concept of "greed" programmed into the AI, the AI won't no longer do stupid things like rejecting possible trade treaties, even though it is to AI's advantage to trade, just so that we human players will not be able to prosper from the trade.
In sum, the foundamental programing of the AI in civ game is such that AI will do anything to make us human players weak. This often prompt the AI to attack, or to make stupid decisions aimed soley at making us human players weak. AI should be programmed in such a way that individual AI civ should try to make itself better than all the players, even other AI players in a game, EVEN IF THAT MEANS COOPERATION WITH US HUMAN PLAYERS!
Challenge again, lies not in making us human player's lives miserable by creating AI whose sole purpose is to make us as weak as possible and ultimately conquer us. Challenge doesn't lie in programming an AI who is born to be our enemies. Many times even when I have signed an alliance treaty, I never found help even though I am suppose to get help from my allie. If I get any help at all, it is so small that it is negligible. The AI civ I am allied with is probably thinking this as it makes the decision to send little, or no help at all to me. "Hmmm...my purpose is to destroy this human player, who is also my allie, EVEN THOUGH DESTROYING THIS OTHER CIVILIZATION AGAINST WHOM MY ALLIE IS AT WAR WILL OPEN NEW ACCESS TO NEW TRADE ROUTES AND NEW RESOURCES, THUS BENEFITTING MY EMPIRE IF I AIDED MY ALLIE. But since I am programmed to see to destruction of this human player, also my allie, then I will just stand aside and watch the conflict resolve itself and see who wins ultimately. EVEM THOUGH, AGAIN, MY AIDING IN DESTRUCTION OF THE EMPIRE WITH WHOM MY ALLIE IS AT WAR WILL LET ME BENEFIT ECONOMICALLY. This is the kind of thinking mode that is programmed into AI of every strategy games ever made. AI should be programmed in such a way that they only want to benefit through whatever means, even if THAT MEANS WILL ALSO BENEFIT US HUMAN PLAYERS.

Finally, the points I make are the following:

1 AI's concept should be reprogrammed completely
2 Economic, diplomacy and warfare should be such that they are interrelated. Change in one will affect the others to a degree important enough for BOTH THE AI PLAYER and us human players to carefully weight the consequence of all our actions.
3 Economic, diplomacy, international politics, and international trade should be made a littlle more complicated, or in my opinion, completely replaced by a totally new system. New features to diplomacy may include scientific research alliance, trading alliance, letting the bombars and fighters shelter at an alliance city so that they won't just crash when the run out of fuel, or "sphere of influence" or vessle system.
4 Creating an Civ game that assign much MUCH more importance to economy and diplomacy so that players like us won't just get bored when there's no war. Creating a Civ game in which we actually take pleasure in the challenge of having to find out what we must do to benefit our empire economically. Should we block this sea trade route so that I am the only person that gains access to this trade route? Should I budget more funds for science research to research a new hydrolization technology so that all Western part of my empire, which is all desert, will be irrigated? Should I raise taxes? If I do, will that have impact on people's loyalty? If I raise tarriff, I might bring more revenues to my empire in a short run. But in a long run, will the raise in tarriff cause others not to want to trade with me? If i want to block this trade route so that I am the only one with access to it, will that hurt my reltaionship with other countries? Should I allow only my allies to have access to this trade routes? Of course, I understand that it is impossible to create a game as complicated as such that I really have to make the decisions like those I listed above, but at least the designers will get the idea of what I am talking about.
Wheeewww.....I can't believe its been an hour. I am gonna go do my homework now. I welcome any suggestions. What darkcloud did, by re-organizing all the ideas in this forum so that designers of the game will have easier time reading it, is commendable. We should create a new forum in such a way that ideas are very organized. Perhaps, we can create a convention to vote on what areas of the Civ games that needs to be improved the most. Then we create new topics strictly for that area of improvement. HMMMM....anyways, I talk too much. I'll shut up now and go do my homework. Again, if you have any suggestions or comments on my posts, I like to read it. No insults or childish remarks please.
[This message has been edited by shadowlessasasin (edited November 23, 2000).]

Dom Pedro II · November 24, 2000, 00:48

I think that the fundamental purpose of every player in the game should be to gain as much resources as possible. In fact, lets look back thousands of years. Economy is the basis of all humanity. To trade goods for the purposes of sustaining life and to eventually improve the quality of life. For that reason, there is sometimes a conflict in resources. The first tactic is to try and share resources or exchange them in order to avoid fighting. Sometimes, it is not always possible to share or trade them. People go to war in order to take those resources. That is the first function of war.

So, in the game. The AI should go to war for the purposes of gaining new resources. The AI should seek to gain control of all the raw materials it can even if that means going to war. If it can, it should set up treaties to get those materials, but when all else fails WAR!

Tiberius · November 24, 2000, 04:33

Shadowlessasasin, I really agree with you, but please, don't write such long posts! It's hard to concentrate to read everything carefully and to answer properly, especially if you're at work and your english is far away from being good enough (my case)

But seriously, people around here (not everybody, of course) don't really have pacience to read such long posts.

Otherwise, once again, I agree with you. Maybe I'll answer to your post later, when I'll have the time to read it completely

Stuff2 · November 24, 2000, 07:56

Actually, the best way of making war less worthwhile is simply to make give it some realistic consequences:

- Your populations gets a bit more unhappy (if the war goes bad they get even more unhappy or more determined)
- Every soldier cost money
- Every fight even if you are succesful brings alot of destruction with it. On the soldiers, on the terrain, on the infrastructure and buildings.
- Blockades and piracy can hurt your economy pretty bad.
- If your own people don't support you you'll sooner or later end up with a civil war.
- Captured cities needs alot of extra policing
- Buisness is no good in most branches (except drugs and weapons).

Salvius · November 24, 2000, 07:59

It has been said that warfare is essentially a tool of diplomacy (or the last resort of diplomacy, or whatever the quote actually is). I would suggest that diplomacy is itself essentially a tool of economics. Dom Pedro's post expresses this very nicely: "Economy is the basis of all humanity."

Does this lead to the inevitable capitalist conclusion that "Whoever dies with the most toys wins" (that is, that the primary victory condition of the game should be controlling the most resources)? Possibly, and I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. Of course, this could be considered a fundamental shift in design philosophy from what previous Civ games exhibited...

Dom Pedro II · November 24, 2000, 21:19

I think the quote you were thinking of is: "War is the continuation of policy by other means" That was said by the Prussian general Clausewitz. John Keegan, a military historian, has tried to disprove that, but its not worth bringing up now. Either way, I still think that war for the AI should simply be a method of acquiring new resources not just new land.

By making the cause of war economic, it binds the economies of the countries in the game very closely with war. Everything that the players do in the game should be based on gaining resources for the purposes of economic dominance. Once you hold the resources, the rest of the world must listen to you. You can rule the world without war, and that is an economic victory.

shadowlessasasin · November 24, 2000, 21:59

quote:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 11-24-2000 08:19 PM
I think the quote you were thinking of is: "War is the continuation of policy by other means" That was said by the Prussian general Clausewitz. John Keegan, a military historian, has tried to disprove that, but its not worth bringing up now. Either way, I still think that war for the AI should simply be a method of acquiring new resources not just new land.

By making the cause of war economic, it binds the economies of the countries in the game very closely with war. Everything that the players do in the game should be based on gaining resources for the purposes of economic dominance. Once you hold the resources, the rest of the world must listen to you. You can rule the world without war, and that is an economic victory.

Civ III design teamn!!!!! Are you hearing this????? Dom Pedro is giving you valuable tips!!!!! Hello??!?!!

Ubersandwich · November 25, 2000, 07:07

AMEN! Sing on Brother! There needs to be another reason behind war (in most cases) than land... resourses, baby!

UltraSonix · November 25, 2000, 09:10

Wel lin real life there are two reasons for war - land and money. Resources fall into the latter category, I guess.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

civbuilder · November 25, 2000, 15:03

There are other causes of war - ideologies and beliefs - just look at the cold war or the current situation in the Middle East. Considering it is these which drive civilisations they should be important parts of the game. The detailed model for religion in the list would add a lot in this respect.

Dom Pedro II · November 25, 2000, 15:21

quote:

There are other causes of war - ideologies and beliefs - just look at the cold war or the current situation in the Middle East. Considering it is these which drive civilisations they should be important parts of the game. The detailed model for religion in the list would add a lot in this respect.

Ideologies and beliefs are what the people put into justifying a war, but the leaders are always looking for some angle. The Cold War was not really an attempt for the acquisition of wealth, but it was for the defense of wealth. Ideology is just the stuff the people were focused, but the people don't do all of the negotiating and strategy.

And even in the Middle East, the Palestinians want their people to be in charge so that they are protected. True, beliefs play a large role in it, but if they did not feel threatened, they wouldn't do it. And the Isrealis are fighting because they want to maintain peace because they feel threatened. It is a protection of wealth again. Granted, it may not be entirely monetary wealth, but it is the well-being of those involved.

Shogun Gunner · November 25, 2000, 15:57

Yes, I agree the Cold War was in the defense of wealth, but I would go a step further and say it was also in the pursuit of wealth. The US and other western free-market countries need those markets to export goods to. If they went Communist, the market would close (Cuba as example). So, I would say it was both for defense and acquisition of wealth.

Agreed that the religious ideology is used to justify. Even those Popes, mullahs and priests saw financial benefit of war bringing riches to the coffers of the church (Crusades). Sorry, everyone is corrupt.

Dom Pedro II · November 26, 2000, 01:45

I remember last year when Kosovo was in the news, one of the leaders was asked whether peace could ever be reached. He said the problem was not that the religious differences was the REASON for the fighting, he said it was the EXCUSE for it. It's true. Despite beliefs, war is because of selfish reasons. Sometimes it is monetary wealth. Sometimes it is the welfare of family and friends, and sometimes it is foundless fear that these could be in jeopardy.

Shogun Gunner · November 26, 2000, 16:00

You ARE the wise, venerable Dom Pedro!!!

UltraSonix · November 27, 2000, 10:33

quote:

There are other causes of war - ideologies and beliefs - just look at the cold war or the current situation in the Middle East. Considering it is these which drive civilisations they should be important parts of the game. The detailed model for religion in the list would add a lot in this respect.

My layman's reason for the situation in the Middle East is still land ultimately.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

Shogun Gunner · November 27, 2000, 23:47

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 11-27-2000 09:33 AM
My layman's reason for the situation in the Middle East is still land ultimately.

Yes, water specifically. That's why Israel doesn't want to give Golan Heights back.

Tiberius · November 28, 2000, 02:51

The ultimate reason for all conflicts is SURVIVAL.

That's why people, countries, empires, companies, etc try to grab more resourses (including here land, water, money, knowledge, even people) and that's the cause also for ideological/religious wars (people defend their beliefs and their way of living).

We all play a big-big CIV game

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited November 28, 2000).]

UltraSonix · November 29, 2000, 10:30

Just as well we haven't reached the Civ2 AI's "nuke 'n troop" method of waging war...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)