Altering a Civilization's Characteristics

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

How does the setting "0" affect the way a civilization will behave? Is it some sort of wild card that differs from game to game?

For example, I have the Sioux as a "rational" civilization, with the other characteristics set to "0". Does this mean that it's possible the Sioux, in addition to being rational, may also be expansionist or perfectionist in any given game? Or militaristic or civilized in another game? Or a combination of the above, all due to the fact that "0" is used in place of those characteristics instead of "1" and/or "-1"?

Or will the Sioux always be rational and nothing else? (I only specified that one characteristic because, frankly, it's the only one that I think accurately describes the Sioux culture. They are an intelligent and rational people, not necessarily given to expansionism or militarism, even in times before their contact with Europeans.

Has anyone else altered the characteristics of various civilizations? If so, what are the Sioux set as?

Gatekeeper

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I have toyed with the idea of changing Civ characteristics. I like to play against a very expansive AI, just because it's boring to steamroll over an underdeveloped, 6 city Civ. To this point, I try to select opponents in order to get more aggressive enemies.

Would there be any negative ramifications in gameplay if all Civs were set to be an aggressive expansionist, for example?

[Gatekeeper]

STYOM:

Well, I had the Sioux originally set to "rational" and "militaristic," but, by God, that made living next to them in North America as either America or, to a slightly lesser degree, the Aztecs next to impossible.

Then again, I'm also a "builder" and "observer" type of player, more than one who would send waves of catapults and knights to finish off AI civs early on. I've mostly left the characteristics alone, except for the Sioux (who, I think, didn't have *any* characteristics set in stone originally), because I think the game has a nice mix of civs.

To answer your question, yes, setting all civs to be aggressive, expansionist and militaristic would probably result in a world where the strong survive, and the weak DIE!!!! (And quickly.)

Gatekeeper

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Thats kind of what I figured - re the weak and the strong. I guess I like the idea of having to invade a 40-city civ more than a 8-city Civ. Gives the AI a semi-sporting chance.

But before the game gets to that point, yes, you have to crush those aggressive types in the early going. Or your own civ will have its growth stunted.

[Gatekeeper]

STYOM:

I usually play with a mix of civs, of which at least two eventually mutate into gigantic continent-sprawling monstrosities that actually offer somewhat of a challenge in the later stages of the game. (I usually play somewhat isolated, but not always, and on the Northern Hemisphere map [which can be DL'd at 'Poly].)

But back to the original question: Does the "0" setting merely make those characteristics wild cards, rather than set in stone?

Gatekeeper

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

That I don't know. Hopefully, someone who modifies rules and game.txt can tell you what that does, and tell me how to make six continent-sprawling monstrosities (who don't neglect technology too much) to fight.

[Gatekeeper]

STYOM:

Heh. Here's to hoping on both issues! That'd be fascinating to have six monstrous aggressive civilizations going up against The Little Engine That Could (You!)!

Gatekeeper

[Scouse Gits]

AFAIK the +1,0,-1 values are strictly numeric input to the AI and thus 0 is not a 'wild card' simply does not invoke the modifiers that a non-zero value would have done....

SG[1] visiting

[Gatekeeper]

SG[1]:

If I remember correctly, the Sioux originally are a 0, 0, 0 civilization. So just what does that mean if what you say is true?

Gatekeeper

[Scouse Gits]

Yup - the Sioux are 0,0,0 - if I have got this right the effect is exemplified by the priority that is attached to each Tech advance by the AI -- in the rules.txt each advance has a base AI value associated with it and a modifier dependent upon the ?civilised? flag - sorry I'm not in my own office at the moment so have no access to the game so this is all from memory - the Sioux simply take the base value as their priority while the Aztecs would take the base + modifier and the Mongols the base - modifier -- again my apologies if the details are incorrect, but I can't verify at the moment

SG[1]

[Mercator]

What SG said...

The 0 is simply the value in between. So, somewhere between militaristic and civilized, somewhere between expansionist and perfectionist, or somewhere between aggressive and rational.
So see it as a 3 point scale, with -1 and 1 as the extremes.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Yup - the Sioux are 0,0,0 - if I have got this right the effect is exemplified by the priority that is attached to each Tech advance by the AI -- in the rules.txt each advance has a base AI value associated with it and a modifier dependent upon the ?civilised? flag - sorry I'm not in my own office at the moment so have no access to the game so this is all from memory - the Sioux simply take the base value as their priority while the Aztecs would take the base + modifier and the Mongols the base - modifier -- again my apologies if the details are incorrect, but I can't verify at the moment

SG[1]

Indeed, you remember correctly. Have a bottle to celebrate your fine memory!

Gatekeeper, look at the tech values in rules.txt. Modify them according to the civ attributes, and you have tech choice behavior.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Mercator
What SG said...

The 0 is simply the value in between. So, somewhere between militaristic and civilized, somewhere between expansionist and perfectionist, or somewhere between aggressive and rational.
So see it as a 3 point scale, with -1 and 1 as the extremes.

So, in effect, this could change from game to game, then.

Say in one game the Sioux are "x" degrees toward civilized due to the "0" modifier, but in the next game they might be "x" degrees in the direction of aggressiveness due to the "0" modifier. IOW, they will *never* be "officially" civilized or aggressive, but always, one degree to another, "leaning" in the civilized or aggressive direction (this would also apply to the other modifiers).

Something of a wildcard, yes?

Anyway, it seems I also remember having games (when the Sioux were still at 0, 0, 0) when the Sioux would be more aggressive and expansionistic in one game than in another. Would that be the effect of the "0" showing through?

Fascinating discussion so far, folks. Thanks for the insights provided thus far.

Gatekeeper

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
So, in effect, this could change from game to game, then.
...
Something of a wildcard, yes?

No, you seem to misunderstand. The zero is also a modifier. They could have used 1,2,3 instead of -1,0,1. Each modifier alters the tech value of a category of tech. This basically means that each civ has its own set of tech values - the base number in rules.txt +/- its modifier, which can also be zero.

clear as mud?

[Gatekeeper]

Marquis:

I am aware of the tech modifiers and how they affect which civilization will research the technology in question. If the number is positive, it's more attractive to civilized AI nations; conversely, a negative number will more likely result in a militaristic power valuing that tech moreso than a peaceful power.

My original question had nothing to do with how a civ's characteristics would affect it's selection of research avenues. I was, and am still, interested in just how a "0" modifier for the civ affects its behavior.

The Sioux were originally a 0-0-0 civ. IOW, I was under the belief that their behavior would differ slightly from game to game, since they wouldn't be strictly tied to a (1) or (-1) characteristic for aggressiveness/rational, expansionist/perfectionist, and/or civilized/militaristic. IOW, maybe one game they'd "lean" towards being aggressive while in another game they might "lean" more towards rationality (or any combination thereof).

Gatekeeper

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I guess the issue is - if you change the modifier to +1 or -1 you affect the priority a civ assigns to military techs. But that doesn't explain why 'perfectionist' Civs build only a half dozen cities while an 'expansionist' Civ builds 20 - unless those numbers affect other things besides the value assigned to certains techs.

Or do I have it wrong, now?

[Gatekeeper]

STYOM:

In one game I played with the 0-0-0 Sioux, the AI played them in an aggressive and expansionistic manner — they built dozens of cities and were hard to get along with.

In another game with the 0-0-0 Sioux, they built maybe eight cities and pretty much followed a peaceful path.

In both games they were allowed to flourish, as I generally don't destroy neighboring civs unless they're really close to my capital.

So what accounts for the differences? It has to be the fact that 0-0-0 causes a civ to "lean" in a direction w/o necessarily being tied to it, and this "leaning" is determined at the game's start. The same holds true for *any* civ with a "0" in its characteristic controls, IMHO.

Gatekeeper

[Campo]

Might the difference be accounted for by how much room they had to expand? Even expansionist civs only build a few cities if they're boxed in. In my last game (a few months ago because I'm taking the summer off from Civ'ing) the Mongols were on a small peninsula and built only two cities.

BTW, as to the premise in your first post -- that the Sioux were a rational culture -- I think Lewis & Clark would disagree with you. If I recall correctly, they found the Sioux to be the most agressive of the Indians they encountered. (Though not agressive enough to wipe out the expedition, which from their point of view would have been the best course of action.)

[Mercator]

0 is just another fixed level between -1 and +1... The difference between games simply depends on the randomness of the AI, the suitability of the map, neighbouring civilizations, not to mention how YOU are doing (at least regarding their attitude towards you) etc.

STYOM: Indeed, I'm pretty sure those modifiers affect much more than simply the tech preference, but that is really the only "hard" evidence. Other influences are probably in variable parameters in the AI algorithms (which probably makes it sound much more sophisticated than it really is).

[Gatekeeper]

Campo:

Hmm ... well, I played on the Northern Hemisphere map (which I've modified somewhat to create more habitable areas) on both occasions and with the same civilizations. The 0-0-0 Sioux did destroy the Aztecs when they were being aggressive and expansionistic, but left the Aztecs alone in the other game where they were perfectionistic.

As for the Sioux, what would be a good balance of characteristics for them? Aggressive perfectionist?

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Mercator
0 is just another fixed level between -1 and +1... The difference between games simply depends on the randomness of the AI, the suitability of the map, neighbouring civilizations, not to mention how YOU are doing (at least regarding their attitude towards you) etc.

So the "0" modifier is one of the wildcard factors then, right? As for me, I generally try to keep a low profile ... usually no better than "strong," but sometimes "mighty" and even a few times "weak."

"Supreme" doesn't come about until I start building my military up towards the latter part of the game.

Gatekeeper