How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues?

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Chronus
Hey, I have an idea on how we can solve this debate! Let's all go out, buy PTW and play against each other!

Would that solve the debate? It would if all players are equal, but if one if much better or much worse, the question will still be open. It would settle whom was better in that group, though.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Exactly, especially when the jungle terrain was laid out nice! Now remove your bananas & poison your jungle suddenly you do not have a fair adequate start position.

Exactly! Sarcasm aside, its not supposed to be a great start location. I thought it was pretty silly that it ever was in Civ2.

Exactly, as mentioned some terrible start positions are fine. Yet Civ3 Jungles went to an unnecessary extreme making starting terrain play an even larger role in a Civ's success. In Civ2 starting in a Jungle *might* be good... in Civ3 it is always bad (thus less variety in acceptable starting positions).

I have won many, many games where I started in a jungle and still won quite handily. Besides, jungles have great late game resources that I am quite glad to have around.

[Pyrodrew]

depending on circumstances, I may still hold to what I said earlier.

True it does depend on the circumstances, but those circumstances would have to be rare for me.

To have the cities of Civ D and Civ E under one player (who's also a good player) is more threatening than the two civs being ruled by seperate players.
I'm curious as to how many human players would rather absorb the smaller civ instead of an outright multi-civ attack on the big civ simply because they feel they can handle the resources better than that other "dumb" human player.

Civs who are not the top dog conquering "dumb" or weak Civs is usually good, except near the end of the game.
But more importantly, to increase one's odds of winning one must attack (not necessarily thru war/battle, but at least through economics, culture, politics, & other means to) those who are stronger to stop their growth, lest the gap between Civ A & the weaker Civs widens. CivD cannot compete effectively against Civ A in terms of growth, so Civ D should find ways to stop Civ A's growth or better yet find ways to impact failure & decline to Civ A.

"It is not enough that I succeed, everyone else must fail." - Atilla the Hun

its not supposed to be a great start location. I thought it was pretty silly that it ever was in Civ2.

Add fruit to that, and they were almost good to have around.

I never said Civ3 Jungles had to be "great start locations" & you are the 1st person I've seen to claim most Civ2 Jungle starting positions were "great start locations" which seems to contradict your earlier statement that "they were almost good to have around". At one moment they are "great" & another "almost good enough to have around"... are you just trying to argue to argue?

jungles have great late game resources that I am quite glad to have around.

Jungles in the middle of the map laced with great late game resources is like pouring blood on a wounded sheep in the middle of a pack of lions (who had great early game resources) - same story every time.

[Pyrodrew]

Hey, I have an idea on how we can solve this debate! Let's all go out, buy PTW and play against each other!

Ok... but only if cyclotron7 gets to start in his beloved Jungles.

[Akka]

Well, I saw most of you talking about how the AIs should make an effective coalition to be able to vainquish the player and "win".

I find it very saddening to see how the "win factor" seems to always be overpriced while the "immersion factor" seems to be completely forgotten.
In real world, the USA does not start to invade Mexico and Canada while the second-ranks nations gang-bang it to prevent it to "win".
Some will argue there is no "win" in the real world. I will argue that I enjoy much more to develop a credible system of diplomacy, and have friends, enemies, mount a coalition or a trade network between them, etc., rather than just choosing which will be my next target to absorb.
In other words, in total opposition with the thread starter, I would like the IA to focus much more on acting realistically rather than trying to "win the game" or at least to "make the player loose". Perhaps that the game would be easier, but I prefer a easy immersive game that give me the feeling to rewrite the history, rather than a challenging game which mechanisms are much too obvious and which is totally not immersive because the AI leaders does not feel like people but just bots which will only consider the score and not the REAL priorities of REAL leaders.

Ok, I was probably somehow unclear, I've often trouble to word my thoughts in a few sentences, but I hope the main idea was understandable

[Pyrodrew]

In real world, the ....

I already explained why "in the real world" does not apply, but further add...
In the real world you cannot live for thousands of years, so you can do 1 turn in the beginning or say 60 at the end, but thats it.
In the real world most modern leaders cannot SELL a large city to another civilization.
In the real world natural disasters happen.
In the real world MPP would not necessarily be displayed for other Civilizations to see.
In the real world Civ3 is VERY different than the real world.

I will argue that I enjoy much more to develop a credible system of diplomacy, and have friends, enemies, mount a coalition or a trade network between them
I would like the IA to focus much more on acting realistically

Then you should remove all the win options (including historgraph) in the game & play it like SimCity if that's all you want. As for now, there are win goals/targets which strategic competitors enjoy and that should be enhanced, not lost because *some* like to role-play.

rather than just choosing which will be my next target to absorb.

Who said it is or should be about just choosing the next target to absorb???

I prefer a easy immersive game that give me the feeling to rewrite the history, rather than a challenging game which mechanisms are much too obvious and which is totally not immersive because the AI leaders does not feel like people but just bots which will only consider the score and not the REAL priorities of REAL leaders.

Then what are you doing with Civ3? Every Civ game has always been an immersive game of competition and scoring with defined goals and victory conditions (and as mentioned by someone else, Civ2 had the AI to compete to win) for all the players to strive to achieve and through this new virtual history is written. AI leaders will always feel like bots, regardless how they are programmed. The Civilization series was NEVER a "TheSims" role-playing doll house of historical leaders with no winners/losers. You are looking for a *completely* different game.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
I already explained why "in the real world" does not apply, but further add...
In the real world you cannot live for thousands of years, so you can do 1 turn in the beginning or say 60 at the end, but thats it.
In the real world most modern leaders cannot SELL a large city to another civilization.
In the real world natural disasters happen.
In the real world MPP would not necessarily be displayed for other Civilizations to see.
In the real world Civ3 is VERY different than the real world.

And ?
Because there is areas which are not realistics, then suddendly the realism factor just become completely irrelevant ?
Then why not having purple hills with blue trees ? After all, your civ leader is immortal, and it's not realist, THEN you can make galleys with legs as they are not realistic either !
Tsch, it's not because in some areas you have to give up some realism that it suddendly can be wholefully thrown out of the window.

Then you should remove all the win options (including historgraph) in the game & play it like SimCity if that's all you want. As for now, there are win goals/targets which strategic competitors enjoy and that should be enhanced, not lost because *some* like to role-play.

And ?
The win/goal target are for the PLAYER, they are a way for him to quantify and to measure his achievements, and to have info on the game.
They have nothing to do with the AI behavior.

Who said it is or should be about just choosing the next target to absorb???

Just see the discussion about "country E absorb country D so country A...".

Then what are you doing with Civ3? Every Civ game has always been an immersive game of competition and scoring with defined goals and victory conditions (and as mentioned by someone else, Civ2 had the AI to compete to win) for all the players to strive to achieve and through this new virtual history is written. AI leaders will always feel like bots, regardless how they are programmed. The Civilization series was NEVER a "TheSims" role-playing doll house of historical leaders with no winners/losers. You are looking for a *completely* different game.

Seems you completely miss the point.
I don't see how making the AI feel more humane and less machanical would change the game of Civ3 into The Sims
In fact, making the AI less mechanical would immerse more the player, because he would have the feeling he is sharing the world with another LEADERS and not another bots. If you think Ai leader will always feel bots, and hence it's not worth to even try to make them simulate better a humane and a little bit more emotionnal behavior, then well, I'm afraid you just don't understand the concept of "immersive" and you mix it up with "addictive".

And I'm *not* looking for a completely different game than Civ3. I'm looking for an *improved* Civ3 that goes a little deeper than the "me need challenge" and more than in "I want to feel like if I was here".

[tinyp3nis]

Yes, the bots should act more like human, and try to win like human. Don't be afraid to admit you like it to be more like sims Vil

[Akka]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Yes, the bots should act more like human, and try to win like human. Don't be afraid to admit you like it to be more like sims Vil

No, that's the opposite.
They should less try to "win", and more try simulate that they rule their nation as a real leader would do it.

"winning" is for the player, and the player only. He is the only reason for the game to exist. It's the player that must feel immersed into the game, not the AI.

[Pyrodrew]

Because there is areas which are not realistics, then suddendly the realism factor just become completely irrelevant ?

I never said irrelevant. However, the point holds that realism & historical accuracy take 2nd position to the competitive game balance that has existed in all of the Civilization series. This has been stated on this forum many times.

Just see the discussion about "country E absorb country D so country A...".

1st, I explained why that concept in that example was a bad strategy.
2nd, other people have also mentioned how it depends on the circumstances what a player does.
3rd, you can win the game as a pacifist & eliminate enemies without ever attacking them.

If that quote above is the extent of strategy for you, then you truly are missing out.

The win/goal target are for the PLAYER, they are a way for him to quantify and to measure his achievements, and to have info on the game. They have nothing to do with the AI behavior.
I don't see how making the AI feel more humane and less machanical would change the game of Civ3 into The Sims

If the competition is unaware of the victory conditions then it turns into a "TheSims" role-play. The AI Civs ARE considered "AI players" & Civ3 is a *competitive* game. Likewise, no one would want a football game that the AI player didn't know how to score points or a chess game where the AI didn't know that killing the opponent's King would give victory.

If you think Ai leader will always feel bots, and hence it's not worth to even try to make them simulate better a humane and a little bit more emotionnal behavior,

AI Leaders will always feel like bots after you play against/with REAL people, but the AI Leaders should be more human in being aware of all the game's victory conditions & achieving those goals. You simply want to sacrafice the competitive aspect that has been throughout the Civilization series to please your need of role-playing... and you will not find much support for that.

I'm looking for an *improved* Civ3 that goes a little deeper than the "me need challenge" and more than in "I want to feel like if I was here".

You only want a "me need role-play... me Cleo." Thus, I suggest you do 1 of the following...
1>Buy PtW & form a clan to role-play with REAL people for the BEST emotional role-play behavior while you all agree there are no victory conditions;
2>get a different game... like "TheSims" & look for Historical mods/downloads.

[tinyp3nis]

"winning" is for the player, and the player only.

And why is this?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Ok... but only if cyclotron7 gets to start in his beloved Jungles.

Agreed. But don't come crying to me when you don't have any rubber or coal.

[Theseus]

New thought:

Jungle, in moderation, is VASTLY superior for the human player.

[vondrack]

Well, I have been AFK for most of yesterday, so I am a bit late with my response, but still, bear with me, please...

I believe that Akka le Vil brought out a VERY interesting point. He described almost perfectly how I try to play Civ and "win" my games. I expand until dominating my continent or conquering land enough to be in a position to win the game "economically" and then just stop, only fighting back if necessary. From that moment on (usually coincides with laying RRs), I just develop my civ, so that all my cities have all kinds of buildings (even if it's not the most effective thing to do), my people love me at 99%, my demo screen shows I am the greatest civ in the world... and because of this intentional slow-down, I usually win in mid-late 1900s with a spaceship launch. And I am perfectly happy with that, since my idea of the world to create is just such an empire... not a military juggernaut swallowing everybody else in the process of building "a better world".

I do understand that there are some very effective strategies (like rushes & whipping) and I have already found out winning by domination is perhaps the easiest and fastest way to go... 'cause of leaders and the like. And I do understand that MP will be mostly about war (or, rushing). But damn... that's not fun for me. After centuries of prolonged warfare, my empire is far from "perfect". It is stretched thin, underdeveloped, my people are unhappy... that is not what I want my world to be like. As Akka says, I do want to feel as much in a real world (read: immersed) as possible. Sure, there are unrealistic features... it's a game, after all. But while I am perfectly ready to accept and put up with unrealistic features, I would rather prefer following a realistic approach or realistic principle. Warring from 4000BC till killing the last opponent is definitely a strategy drawn out from fantasy books. There, the good guy fights all the bad guys as long as they are not killed... In the real world, it is not that way. Look at the currently most powerful countries in the world... they did not become powerful because of fighting wars, but because of their economic and development achievements.

However, the current Civ3 (its scoring system and victory conditions) directly and indirectly favors warmongering to such an extent, that it is more about annihilation of rival civs than about building your own one. While I do agree that - in the current incarnation of Civ - an improved AI means a more deadly AI, I do not believe that this is the way to go. Which finally brings me to my point (sorry, everybody, I know my posts tend to be very long... I seem to be unable to express my ideas in a breif way).

Instead of making the AI more competitive (=more deadly) under the current rules, I would prefer having the very "competition system" reworked, so that peaceful achievements are valued significantly more. Currently, various figures that quite properly evaluate the quality of a civilization (literacy, disease, per capita income) are simply ignored in favour of other figures that sort of evaluate its quantity (area, pop, GNP). What I would love to see is having these taken into consideration to a much greater extent.

Let's revise the scoring system and victory conditions in such a way that warmongering is no longer the easiest and most effective way to win the game. I do not say incur direct penalties for waging wars. Wars should stay part of the game. I do not want another Sim game. But increase the rewards and victory chances for peaceful builders, so that their approach to the game is actually viable. Then, we will not need AIs "ganging up" on the current leader for the sole purpose of preventing him/her to win... and the game of Civilization will finally become... eh... more... civilized...

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
You simply want to sacrifice the competitive aspect that has been throughout the Civilization series to please your need of role-playing... and you will not find much support for that.

I believe you are missing the point, Pyrodrew. It is not about taking competition out of the game. It is about toning down the obvious advantages of warmongering. It is about making "the bigger, the better" approach less prevailing. It is about redefining priorities. I am all for competition. But must winning mean killing (almost) everybody else?

[Pyrodrew]

I believe you are missing the point, Pyrodrew. It is not about taking competition out of the game. It is about toning down the obvious advantages of warmongering.

Did you read my reply to Dominae earlier in this thread about how I would like to be tempted with better peaceful strategy options???

If you did you would see we are not in disagreement as I would love for more potent peaceful strategies.
Akka & I are discussing something very different... you may wish to re-read some prior posts for better clarification.

[Akka]

I never said irrelevant. However, the point holds that realism & historical accuracy take 2nd position to the competitive game balance that has existed in all of the Civilization series. This has been stated on this forum many times.

No, what has been said is that "if we have to chose between realism and fun, it will be fun which will have the priority".
But in this case, more realism means more fun : AI behaving more credibly IS a bonus to fun.

1st, I explained why that concept in that example was a bad strategy.
2nd, other people have also mentioned how it depends on the circumstances what a player does.
3rd, you can win the game as a pacifist & eliminate enemies without ever attacking them.

The fact remains that it was only about how to absorb other countries and become stronger

If that quote above is the extent of strategy for you, then you truly are missing out.

...
Well, it's surely not the extent of strategy for ME, considering that it was what I was pointing at and saying "it's not very interesting/realistic/immersive to see strategies like that".
I would appreciate you being a bit less obnoxious and trying to figure the signification of what I'm saying if you're about to answer

If the competition is unaware of the victory conditions then it turns into a "TheSims" role-play. The AI Civs ARE considered "AI players" & Civ3 is a *competitive* game. Likewise, no one would want a football game that the AI player didn't know how to score points or a chess game where the AI didn't know that killing the opponent's King would give victory.

Well, if you consider enemy civ just as "another players", I suppose that you're just unable to grasp the concept of "immersion". Well, never mind.
You did not get what I mean, not that I'm very surprised about that.

AI Leaders will always feel like bots after you play against/with REAL people, but the AI Leaders should be more human in being aware of all the game's victory conditions & achieving those goals. You simply want to sacrafice the competitive aspect that has been throughout the Civilization series to please your need of role-playing... and you will not find much support for that.

1) I don't plan to play againt real people, the single player is enough for me.
2) The point is precisely that AI leaders should emphasize less on "playing a game" and more on "simulating their are a leader of a nation", but it seems that the whole concept is completely alien to you.

You only want a "me need role-play... me Cleo." Thus, I suggest you do 1 of the following...
1>Buy PtW & form a clan to role-play with REAL people for the BEST emotional role-play behavior while you all agree there are no victory conditions;
2>get a different game... like "TheSims" & look for Historical mods/downloads.

Well, what should I have expected from someone with such a diabloesque vision of Civ ?
Completely missed the point from A to Z and acting arrogant and obnoxious all along.

Well, anyway, if you could point me any historical mod that actually alter the AI behavior, I would be very thankfull. The thing is, I doubt they exist...

[Akka]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis


And why is this?

What I mean is not that only the player would win, but that only him should think about things like "I'll win the game", the AI not acting as if they were part of a game, but as if they were part of history/real nation.

Practical example : a tiny civ, with three small cities and a handful of outdated units, that sneak-attack your continent-sized empire filled with advanced weaponry, just because it is programmed to do so as you are reaching the "win point" of the game.
It depends of the situation (if the leader is a psychopathic butcher in full frenzy, it can make sense), but usually that's typically the kind of events that kills the immersion.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Did you read my reply to Dominae earlier in this thread about how I would like to be tempted with better peaceful strategy options???

Oh yes, I have this bad habit of not reading the full three pages of a thread before posting my response just to find one particular one-liner:

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae My personal preference is making war slightly stronger

I like war too... I just wish peace had better temptations for me.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Akka & I are discussing something very different... you may wish to re-read some prior posts for better clarification.

Judging from the recent Akka's post, I am not exactly sure who's missing the point of the debate here...

[Pyrodrew]

But in this case, more realism means more fun : AI behaving more credibly IS a bonus to fun.

But nothing. It is not credible in any competitive game if any AI behaves in manners to decrease their odds of winning (aside from difficulty settings). Especially since during a competitive game with human players, one can assign parts of their civilization to AI & if a human player quits an online game, an AI player could take over the Civ.

The fact remains that it was only about how to absorb other countries and become stronger
Well, it's surely not the extent of strategy for ME, considering

Land acquisition & becoming stronger are only 2 goals that have been throughout the Civilization series.
At any rate, I'm glad that quote is not the extent of strategy for you as we agree that "just absorbing the next country" is not what the competition in Civ3 is about.

I would appreciate you being a bit less obnoxious

? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Well, if you consider enemy civ just as "another players", I suppose that you're just unable to grasp the concept of "immersion". Well, never mind.
The point is precisely that AI leaders should emphasize less on "playing a game" and more on "simulating their are a leader of a nation", but it seems that the whole concept is completely alien to you.
I mean is not that only the player would win, but that only him should think about things like "I'll win the game"

Again...I understand your point, but I find it holds no merit since it would remove the competitive tradition of the Civilization series.My comment that enemy civs are other players is irrelevant to the understanding of your desire for "immersion". You fail to grasp that, are blind to see others desire for Civ3's competition & refuse to believe anyone could disagree with your no competition idea... disappointing really.

At any rate, I mentioned earlier a win-win solution for both of us... if the AI was focused on "win victories" & everyone had the ability to remove all "win victory" options then the AI would have no "win victory" goals to focus on. Yet, God forbid you find something to even somewhat to agree with me on....

Well, anyway, if you could point me any historical mod that actually alter the AI behavior, I would be very thankfull. The thing is, I doubt they exist...

Perhaps if more Civ fans desired it, then such mods may have been created or Firaxis would have altered Civ3 from Civ2 & Civ1 to meet that demand....

________________

I have this bad habit of not reading the full three pages of a thread before posting my response just to find one particular one-liner:
:roll eyes:

You are the 1 who made the false assumption about me & you are rolling your eyes???
Sidenote: my opinion on that topic was also in the 1st post of this thread (issue #3).

Judging from the recent Akka's post, I am not exactly sure who's missing the point of the debate here...

Um... just you. Akka & I are discussing issue #5 in my 1st post.

[vondrack]

Pyrodrew, FYI, I was not discussing #3, nor #5, nor any other number of your initial post. I was iterating on what Akka said. Instead of rolling more eyes, I will try to rephrase what I meant.

I love Civ3 because of its immersion factor and feeling of empire building. Ignoring the fact that there are lots of unrealistic features, the very basic principle has always been realistic enough for me. Yes, I always do my best to build a better empire than my opponents (AIs - I'm talking about SP). But achieving this goal by simply destroying all AIs feels very hollow to me... and I am glad that the AI behaves sorta as if feeling the same way.

We seem to understand the term of competition differently. For you, its winning over the AI. For me, its winning the game (however that condition is defined) AND/BY building a great empire (possibly greater than in my previous game). Actually, the only entity capable of competent competition with me is... myself! Of course I am still talking about SP... Everybody knows that the AI can be beaten pretty easily by following well described routes (which are, unfortunately, not much fun for people like me or Akka - and I believe that there are MANY more players like that).

In MP, it will be very different. One will be competing with other humans and thus doing everything possible to win, irrespective of what it takes. Winning over other humans is rewarding enough. Sadly, because of this, the gameplay will usually shrink to a series of rushes (at least that is what everybody says - I have never been into MP in Civ2 myself). Such a game of Civ3 is no fun for me and other pitiful... err... I meant peaceful builders.

Sure, the game defines certain goals that are considered a "victory" for a human player. Meeting them makes players feel fine - it adds to the fun they have with the game. OTOH, meeting them or missing them means absolutely nothing to the AI, as it has no fun with the game and is not supposed to have any fun... if the AI focused entirely on using the most effective strategy in order to make my victory as hard earned as possible, instead of focusing on making my game as much fun as possible, then... I would look for a different game, I guess.

Fighting the whole world just because defeating the whole world is the ultimate proof of me being better than "them" is not fun for me. Building an empire in such a way that it meets certain criteria, be them defined by the game or by myself, overcoming obstacles stemming from the fact that there are other empires with the same goal, now that is fun. Waging war here and there is fine, but the wars should be driven by reasons at least resembling reality... B+C+D+E+F ganging up on A is just pure unrealistic fiction...

Let's talk about solutions... I have already mentioned one in this post. Leave SP as it is (or tweak it a bit in favour of builders) for those that still resist the power of the Dark Side, and make MP the warmongers' paradise (which it already is anyway).

Second option: create distinct AIs for builder-type games (defined by having the SS, diplo, and/or culture victory on) and warmonger-type games (defined by having the conquest and/or domination victory on). Builders would get an AI that would not be that much of a killer, but that would bring the game closer to the "reality" (immersion factor preferred). Warmongers would get a killer AI ignoring the fact that Civ is perhaps supposed to resemble something and would just make the most effective use of anything and everything in order to make the victory for the human difficult to achieve (challenge factor preferred).

Third option (and this was what I tried to suggest in my earlier post): tweak the rules in such a way that warmongering is no longer the easiest way to victory. It is my understanding that many so-called warmongers are actually not that much of warmongers by their very nature... they are simply highly competitive players that seek the greatest challenge available. If achieving the most impressive or quickest victory means warring, they wage war. If it meant developing their empire similarly to the real world (which is what the builder types like), they would happily play the game in a different way.

Irrespective of what you think I miss or misunderstand, I believe that your issue #5 and the later ABCDEF example (at least I think it's related to #5 ...) are simply plain wrong. Adjusting the AI in the way you suggest, making it play kinda like the baddest bunch of MP players in the neighbourhood would make the game much less fun (albeit a greater challenge) for many, if not most players.

Just BTW, regarding your ABCDEF example. Even with a purely logical approach, what you insist on is incorrect. Suppose BCDEF team up and crush A. Now what? Should CDEF team up and crush B (or whichever civ becomes a new leader)? No? Why did BCDEF teamed up to crush A then? So... yes? Why should B join CDEF in the previous war then...? 'Cause it knew CDEF would be no match for it after the A would be finished? Then, why CDEF joined B to crush A?

See? BCDEF taking on A makes sense only from one point of view. By preventing A from winning, BCDEF would be maintaining their theoretical chance to win... but their goal is not to prevent someone else from winning, their goal is - thank God!!! - to win on their own. Fortunately enough, the logic is constructive, not destructive...

CDE are out of game, they can't win anyway... why should they bother helping B or F to win over A? OTOH, for them, finishing on the 4th or 5th place, now that makes a difference. A very small difference, but still... therefore, fighting each other, they behave logically. Think about your example... is the logic really as simple as you suggest?

Maybe the whole problem is that Civ3 presents everything but winning as "losing"... if I finish at the honorable second place, it will still laugh in my face and tell me how pitiful I was. I guess if it commented the result more appropriately, it would be easier to realize that everyone's intention is to finish as high as possible on the virtual ladder (as this goal is always available to everyone, unlike the ultimate victory). With THIS goal in mind, you would probably agree that your ABCDEF example (and the related issue #5) is incorrect...

[Pyrodrew]

Pyrodrew, FYI, I was not discussing #3, nor #5, nor any other number of your initial post. I was iterating on what Akka said.

FYI, some parts of your post were on what Akka said, but your "It is about toning down the obvious advantages of warmongering" IS point #3, a point you missed before you made your false assumption about me.

We seem to understand the term of competition differently. For you, its winning over the AI.

That is not quite right, in the issues I raised I explained winning over the other players. Competition for me is not just "winning over the AI."

Actually, the only entity capable of competent competition with me is... myself! Of course I am still talking about SP... Everybody knows that the AI can be beaten pretty easily by following well described routes

Which is why improvements to the AI to counter those well described routes would be benefitial. I guess you could just sit in the strategy forum & copy the "well described" routes once new AI improvements are made, but that's rather simple minded.

...But achieving this goal by simply destroying all AIs feels very hollow to me...In MP, it will be very different. Such a game of Civ3 is no fun for me and other pitiful... err... I meant peaceful builders.

I think we agree warmongering benefits should be toned down, other than that... thanks for sharing.

the game defines certain goals that are considered a "victory" for a human player.

Actually, if AI players achieve certain goals they are given "victory" which results in the player's loss, regardless if the AI cannot enjoy the victory.

if the AI focused entirely on using the most effective strategy in order to make my victory as hard earned as possible, instead of focusing on making my game as much fun as possible, then... I would look for a different game, I guess.

I never said the AI had to focus on making your victory as hard as possible. As for getting Firaxis to focus on your fun... everyone wants that & everyone has different opinions on what is fun.

Fighting the whole world just because defeating the whole world is the ultimate proof of me being better than "them" is not fun for me. Waging war here and there is fine, but the wars should be driven by reasons at least resembling reality... B+C+D+E+F ganging up on A is just pure unrealistic fiction...

1st, just so there is no confusion B+C+D+E+F can gang up on A without going to war to do it.
2nd, it is unrealistic for AI players in any competitive game not to prevent their opponent from winning in Civ3 anymore than it is in Chess, Risk, AoK, or any game. Placing the "that is unrealistic in the real world" cry above strategy is a slippery slope to "TheSims".

Such a game of Civ3 is no fun for me and other pitiful... err... I meant peaceful builders.
Let's talk about solutions... Leave SP as it is (or tweak it a bit in favour of builders)

I believe we still agree better peaceful tactics are a good idea.... There is a thread here on Peaceful Leaders.

create distinct AIs for builder-type games

I don't think anyone would turn down a wider variety of AIs.

an AI that would not be that much of a killer, but that would bring the game closer to the "reality" (immersion factor preferred

I believe my victory options suggestion would also offer Akka his immersion.

Warmongers would get a killer AI ignoring the fact that Civ is perhaps supposed to resemble something and would just make the most effective use of anything and everything in order to make the victory for the human difficult to achieve (challenge factor preferred).

Human warmongers are not the only ones who prefer an AI who would make the most effective use of everything. Human peaceful builders can also prefer a strategic challenge factor over role-play immersion. Those factors are not mutually exclusive.

I believe that there are MANY more players like that
Adjusting the AI in the way you suggest, making it play kinda like the baddest bunch of MP players in the neighbourhood would make the game much less fun (albeit a greater challenge) for many, if not most players.

Err... thanks for your opinion.

Even with a purely logical approach, what you insist on is incorrect. Suppose BCDEF team up and crush A. Now what? Should CDEF team up and crush B (or whichever civ becomes a new leader)? No? Why did BCDEF teamed up to crush A then? So... yes? Why should B join CDEF in the previous war then...?

That's because your logic is flawed in numerous ways including, but not limited to: temporal problems, false assumptions & irrational conclusions.
1st, BCDEF do not necessarily need to all team up against A.
2nd, BCDEF do not necessarily need to (or will) kill A.
3rd, BCDEF could exit the "war" with A at different times.
4th, BCDE or F could be in other wars as well, they are not necessarily only at war with A.
5th, ignoring Civ A & using no attack (economical, military, intellectual, cultural, etc.) against Civ A allows Civ A to continue its growth rate for success & victory in the modern age.
6th, you completely ignored the other worse alternatives since a comparison would weaken your theory.
7th, "Now what?" all depends on the aftermath & time table as numerous scenarios are possible. "Now what?" happens every game turn as one reassesses the other players intellectual, military, economical, political, & other power. "Now what?" could be the game is over & if Civ A is no longer at the top then another Civ could be declared the victor, instead of giving up & letting Civ A win.

their goal is not to prevent someone else from winning, their goal is - thank God!!! - to win on their own.

Obviously the goal is to win, but preventing others from scoring/winning is a means to achieve that. A football team's defense specifically [b]prevents[b/] the other team from scoring points to win! If you were a basketball coach it sounds like you would put everyone in a zone offense! It's the same reason you would attack a Civ about to launch a spaceship (&win) rather than trade with them, but on a larger scale. If you leave that out of your strategy it is no wonder you are a "err... peaceful builder".

CDE are out of game, they can't win anyway... why should they bother helping B or F to win over A?

Because they are not out of the game.

if I finish at the honorable second place, it will still laugh in my face and tell me how pitiful I was.

It was a new approach, maybe a "silver place" attitude might be better to soften the blow to those emotional over losing. And the AI is definitely a sore winner - perhaps this was done to create rivalry between the AI & the player? Only Firaxis knows.

I guess if it commented the result more appropriately, it would be easier to realize that everyone's intention is to finish as high as possible on the virtual ladder (as this goal is always available to everyone, unlike the ultimate victory). With THIS goal in mind, you would probably agree that your ABCDEF example (and the related issue #5) is incorrect

With prior posts in mind, I thought you would have stopped with your flawed assumptions.

In addition, you don't have to watch the defeat screen & cry.
Furthermore, the game comments quite well how one fared against the competition & even gives a time progession over various aspects - all which you fail to mention.
Finally, the ABCDEF example & Issue #5 were about whether Civs were about utilizing the best strategy to win. Whether you believe settling for a lower position is good enough is a different issue. On that issue, a person could have any number of game goals for themself, from settling for 4th, being the one who cures cancer, destroying only the Zulus, etc. all of which Firaxis does not have the time to randomly program to come up as a new goal for the AI. Therefore, Firaxis did a good job on focusing the AI on the defined 'victory goals'. Settling for 4th place does not help the AI achieve those 'victory goals'. If you read more & wrote less you would probably make less assumptions that were incorrect.

[vondrack]

Oh well, what a woeful me I am... I seem to always fail to understand what you actually say, mean, or want and therefore keep making false assumptions... my logic is terribly flawed... I am talking too much and reading not enough... better have some mod restrict me for some time... Oh well...

Time to end this futile waste of time. I have carefully reread the whole thread trying to find out what I missed, misunderstood, or falsely assumed, just to find out I was wasting my time. Oh well... I will pay more attention next time.

Have a nice day.

[Pyrodrew]

Well the prior posts can speak for themselves on all those matters.

And don't worry too much about your owe state, I felt the same way reading your post about how all my examples were sooo wrong, issues were incorrect, how I was missing your point, etc..
You'll get over it.

[Akka]

? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I wasn't the one starting to make snobbish comments about how you should start to go play The Sims. And judging how arrogantly you dismiss the points against you and act as if your own point was the only one having any value, I stand by my statement that you would gain to behave less obnoxiously.

Now, that said, back on topic about the game issues only.

But nothing. It is not credible in any competitive game if any AI behaves in manners to decrease their odds of winning (aside from difficulty settings). Especially since during a competitive game with human players, one can assign parts of their civilization to AI & if a human player quits an online game, an AI player could take over the Civ.

You fail to see my point, and the point of immersion, which is precisely to stop seeing the game as "a game", and to immerse in it and pretend it's just like if you WERE in it.
It's another way to play which is at least as equally valuable. Considering that the very principle of Civilization is precisely to immerse into history and rewrite it, I consider it an even more valuable way for this game (not meaning I devaluate the more competitive point of view, but I think that the Civ concept is more oriented toward immersion).

Again...I understand your point, but I find it holds no merit since it would remove the competitive tradition of the Civilization series.My comment that enemy civs are other players is irrelevant to the understanding of your desire for "immersion". You fail to grasp that, are blind to see others desire for Civ3's competition & refuse to believe anyone could disagree with your no competition idea... disappointing really.

I understand your point, but I find it holds no merit since it would drag Civ down to another beat-them-all game and remove the "you're part of history" tradition of the Civilization serie.
You fail to grasp the concept of a more roleplaying point of view and are blind to see others desire for Civ3's immersion and refuse to believe anyone could disagree with you challenge-only opinion... Disappointing really.

At any rate, I mentioned earlier a win-win solution for both of us... if the AI was focused on "win victories" & everyone had the ability to remove all "win victory" options then the AI would have no "win victory" goals to focus on. Yet, God forbid you find something to even somewhat to agree with me on....

I don't see why we should remove the win conditions. When I play, I still try to reach them, and it does not prevent me to "roleplay" anyway. I would just like to have the AI actually able to roleplay too, or at least act with a bit more sense about its own position.

Perhaps if more Civ fans desired it, then such mods may have been created or Firaxis would have altered Civ3 from Civ2 & Civ1 to meet that demand....

Yeah, I suppose that they would rewrite the AI just because we ask it

I never said the AI had to focus on making your victory as hard as possible. As for getting Firaxis to focus on your fun... everyone wants that & everyone has different opinions on what is fun.

THAT is true. So please remember that YOUR idea of fun (the competitive one) is not the fun for everyone...

2nd, it is unrealistic for AI players in any competitive game not to prevent their opponent from winning in Civ3 anymore than it is in Chess, Risk, AoK, or any game. Placing the "that is unrealistic in the real world" cry above strategy is a slippery slope to "TheSims".

It's unrealistic if you consider it's a game and there is losers and winner.

I always though a game based on rewriting history and with civilizations expanding, growing, shrinking and dying could be oriented toward simulating credible international relationship (yes, just like in the real world) and that would actually give it more "historical flavor", and I see no point in the Sims's comparison. If not for the historical feeling, what is the point of gaining technologies, building cities, expanding, having trade agreements and the like ?
If you're supposed to be a "The Sims" player as long as you wish to have more "reality" flavor, what is the goal of making a game that would put you in place of a civilization leader with "change history" as a basic concept ? They could just make an add-on named : The Sims : Kings party".
It shows more how incredibly scornful you are to anyone not sharing YOUR idea of fun

That's because your logic is flawed in numerous ways including, but not limited to: temporal problems, false assumptions & irrational conclusions.

We could say the same about your own deduction, including the inability to grasp the concepts of simulation, immersion, roleplay and the like, and dumbing down all to a mere "win or lose".
But it would end in a pointless flame war, so it would be better if all of us restrained to have such childish attitude

Obviously the goal is to win, but preventing others from scoring/winning is a means to achieve that. A football team's defense specifically [b]prevents[b/] the other team from scoring points to win! If you were a basketball coach it sounds like you would put everyone in a zone offense! It's the same reason you would attack a Civ about to launch a spaceship (&win) rather than trade with them, but on a larger scale. If you leave that out of your strategy it is no wonder you are a "err... peaceful builder".

With prior posts in mind, I thought you would have stopped with your flawed assumptions.

In addition, you don't have to watch the defeat screen & cry.
Furthermore, the game comments quite well how one fared against the competition & even gives a time progession over various aspects - all which you fail to mention.
Finally, the ABCDEF example & Issue #5 were about whether Civs were about utilizing the best strategy to win. Whether you believe settling for a lower position is good enough is a different issue. On that issue, a person could have any number of game goals for themself, from settling for 4th, being the one who cures cancer, destroying only the Zulus, etc. all of which Firaxis does not have the time to randomly program to come up as a new goal for the AI. Therefore, Firaxis did a good job on focusing the AI on the defined 'victory goals'. Settling for 4th place does not help the AI achieve those 'victory goals'. If you read more & wrote less you would probably make less assumptions that were incorrect.

Again, as I said before, it's only true if you reduce it to a "win or lose", without taking in consideration simulation, history and immersion, which are the basis of the very concept of civilization.

It was a new approach, maybe a "silver place" attitude might be better to soften the blow to those emotional over losing. And the AI is definitely a sore winner - perhaps this was done to create rivalry between the AI & the player? Only Firaxis knows.

I like the concept that just reaching the ending date is a form of victory.
For the other "game endings", it's true that a kind of ladder would be better than just the dumbed down binary "you lose/you win".

[Pyrodrew]

I wasn't the one starting to make snobbish comments about how you should start to go play The Sims. And judging how arrogantly you dismiss the points against you and act as if your own point was the only one having any value

You were the one making snobbish comments about how you find my position "saddening" immediately entering this thread. Then when I disagreed with you, you had the arrogance to claim I simply understand and acted as if no one could dare have a different opinion to you & understand. Now you start with hypocritical tears about me being obnoxious...

You fail to see my point, and the point of immersion, which is precisely to stop seeing the game as "a game", and to immerse in it and pretend it's just like if you WERE in it.

Again, just because someone disagrees with you does NOT mean they do not see your point. Take a deep breath, someone disagrees with you, now exhale & relax.

I understand your point, but I find it holds no merit since it would drag Civ down to another beat-them-all game and remove the "you're part of history" tradition of the Civilization serie.You fail to grasp the concept of a more roleplaying point of view and are blind to see others desire for Civ3's immersion and refuse to believe anyone could disagree with you challenge-only opinion

You are your worst enemy. The CivSeries has always been a "beat-them-all" competition, which multiplayer varifies every day. It has not been your "acting realistically rather than trying to 'win the game'" notion. Furthermore, competition does not remove the "you're part of history" element, you are simply blaming the Civ3 AI for your deteroiting and/or lack of ability to immerse yourself in the game. I & others immerse just fine. Unfortunately, I cannot teach you imagination.

I don't see why we should remove the win conditions. When I play, I still try to reach them
I like the concept that just reaching the ending date is a form of victory.

*sigh* Only the "win" is removed... you can still try to launch your spaceship, build the UN, so can they. And if you like the concept of just reaching the ending date is a form of victory, then you agree with my idea.

Yeah, I suppose that they would rewrite the AI just because we ask it

I don't see how making the AI feel more humane and less machanical would change the game

Now you're contradicting yourself, at one point you want to make "the AI feel more humane" & another you roll your eyes at the idea of Firaxis changing it because fans ask. The AI in that aspect is hard coded so player mods cannot change it... so you just whine.

I never said the AI had to focus on making your victory as hard as possible. As for getting Firaxis to focus on your fun... everyone wants that & everyone has different opinions on what is fun.

THAT is true. So please remember that YOUR idea of fun (the competitive one) is not the fun for everyone...

Thanks for repeating what I just said.... At any rate, you finally found something to agree on.

It's unrealistic if you consider it's a game and there is losers and winner.

Another reason why your "pure immersion" idea in Civilization is a dream at best. As Vondrack pointed out the multiplayer competitive history is quite strong... offline is anyone's guess, online people are "competiting".

I see no point in the Sims's comparison.If you're supposed to be a "The Sims" player as long as you wish to have more "reality" flavor, what is the goal of making a game that would put you in place of a civilization leader with "change history" as a basic concept ? They could just make an add-on named : The Sims : Kings party".
It shows more how incredibly scornful you are to anyone not sharing YOUR idea of fun

If I wanted to scorn you I could do a much better job than that. At any rate, TheSims was a suggestion. TheSims, SimCity, etc. are not focused on the competitive aspect, unlike Civilization's tradition. Those seem like more viable solutions than getting a competitive historical game & hoping there will be role-play "immersion" changes in the AI (which you claim Firaxis won't do) or role-play mods (which is impossible since the AI is hardcoded there). Further consideration suggests CtP:2 would probably be better for you since the AI is far more flexible with programming, it is more similiar to Civ3 & the AI is also less aggressively competitive overall.

We could say the same about your own deduction, including the inability to grasp the concepts of simulation, immersion, roleplay and the like, and dumbing down all to a mere "win or lose".
But it would end in a pointless flame war, so it would be better if all of us restrained to have such childish attitude

Wrong. This may be hard for you to comprehend but sometimes people debate without having a flame war over it. I listed 7 counterpoints to actually discuss to bring to debate back on track. Your baseless accusations of "simulation, immersion, roleplay" are unfounded & just sloppy.

Again, as I said before, it's only true if you reduce it to a "win or lose", without taking in consideration simulation, history and immersion, which are the basis of the very concept of civilization
It's another way to play...I think that the Civ concept is more oriented toward immersion

That is not the basis of the very concept of civilization just because you pulled it out of your azz.
If immersion was the primary concept the tables would be turned & I would be asking you for competition mods instead of you asking me for immersion mods.
A few from Civ3:
"How do you improve on the greatest strategy game of all time?" - Not Simulation, Roleplay or Immersion.
"Civilization instantly set the standard and defined a new genre of empire-building strategy games and is still recognized as one of the greatest games of all time." - Not Simulation, Roleplay or Immersion.
"The competition ends when either you or one of your opponents..." - opponents in a competition!

And there is a whole chapter dedicated to "Winning the Game"! Yet nothing in the Civilization website or manual covers how to immerse oneself, or for that matter even mentions the word immersion or roleplay, much less claim it as the basis of the very concept of the game. Thus, as you continue to confuse your opinions with the facts, your weak theory that the Civilization concept is based on immersion is not only unproven & sloppy, but it doesn't even hold any good theorical weight.

[Pyrodrew]

I simply understand

Typo, should be "simply do not understand".

[Akka]

Oh well...
Ok, you're the best and I did understand nothing and all...
Vondrack, wait for me, I'm coming. I, too, wasted enough time here.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Oh well...
Ok, you're the best and I did understand nothing and all...
Vondrack, wait for me, I'm coming. I, too, wasted enough time here.

Akka, I'm waiting for ya, man... I crossed my fingers, but... ahhh... this Pyrodrew guy is simply a different league... let's lick our wounds together now...

[tinyp3nis]

I for one don't want the AI to completely ignore victory conditions if I click military victory on. Le Vil it's cool that you can play civ role game style but don't try to push it on others, people who play for military victory aren't that bad ok?

[Pyrodrew]

To avoid wasting time in the future which the prior posts can verify:
Vondrack - enter a thread without rolling your eyes assuming someone does not understand a position that can be disproven in the 1st post.
Akka - work on your tact & try to consider what tinyp said...

Le Vil it's cool that you can play civ role game style but don't try to push it on others,

Yeah, that would have been nice.