How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues? - Page 3

vondrack · October 29, 2002, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

tp, do not get us wrong... irrespective of what Pyrodrew thinks we mean, neither me nor Akka ask for ignoring or removing any victory conditions. What we both oppose is the notion that the AI players should be focused entirely on winning the game, or - even worse - on preventing the human from winning it, instead of creating an illusion of a credible world that is fun to build your empire in.

Fighting my neighbours throughout the game because of the living space ("lebensraum") is fine. Fighting them because of resources and luxuries is fine. Entering wars as a member of alliances or MPPs is fine. All of these are perfectly valid reasons to fight in the real world, too. But attacking someone just to prevent him from launching his spaceship is a total nonsense in the real world... it makes some sort of wicked sense only in game terms... but even then, only if you misunderstand the nature of the game and the nature of the victory conditions.

There is only one ultimate "natural" victory condition and it is currently known as "Conquest". By eliminating every single opponent, you win. No doubt. To save players from conquering every single enemy city, there is the "Domination" victory defined - based on the (apparently correct) assumption that once you have 2/3 of both land area and population, you would achieve the Conquest victory anyway.

Both these victory types imply extensive warfare and, let's be honest, Civ3 has never been a wargame. War has always been an integral part of it, but never the primary focus (if it was a wargame, it would be a pretty bad one). Pyrodrew almost posted a picture of the game box and a transcript of the manual trying to show us what the game of Civilization has always been about... as if we needed that. Everybody knows that Civ has always been about building great empires.

But how do you define a great empire? Well, if your empire is the very last one in the world, it must be great at least in the sense that there is no greater one... But it is rather obvious that there are other forms of "great" empires - their greatness being the economic, scientific, and/or cultural strength. Alas, these attributes are rather difficult to quantify. To help players that do not enjoy the Conquest/Domination victories, the designers of the game set certain conditions defining "an empire great enough". The first empire capable of launching the spaceship is defined as "great enough" (you gain a "victory" then). The first empire to accumulate 100,000 culture points or to have a 20,000 culture point city is defined as "great enough"... etc.

Note, please, that these criteria are purely artificial and do not - in any way - reflect anything in the real world. They serve only one purpose: being goals for players that do not enjoy destroying (almost) the whole world. By reaching one of these goals, these players (usually called "builders") can be sort of "sure" they succeeded in their quest for a great empire. Adds to their fun with the game.

Now, it's rather obvious that these artificial "builder" victories should only be understood as achievements to be reached before others do. As soon as you start perceiving them strictly from the "win-lose" perspective, the logical thing to do - to assure your own "victory" - would be destroying the most culturally developed cities of the world, destroying spaceships... destroying... and that's the problem: the "builders" are not keen on destroying things (if they were, they would happily go for the Conquest or Domination victory), they are keen on building, on building greater things than their rivals, possibly in a credible world that resembles the real world (that is the "immersion" factor).

Thus, when Pyrodrew complains of "Babs letting him finish his spaceship in peace", we (that is, me and Akka, not to speak for others that didn't express their stance) say: and what's wrong with that? It should be that way. Building a spaceship is - in our perception of the civ world - an achievement to reach, not an achievement others should be prevented from reaching.

When Akka and me say we enjoy "role-playing" Civ, we mean that we enjoy playing it as if it was a real world (with its own set of rules, some of them quite unrealistic, I admit). A real world, where our goal is to achieve, to build something. Sure, to get into the position to build something notable, we go bonk some heads along the way... make no mistake, we want to "win" just as much as Pyrodrew. We are just as competitive as he is. We want to be the first one to launch a spaceship. We just prefer following certain self-imposed restrictions that basically say: do nothing that would be a nonsense in this "real" world (even if it did make sense considering the win-lose game conditions). And we are happy when the AI players seem to do the same. And we would be seriously unhappy if the AI players started acting like bots, nuking us few turns before our SS launches, just because they knew we would otherwise achieve our goal. That would spoil the fun for us.

We fight our wars not to "win the game", to "destroy everybody else", to "prevent someone else from achieving the defined goals before us". We fight our wars because we feel that they are - at their time - necessary in order to make our empire better or safer. The Babs were threatening our northern possessions, so we carried out a preventive strike at them. The Persians signed a trade embargo against us with the evil Russians and wouldn't trade Silk with us... besides, they tried to blackmail us for our gold... so we declared war on them and quite rightfully took the luxury by force... These are things that add to our "immersion"... they could kinda happen in the Civ-world. But: The French were about to launch their spaceship, so we attacked them and destroyed their capital, destroying the craft in the process. Huh? Beg your pardon? Why did we do that? The French worked hard, researched hard, and (almost) succeeded to construct a spaceship... something no other civilization did before. So... why did we attack them? Just because we would "lose our game"? How pitiful... immersion gone.

So, please, don't listen to Pyrodrew, when he says Akka and me want to take the competition out of the game. That is completely incorrect. We just wish the competition is carried under sort of a gentlemen's agreement that guarantees the whole civ-world behaves credibly and not just like a silly computer game that is only about winning and losing...

vmxa1 · October 29, 2002, 22:11

I do not want in the middle of this, but vondrack, you could consider from the AI's point of view the space ship is armaggedon and maybe they should try to stop it. Just a thought.

vondrack · October 29, 2002, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I do not want in the middle of this, but vondrack, you could consider from the AI's point of view the space ship is armaggedon and maybe they should try to stop it. Just a thought.

I know what you mean, vmxa1, but launching the spaceship is not armageddon, at least not in the world that I like to see in the game of Civ (even though one might see it as one, considering the fact that it grants one civ a "victory"). It does nothing bad to the AI, it just fulfils my own goal. Besides, I don't consider their SS armageddon either (and never attack just to destroy it, that's the gentlemen's agreement I was mentioning). Yes, I can't achieve my goal if they reach theirs, that's correct. But then, if I am unable to finish my SS before them, I must have done something seriously wrong in the past and I deserve to lose - they've built a greater empire and it's time to admit that (and vice-versa... applies for the AI players, too).

I just consider destroying a rival's capital in order to prevent the SS launch a pretty cheap trick (just like bribing other civs before a UN vote) and I generally oppose the notion of teaching the AI players use cheap tricks.

I may have made more clear that I was talking exclusively about Civ3 SP. MP, now, that's obviously very different case. Gentlemen's agreements would be very hard to make, as the definition is quite fuzzy... the "immersive" approach can (probably?) work only in the SP, where there is only one human involved/having fun.

Cyclotron · October 30, 2002, 00:34

My point of view is this: AI is artificial intelligence... I want the AI to act like a human as much as possible. If a human would consider SS game over (which they would), then so should an AI. That doesn't seem radical to me, it just seems logical. I love to immerse myself in history, but I can't stand it when the AI doesn't play to win. I can't fathom how it would be a better game if the AI wanted to win at all costs in less of a manner than it already does. I know I do...

Pyrodrew · October 30, 2002, 02:52

Quote:

irrespective of what Pyrodrew thinks

And we know what an expert you have been with your accuracy on what I think...

Quote:

Everybody knows that Civ has always been about building great empires.

More specifically an "empire-building strategy game"... not an "empire-building roleplay immersion game".

Prior posts & the 2 quotes below handle Vondrack's other comments, including "Babs letting me build my spaceship"...

Quote:

I do not want in the middle of this, but vondrack, you could consider from the AI's point of view the space ship is armaggedon and maybe they should try to stop it.

Well said!

Quote:

I want the AI to act like a human as much as possible. If a human would consider SS game over (which they would), then so should an AI. That doesn't seem radical to me, it just seems logical.

Amen!!

Now we have run the risk of Vondrack & Akka saying we just don't understand their point, just so they can regurgitate it all over again... oh well...

vondrack · October 30, 2002, 04:51

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
My point of view is this: AI is artificial intelligence... I want the AI to act like a human as much as possible. If a human would consider SS game over (which they would), then so should an AI. That doesn't seem radical to me, it just seems logical. I love to immerse myself in history, but I can't stand it when the AI doesn't play to win. I can't fathom how it would be a better game if the AI wanted to win at all costs in less of a manner than it already does. I know I do...

Cyclotron, you puzzled me a bit... having just woken up, I have had to reread your post to get it.

What puzzled me was that the first part sounded like you asked for a more deadly (effective, ruthless, bot-like, whatever...) AI, but the last sentence actually said you were happy with how the AI currently played. Then we must be in the same boat! I, too, am perfectly happy with how the game works now, since it currently does not use "cheap" (albeit effective) tricks to prevent the human from "winning". I am not suggesting any change... just the opposite: I'm opposing a change that would lead to the AI wanting to win at all costs in more of a manner than it already does.

You are quite correct that the AI is supposed to be an Artificial Intelligence. All I want is intelligent AI opponents allowing me to play Civ3 SP in a different manner than Fantasy General or Warlords... I have no need for an Artificial Stupidity (or, Efectiveness) that plays Civ in a destructive way like another kill-'em-all game...

@Pyrodrew: I know I am breaking my promise not to waste any more time with you, but one more friendly advice... did you know there was this "ignore" feature available at 'Poly? Just click the profile icon at the top of any of my posts and on the very bottom of the screen, you will find a label "Add vondrack to Your Ignore List". Just click it and... voila... no more irritating posts by vondrack cluttering your brilliant thread. You should really consider using it, as you seem to be tempted to pay attention to my silly posts even though I specifically address them to other people. I admit that it may be rather difficult to ignore them, as they are lengthy and sometimes mention this or that from our previous argument... So by using the ignore feature on me, you would save yourself some wasted time and some irritation, I guess. Just an idea...

vondrack · October 30, 2002, 05:43

An interesting idea just crossed my mind... speaking of the level of the AI "intelligence" and how it should consider the conditions of winning, losing, or generally ending a game... have you ever realized that by conquering the last city of the human player in SP, the AI civs actually lose, too? 'cause the game is then pronounced over with the human losing, but nobody becoming a winner... a paradox, isn't it?

Developing this idea a bit further, if the AI civs hammer the human player to such an extent it is no longer in the position to ever win, they seriously risk the human will abandon the game and restart, allowing none of them to achieve the "desired" victory...

So, if we really consider all the high-level game-related logic involved, they have only one chance to ever reach a victory condition... to keep the human player around in a position that he believes he can win the game, eventually surprising him with a sudden death like in the UN vote or SS launch...

That sounds so plain absurd to me that I will rather keep believing that the AI players are there to make the game interesting & fun for me, to pose a formidable, but defeatable opposition to my goals, and not because of actually winning the game...

Pyrodrew · October 30, 2002, 06:24

Cyclotron7 never says he is happy, only he "can't stand it when the AI doesn't play to win". Personally, I am content with the AI overall now, but also can't stand it when the AI doesn't play to win. Like Cyclotron7 I also "want the AI to act like a human as much as possible. If a human would consider SS game over (which they would), then so should an AI." And this perfectly applies to my earlier Babylon scenario.

Quote:

Pyrodrew: did you know there was this "ignore" feature available at 'Poly? You should really consider using it, as you seem to be tempted to pay attention to my silly posts even though I specifically address them to other people.

Vondrack you honestly puzzle me, but I never found you irritating.

Your recent post is a new bit of irony.
1st, you entered this thread responding about a comment (ABCDEF) I specifically addressed to Dominae, not you. Now you are surprised when someone responds about your comments???
2nd, by placing a post in a public forum it is up for discussion by everyone. That's how public forums work. If you want to make a private comment to specifically 1 person, I kindly suggest the Private Message function (it's the 3rd icon at the top of a person's post near the center). Just press it & write away.

When you're done hit send. By doing so you don't have to worry about other people commenting on your genius dissertations. I hoped that helped.

Pyrodrew · October 30, 2002, 06:37

Quote:

An interesting idea just crossed my mind... have you ever realized that by conquering the last city of the human player in SP, the AI civs actually lose, too?

You're silly.

I'll let you apply that theory to other computer games for entertainment value.

vondrack · October 30, 2002, 06:54

Pyrodrew, I admit you have been gradually becoming a source of amusement for me, no kidding!

...even though I am no longer puzzled by you... and... to my greatest shame, I have to admit that sometimes... err... almost always now... I find your way of conducting a discussion rather irritating...

Alas, I have promises to keep (that wasting time thing, ya know), so I'm really sorry I have to resort to my own advice...

Dirk Zelwis, meet Pyrodrew. Pyrodrew, meet Dirk Zelwis. You better settle for friendly terms, as you will be sharing vondrack's ignore list from now on...

P.S.: You may wish to re-check where and how I entered this thread...

Pyrodrew · October 30, 2002, 07:31

Quote:

You may wish to re-check where and how I entered this thread...

But according to your logic since my 1st post was not directed to you, you should have not replied to any of my posts. You really need to make up your mind.

Quote:

though I am no longer puzzled by you...

That's r-i-i-i-i-g-h-t, your prior posts show you know what I think on stuff I never discussed before. E-Telepathic? You've also said you have knowledge of what "many, if not most players" want. There's just nothing you do not know, you're so gifted and special.

Quote:

to my greatest shame, I have to admit that sometimes... err... almost always now... I find your way of conducting a discussion rather irritating...

Yes, sometimes the truth hurts....

Quote:

you will be sharing vondrack's ignore list from now on

Um... you must have me confused with someone who cares.

player1 · October 30, 2002, 07:56

The agreement is simple.

The nation which first build the spacship will become ruler of the wolrd.

Now, if one the nations alone will they use cold war or HOT war to prevent other nations to win.

WarpStorm · October 30, 2002, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
The nation which first build the spacship will become ruler of the wolrd.

No, the nation that builds the spaceship will control Alpha Centauri while Earth dies in atomic hellfire. This of course, assumes that the spaceship doesn't get destroyed in orbit and the different factions...

vondrack · October 30, 2002, 09:16

Hm, this might make sense, correct... I guess I would still have my feeling of immersion, credibility, and common sense, if the SS victory was changed into launching some kind of an orbital "Deathstar" that would be able to rule/destroy the whole world. Then, it would make perfect sense to go after anyone and everyone constructing such thing... yep, that would be just fine with me.

OTOH, it would add a primarily scientific/economic goal a very strong militaristic flavour... so while I do agree it would make sense then, I would not be happy to have it implemented...

Or... wait... maybe I would!

What about adding a new victory condition ("Deathstar") that would be kinda like the current SS... err... not completely... actually, it would be a special compound unit (see below). The Deathstar would be much like what the SS currently is ("located" in the early part of the Modern Age tech tree) and would be a reason for other civs to hate you, gang upon you, and go after you. OTOH, the SS would be moved to the late Modern Ages, possibly changed to a small or great wonder (very cheap shield-wise, so that you would be able to build it, say, in 1-2 turns, thus making it almost impossible to intercept by enemy invasion) tied to the first Future Tech, representing the ultimate scientific development of a civilization (a victory condition meant purely for the "peaceful builders").

Furthermore, the Deathstar could be built not as city improvements, but as a special Army-like container unit plus special "part" units. Your goal would be to load all the part units into the container. Once the container contained all the parts, it would acquire the power to destroy the whole world (and finish the game).

Imagine, what this would mean for the gameplay in the Modern Era! There would finally be a valid, realistic, and FUN reason for things like World War 3! The techtree would finally make sense even up until the last tech.

Builders disliking things like worldwide bloodshed would switch the Deathstar victory option off and just go for the SS launch. While others (me included!) might not try to build their own Deathstar (since that would not be the thing they would love to see in their "real" world), but would happily fight anyone trying to construct one, enjoying the feeling of being the good guy saving the world from the Armageddon. And yet those that prefer crushing their enemies into the dust would aim for their own Deathstar completion, risking that the whole world unites in order to stop their wicked plan - they would have their ultimate challenge implemented in a rather natural way.

Guys, what do you think, could it work? I can imagine it could be implemented mostly within the current framework of the game, with no radical changes to the AI...? What do you think? Could it work?

EDIT: I like this idea more and more... I have created a new thread for it here.

tinyp3nis · October 30, 2002, 23:49

Oh wow, you really got a lot out of just few phrases I said... well let's see. It pretty much seems you think you know my opinions, maybe I should be really specific about what I mean when I post, but I think people should by default not assume without proof... ok I try to explain my post again before replying to yours.

Quote:

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?

If mil. victory is enabled the comps should gang up on the biggest nation in better fashion than they currently do, human or AI since it's their only way to win militarily. It's good for each individual nation too, not for the comp a whole, which is not intention here.
The second and third sentence tells about what I saw with my own eyes, Le Vil wants to play this game a certain way and is a somewhat preaching about it

Le Vil, if I misread you I'm sorry but somehow I see little chance for that, you made really clear what you said. I didn't mention you here vondrack I think? I'll try to reply to your long post anyway...

Quote:

tp, do not get us wrong... irrespective of what Pyrodrew thinks we mean, neither me nor Akka ask for ignoring or removing any victory conditions. What we both oppose is the notion that the AI players should be focused entirely on winning the game, or - even worse - on preventing the human from winning it, instead of creating an illusion of a credible world that is fun to build your empire in.

Do not get you two wrong?? I think I only mentioned Le Vil.

I do share some opinions with Pyrodrew, but I am capable of using my own eyes too. But removing is a strong word, I don't think even Le VIl would want to "remove" mil.victory. I think AI should consentrate _more_ on winning the game. It would be cool that the AI nation would try to prevent any nation other than itself to reaching victory, so they still had a chance to win themselves.

Quote:

Fighting my neighbours throughout the game because of the living space ("lebensraum") is fine. Fighting them because of resources and luxuries is fine. Entering wars as a member of alliances or MPPs is fine. All of these are perfectly valid reasons to fight in the real world, too. But attacking someone just to prevent him from launching his spaceship is a total nonsense in the real world... it makes some sort of wicked sense only in game terms... but even then, only if you misunderstand the nature of the game and the nature of the victory conditions.

You assume much, and _no_ it's not right even when you guess right. I have only adressed mil.victory in this thread so far, so why you tell me this? You got lucky that I do think AI should prevent others to launch the ship if itself has a reasonable chance of launching or starting building itself. I try too. Besides I think there should be a chance for peaceful players, i.e if they only checked the space victory box, the AI would only try to race them. But I don't want to try and balance the game here, so I won't get into any deeper

(hint there is a flaw what I said about AI acting differently, because it also affects the "invisible" difficulty level).
Also, the space launch is (as stated here) more than just the race to the moon. It's not 1960's, it's more like 2050's. It's in the distant future, so I think people are free to think how the world be in the future.

Quote:

There is only one ultimate "natural" victory condition and it is currently known as "Conquest". By eliminating every single opponent, you win. No doubt. To save players from conquering every single enemy city, there is the "Domination" victory defined - based on the (apparently correct) assumption that once you have 2/3 of both land area and population, you would achieve the Conquest victory anyway.

Not to hinder your point, but: Domination is actually harder and takes longer than Conquest on big maps (lotsa land), I assume that it's vice versa if the map is small. Not sure about the small maps since I haven't played them.

Quote:

Both these victory types imply extensive warfare and, let's be honest, Civ3 has never been a wargame. War has always been an integral part of it, but never the primary focus (if it was a wargame, it would be a pretty bad one). Pyrodrew almost posted a picture of the game box and a transcript of the manual trying to show us what the game of Civilization has always been about... as if we needed that. Everybody knows that Civ has always been about building great empires

Building empires is the main thing, and war is just a tool. How important tool? Let me qoute someone you trust:

Quote:

There is only one ultimate "natural" victory condition and it is currently known as "Conquest

I don't even need to say my own opinions about this

Quote:

But how do you define a great empire? Well, if your empire is the very last one in the world, it must be great at least in the sense that there is no greater one... But it is rather obvious that there are other forms of "great" empires - their greatness being the economic, scientific, and/or cultural strength. Alas, these attributes are rather difficult to quantify. To help players that do not enjoy the Conquest/Domination victories, the designers of the game set certain conditions defining "an empire great enough". The first empire capable of launching the spaceship is defined as "great enough" (you gain a "victory" then). The first empire to accumulate 100,000 culture points or to have a 20,000 culture point city is defined as "great enough"... etc.

...

Are you trying to sell me this game? You figured I dont know this or

??? Just wondering what this has to do with... umm with what?

Quote:

Note, please, that these criteria are purely artificial and do not - in any way - reflect anything in the real world. They serve only one purpose: being goals for players that do not enjoy destroying (almost) the whole world. By reaching one of these goals, these players (usually called "builders") can be sort of "sure" they succeeded in their quest for a great empire. Adds to their fun with the game.

Quote:

Now, it's rather obvious that these artificial "builder" victories should only be understood as achievements to be reached before others do. As soon as you start perceiving them strictly from the "win-lose" perspective, the logical thing to do - to assure your own "victory" - would be destroying the most culturally developed cities of the world, destroying spaceships... destroying... and that's the problem: the "builders" are not keen on destroying things (if they were, they would happily go for the Conquest or Domination victory), they are keen on building, on building greater things than their rivals, possibly in a credible world that resembles the real world (that is the "immersion" factor).

Please, don't stop!

Quote:

Thus, when Pyrodrew complains of "Babs letting him finish his spaceship in peace", we (that is, me and Akka, not to speak for others that didn't express their stance) say: and what's wrong with that? It should be that way. Building a spaceship is - in our perception of the civ world - an achievement to reach, not an achievement others should be prevented from reaching.

Why can't it be both? Why dismiss his idea?

Quote:

When Akka and me say we enjoy "role-playing" Civ, we mean that we enjoy playing it as if it was a real world (with its own set of rules, some of them quite unrealistic, I admit). A real world, where our goal is to achieve, to build something. Sure, to get into the position to build something notable, we go bonk some heads along the way... make no mistake, we want to "win" just as much as Pyrodrew. We are just as competitive as he is. We want to be the first one to launch a spaceship. We just prefer following certain self-imposed restrictions that basically say: do nothing that would be a nonsense in this "real" world (even if it did make sense considering the win-lose game conditions). And we are happy when the AI players seem to do the same. And we would be seriously unhappy if the AI players started acting like bots, nuking us few turns before our SS launches, just because they knew we would otherwise achieve our goal. That would spoil the fun for us.

Uhhuh. Go ahead, I'm not stopping you

Quote:

We fight our wars not to "win the game", to "destroy everybody else", to "prevent someone else from achieving the defined goals before us". We fight our wars because we feel that they are - at their time - necessary in order to make our empire better or safer. The Babs were threatening our northern possessions, so we carried out a preventive strike at them. The Persians signed a trade embargo against us with the evil Russians and wouldn't trade Silk with us... besides, they tried to blackmail us for our gold... so we declared war on them and quite rightfully took the luxury by force... These are things that add to our "immersion"... they could kinda happen in the Civ-world. But: The French were about to launch their spaceship, so we attacked them and destroyed their capital, destroying the craft in the process. Huh? Beg your pardon? Why did we do that? The French worked hard, researched hard, and (almost) succeeded to construct a spaceship... something no other civilization did before. So... why did we attack them? Just because we would "lose our game"? How pitiful... immersion gone.

I love you too man

Quote:

So, please, don't listen to Pyrodrew, when he says Akka and me want to take the competition out of the game. That is completely incorrect. We just wish the competition is carried under sort of a gentlemen's agreement that guarantees the whole civ-world behaves credibly and not just like a silly computer game that is only about winning and losing...

To be honest, I only said that Le Vil seems to try to diminish mil.victory.
I have to admit one thing, I didn't thing you didn't understand competion and such and had no opinion about your competiveness, but guess wh00t. EVenthought I didn't ask for it, now I do

Have you ever played MP rts? If you did were there such rules applied as no rush 30 minutes?

Ok, that was just mean of me , if you wan't to leave some rules out for ANY reason , civ 3 is SP, you are free to do so.

I deserve a p3nis enlargement for being arsed to answer this long reply

tinyp3nis · October 31, 2002, 00:00

Quote:

An interesting idea just crossed my mind... speaking of the level of the AI "intelligence" and how it should consider the conditions of winning, losing, or generally ending a game... have you ever realized that by conquering the last city of the human player in SP, the AI civs actually lose, too? 'cause the game is then pronounced over with the human losing, but nobody becoming a winner... a paradox, isn't it?

Would it satisfy you being able to watch AI's battle after your death? There is no paradox

The AI does not exist for itself, it is for the human being.
Like you said:

Quote:

That sounds so plain absurd to me that I will rather keep believing that the AI players are there to make the game interesting & fun for me, to pose a formidable, but defeatable opposition to my goals, and not because of actually winning the game...

Yes, but many wants the AI try to win... is that so hard to understand? Many consider this fun.

Cyclotron · October 31, 2002, 00:20

It's fascinating how my response was interpereted differently by each "side." This is becoming a little too bitter for me, so I'll just remain ambiguous in my precarious position of being agreed with by all.

vondrack · October 31, 2002, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
If mil. victory is enabled the comps should gang up on the biggest nation in better fashion than they currently do, human or AI since it's their only way to win militarily. It's good for each individual nation too, not for the comp a whole, which is not intention here.

Yup, this basically means having distinct or at least slightly tweaked AIs for different types of victory conditions used. That's one of the possible solutions I mentioned in a past post of mine. If it was this way, there would be absolutely no need for this whole debate - I would simply uncheck the military victories and enjoy my immersion... But unfortunately, there is only one AI that behaves the same all the time, ignoring what kind of victory condition applies. If it start behaving more deadly (in terms on ganging upon the likely-to-win players), than it would pretty much spoil the game for me, as I would HAVE to play in a different way that I like. It would be a pain in the ass for me.

I do admit though that the current state of the AI may be just such a pain in the ass for... how to say it... for those that play to win only (no belittling). But hell... if I want to have the game stay the way it is, I have to raise my voice, haven't I?

What if Firaxians actually read even this thread... I also admit that I believed "my" approach to the game was less rare - I even tried to find out what the actual ratio of "winners" to "immersionists" was in a poll. You are invited to vote there.

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
The second and third sentence tells about what I saw with my own eyes, Le Vil wants to play this game a certain way and is a somewhat preaching about it

Le Vil, if I misread you I'm sorry but somehow I see little chance for that, you made really clear what you said. I didn't mention you here vondrack I think?
I'll try to reply to your long post anyway...
[snip]
Do not get you two wrong?? I think I only mentioned Le Vil.

You specifically mentioned Le Vil only, right. It's just that I feel/play exactly the same way as Akka described, so I felt much like his "comrade in dispute"... and therefore responded to your post.

My post was not meant to find another "target" for an argument, but to clarify what I considered to be blatantly misinterpreted by someone else (not you!). My fault I didn't realize you had your own eyes...

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
You assume much, and _no_ it's not right even when you guess right. I have only adressed mil.victory in this thread so far, so why you tell me this? You got lucky that I do think AI should prevent others to launch the ship if itself has a reasonable chance of launching or starting building itself. I try too. Besides I think there should be a chance for peaceful players, i.e if they only checked the space victory box, the AI would only try to race them. But I don't want to try and balance the game here, so I won't get into any deeper

(hint there is a flaw what I said about AI acting differently, because it also affects the "invisible" difficulty level).

Sorry for overassuming...

And sorry for an incorrect wording. The last sentence of my paragraph should have read "...if one misunderstands..." or "...if ... is misunderstood." I didn't even think about if you did or did not understand this, it was meant as a rhetorical phrase only. My fault.

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Not to hinder your point, but: Domination is actually harder and takes longer than Conquest on big maps (lotsa land), I assume that it's vice versa if the map is small. Not sure about the small maps since I haven't played them.

Is this right? I thought for Conquest you needed to completely destroy every single rival civ, while for Domination you needed to have 2/3 of "everything" under your control? I understand there could be the map size involved, but basically, razing/conquering every single enemy city seem to be always more difficult than simply controlling 2/3 of the world... doesn't matter anyway... I play Standard maps only and seldom trigger any military victory. I am The SpaceShip Launcher... quite adept one, however...

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Building empires is the main thing, and war is just a tool. How important tool? Let me qoute someone you trust: I don't even need to say my own opinions about this

You naughty! How can I argue with you now when you used my own words?

But seriously... by "natural" I meant natural from the game logic point of view. When there is only one civ remining, it is free to achieve any other kind of victory condition, as it has no opposition - it is a total and ultimate victory game-wise. I did not mean it would be "natural" from the "natural" point of view...

bringing the world to ashes and declaring myself the "winner" seems rather... uhm... unnatural and uncivilized to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
...

Are you trying to sell me this game? You figured I dont know this or

??? Just wondering what this has to do with... umm with what?

Good point. You know, when I am writing my posts, I usually try to include not only my statement or opinion, but also the appropriate reasoning, assumptions, and/or context (often in detail), so that there is little to misunderstand. As it seems, I sometimes fail and make the whole thing just more difficult to understand...

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Why can't it be both? Why dismiss his idea?

Because if the only way to stop somebody from reaching a peaceful-by-nature goal is to go to war, then it is rather contradictionary... at least I feel so.

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Uhhuh. Go ahead, I'm not stopping you

I love you too man

You must now think I'm kinda

...

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
To be honest, I only said that Le Vil seems to try to diminish mil.victory.
I have to admit one thing, I didn't thing you didn't understand competion and such and had no opinion about your competiveness, but guess wh00t. EVenthought I didn't ask for it, now I do

This is really awesome. This thread might be as well renamed to "The Thread of False Assumptions, Misunderstandings, and Missed Points. Not only that I would never understand Akka's post as "diminishing military victory", but I would never thought you said he did diminish it!

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Have you ever played MP rts? If you did were there such rules applied as no rush 30 minutes?

Ok, that was just mean of me , if you wan't to leave some rules out for ANY reason , civ 3 is SP, you are free to do so.

I have to admit I have never been into the RTS genre (with the exception of playing through the whole of Warcraft 2, which resulted in me realizing I didn't like this kind of a game... later confirmed many times by "tasting" AoE, AoK, Starcraft, and other famous RTS games. I assume (beware! this may a problem in this thread!

) that such an arrangement implies rookies or otherwise disrespected players, right? Well, dunno if I would be for or against such thing... playing other humans in an MP game, my expectations gameplay-wide would be quite different from the SP... I play SP to enjoy an immersive story. I would probably play MP to win and win only (even though I would probably still try to behave much like in the SP... but my determination to avoid "evil" or destructive behaviour would be seriously weakened by my determination to win or finish as good as possible...

)

I would love to have a PtW match with you! There you would have a chance to check how competitive I can be...

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
I deserve a p3nis enlargement for being arsed to answer this long reply

Now this is awesome...

Really brightened my day!

May I use it for my signature? I would just add " - tinyp3nis after responding to a particularly long post of mine."

Just one final note: I have to admit that someone's posts and attitude in this thread really started me up... so I may have overreacted myself...

I know I kinda enjoy arguing and pushing my opinion, but usually do my best to keep the discussion polite. Which was not exactly the case this time... I wondered why... and why this idea of a "ruthless" AI was so alien to me and why I felt the urge to explain and argue to such great lengths my reasons to oppose the idea... and something crossed my mind. What I love about Civ3 SP is that there are "good" and "evil" (AI) players... acting a bit as if in a "real" world... adds greatly to my feeling of immersion (unlike in most other computer games where it's you, the good guy, and "them", the evil enemies). If all the AI players started acting the evil way, cooperating in order to destroy my SS (which I thought and still think was the merit of the argument), this special quality of Civ3 would be gone. And I would sorely miss it... errrr... ok, repeating myself again... forget it.

Anyway, thanks for keeping your response decent, even if my post was not to your liking...

(if it was or if it was not a matter of being or not being to your liking and I have just made another false assumption, just forget it, ok?

)

P.S.: If you ever need another p3nis enlargement, just PM me and I will help you deserve it... not a big deal for me...

tinyp3nis · October 31, 2002, 13:31

Quote:

Is this right? I thought for Conquest you needed to completely destroy every single rival civ, while for Domination you needed to have 2/3 of "everything" under your control? I understand there could be the map size involved, but basically, razing/conquering every single enemy city seem to be always more difficult than simply controlling 2/3 of the world... doesn't matter anyway... I play Standard maps only and seldom trigger any military victory. I am The SpaceShip Launcher... quite adept one, however...

From my experience, smaller nation than 2/3 of the world can wipe out everyone, and playing nation that is really big takes a lot of time. Domination is the only victory I still don't have, I once went for it on a large map and when I had 1/3 I thought I'm too lazy to build tons of more settlers and just rolled my MA's over them. In my current game I was stupid enough to leave Cultural victory on, I have less than 40 turns I think before I hit 100,000, and my continent alone will not cover 2/3, so I have to conquer outside my continent and I'm just starting to build transports. There are only 2 continent's in that map.
Hmm to make say things shorter, bigger nation takes longer to play, and Conquer victory doesn't need 2/3 of the world to produce enogh units to kill everyone. Also I don't use governors so ----> tedium.

Quote:

P.S.: If you ever need another p3nis enlargement, just PM me and I will help you deserve it... not a big deal for me...

But then I have to change my nick

Akka · November 2, 2002, 22:52

Quote:

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?

I did not bashed people that play for military victory, what I complained about was the mechanical behavior of AI's.
I don't like this kind of reasoning :
"he's big" => "he's more powerful" => "he's closer to win" => "I'm on the verge of loosing" => "let's gang-bang on him".
No matter if you were the most faithful ally for centuries, if you grow strong enough you WILL be backstabbed. It's mechanical.

I would like more "realistic" behaviors. I would like that, if a war is to start, it should be start in a more natural way. Not "I will attack you because you are bigger and it triggered me to attack because it will give challenge".
I consider ridiculous that a tiny little nation would attack a huge high-tech empire that never broke any alliance in 5500 years, just because it's "about to win".
I would rather think : "After all, we don't see Germany/France/UK sending troops to USA just because they are more powerful, do we ?"

If the player just want to make a bloodshed, fine, let's just say he plays as a Genghis Khan or an Attila. I don't dismiss military conquest, I dismiss the lack of "emotional behavior" from AI.

Quote:

What we both oppose is the notion that the AI players should be focused entirely on winning the game, or - even worse - on preventing the human from winning it, instead of creating an illusion of a credible world that is fun to build your empire in.

Exactly.

Quote:

Fighting my neighbours throughout the game because of the living space ("lebensraum") is fine. Fighting them because of resources and luxuries is fine. Entering wars as a member of alliances or MPPs is fine. All of these are perfectly valid reasons to fight in the real world, too. But attacking someone just to prevent him from launching his spaceship is a total nonsense in the real world... it makes some sort of wicked sense only in game terms... but even then, only if you misunderstand the nature of the game and the nature of the victory conditions.

I again mostly agree. Though, I could understand that the prestige gained through being the first to send an interstellar vessel would motivate rivals to prevent it.
But it would rather be sabotage than military attack (as a sidenote, I think that the "public opinion" should be made more present than it's already is), as I hardly see a prestige gain a reason enough to start a nuclear war with billions of deads.

Quote:

But how do you define a great empire? Well, if your empire is [...] can be sort of "sure" they succeeded in their quest for a great empire. Adds to their fun with the game.

Wholefully agree !
I don't see as the world ending when you fulfill one of the "victory condition". I rather consider it as a mark that says "this day, the nation/civilization of X has reached such a high achievement in military/population/diplomacy/culture/scientific that it can be considered the greatest nation/civilization of all times".
Remember the countless polls and discussion about "which is the greatest civilization of all times ?" ?
We see people that say "Roman, because though they disappeared, we still look them with awe". Others will say "USA, because they are the most powerfull by now.". Others "French, because they just have an impressive culture that changed the whole point of view of the world". Others will say "UK, because they had the largest empire ever". Others will argue "China, because they are the most ancients".
Etc etc.
See what I mean ?

I don't consider the victory conditions as "this nation suddendly became the ruler of the world, all other are doomed", but rather as the judgement of the future generation, that will "evaluate" your civilization.
Somehow like critics read books and determine which one is the better.
I then consider it absurd that a nation will attack me just because I build a spaceship or because I just have such a glorious history. It does not threaten it in any way. It won't make its economy crash, won't kill its population, won't overthrow its leader. It will just ensure that future people will consider that my civilization was "the best". It will only be about prestige. Something that anyone will look for (remember all the "fighting" between USSR and USA to be the first one in space ?) but not something that will justify war or agression or anything this like.

Of course, if you just attack everybody and/or break treaty, constantly, THEN it's a good reason enough to be hostile, but THAT is not what I'm complaining about

Thanks to Vondrack, here is the best sum up of what I think :

Quote:

When Akka and me say we enjoy "role-playing" Civ, we mean that we enjoy playing it as if it was a real world (with its own set of rules, some of them quite unrealistic, I admit).We just prefer following certain self-imposed restrictions that basically say: do nothing that would be a nonsense in this "real" world (even if it did make sense considering the win-lose game conditions).

tinyp3nis · November 3, 2002, 18:45

Quote:

I did not bashed people that play for military victory, what I complained about was the mechanical behavior of AI's.

Really? I was completely wrong then? Me need challenge.

Quote:

When Akka and me say we enjoy "role-playing" Civ, we mean that we enjoy playing it as if it was a real world (with its own set of rules, some of them quite unrealistic, I admit).We just prefer following certain self-imposed restrictions that basically say: do nothing that would be a nonsense in this "real" world (even if it did make sense considering the win-lose game conditions).

Keep on trucking.

Akka · November 3, 2002, 20:44

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

Really? I was completely wrong then? Me need challenge.

? I don't see the link.
I was annoyed to see how some people are ready to accept any stupid behavior from the AI just to keep the "challenge" up.
It was not about the "military" part. I myself enjoy a good war from time to time

It was about the "I want challenge, even if to do so the AI have to act stupid, destroying any sense of immersion and any possibility of roleplay".

Quote:

Keep on trucking.

Which means ?
(english is not my native language, so I sometimes miss the meaning of some expressions)

tinyp3nis · November 4, 2002, 03:56

Quote:

I was annoyed to see how some people are ready to accept any stupid behavior from the AI just to keep the "challenge" up. It was not about the "military" part. I myself enjoy a good war from time to time
It was about the "I want challenge, even if to do so the AI have to act stupid, destroying any sense of immersion and any possibility of roleplay".

Well this i.e. is exactly the attitude what I was referring to, but I don't care let's just drop this.

Quote:

Which means ?

Basically it means you can play as you wish.