Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts - Page 9

jscott991 · January 30, 2003, 20:23

The player might be trying to win the game, but the computer should be trying to simulate rulers of alien states. Otherwise what is the point? Why not just play Deep Blue at Chess, a real game?

kalbear · January 30, 2003, 21:16

I think that misses the point of the 'game' concept. Moo3 is fundamentally a game first, a simulation second.

It is not particularly fun for most people to play a game where no one ever attempts to challenge them for the victory. There is a very clearly defined set of goals in MOO3, and ignoring this fact for the sake of more realistic race relations only makes a worse game as a result.

What is the fundamental difference between playing a computer at a game of chess, and playing MOO3? Moo3 is only simulatable. Chess is not. There's nothing else, really - both are games, where the goal is to win, not to role-play the part of a kingdom. Chess players don't cry when they lose a knight because it was their best friend, nor do they lament the loss of a queen because she was great in the sack.

jscott991 · January 30, 2003, 21:30

The difference between an alien ruler doing the best for his empire and a player trying to win a game is what?

Its only gamesmanship. The computer as opposing states would do just as much to oppose you and provide a challenge as a computer playing only to win the game. The difference is the first computer nation would play rationally and the second might behave irrationally, such as discarding an age old alliance and declaring war for no reason other than that their ally has grown too powerful.

Frankly, the fact that this is being debated shows how far strategy and simulation has fallen in the RTS age. If people are really arguing that they want irrational computer players because they provide more of a challenge, then true TBS is really dead.

kalbear · January 30, 2003, 21:40

Well, not exactly what I meant. I've talked about this before.

There was an AAR that showed this brilliantly, I thought. One of the AIs was a long-time ally, and shared several worlds with the player. Another AI was also an ally, and was a bit weaker overall.

The player ended up going to war with two other factions, one of which was quite far away from his colonies. Seeing a moment of weakness, that first ally broke their agreement and attacked.

The second ally stayed on the side of the player throughout the deal.

Basically, I want AIs that will be good game players. I don't want an AI that stays in an alliance because they'll otherwise be crushed - I want that ally to go out and try and win through other means, perhaps get other groups to attack or sabotage me. I don't want an AI that will break my alliances with them for no reason - I want one that will do it because that will possibly help them win the game.

So, the difference between an alien empire trying to do what's best vs. winning? Winning means you might take losses on a grand scale. It's a coin flip sometimes, and sometimes it might not work out. It means they'll actively take chances for bigger gains.

I'll say it another way.

What I don't want: when I control 80% of the galaxy, the lone AI left decides that a stupid outpost is worth going to war with me.
What I do want: When I'm in the lead, my AI ally tries to get others against me, and prepares for a time when I might not be ready for a multi-front war.

jscott991 · January 30, 2003, 21:43

There's absolutely no point to having a diplomatic model at all if that is the game you want Kalbear. There is no point to putting in all these elaborate agreements and treaties if you want the AI to break the agreement in order to "win a game." You should just be enemies with everyone all the time, just you would be in a game of Chess or Hearts or Poker. Your version of a strategy game is horribly simplistic.

I have no doubt, though, that MOO will be just what you want. The AI of all the Civ/MOO type games behaves in this manner. Its irrational and a cheap way to increase the difficulty, but it does make the EU system look brilliant. I'm sure that pleases Paradox.

kalbear · January 30, 2003, 21:51

And the game you want is what, to always have you win by being able to be in long-term alliances where no one ever attacks you, ever?

That sounds like a horribly boring game to me, personally - like a game of Diplomacy where no one ever breaks any agreements no matter what. If you're into that kind of carebear game, by all means, but I'd actually like some teeth and competition from the AI.

Betrayal is just as much a part of politics as is loyalty. Having one without the other dilutes both. I'm in full agreement with Roland in this matter - the AI should do what works best for it and what fits it's needs the best.

Are you saying that, in a game, if you weren't in the lead and you could see that someone else was going to win that you had an agreement with, you'd let them win?

jscott991 · January 30, 2003, 22:00

First off, you will not be in a long term alliance with that many computer players, so I fail to see how that will effect your long term chances of winning or losing the game in the slightest.

Betrayal is a part of politics, but it should not occur for no reason. It should not occur because you have grown too strong. Why would your ally betray at the moment he is likely to have the least success? Or better yet, as happens in the Civ games, why would your ally betray you when you become his equal or slight superior, just when you are starting to become a valuable ally?

The fact is you want to play Chess. You want a pure wargame, with no semblance of a simulation. Irrational AI players who are interested only in scoring points and engaging in gamesmanship. Again, I wonder why include the diplomatic model at all.

RolandtheMad · January 30, 2003, 22:04

Quote:

Originally posted by kalbear
Are you saying that, in a game, if you weren't in the lead and you could see that someone else was going to win that you had an agreement with, you'd let them win?

Yes?

kalbear · January 30, 2003, 22:13

Because a diplomatic model simulates the kind of banter and talking in a strategy game, in general? That's the sort of thing that would otherwise be impossible to have. Making deals with other players happens all the time, just like breaking them does. It sounds like the AI is much more rational than most RL people, and certainly plays nicer than, say, I do when deciding when to break an alliance. From reading kebzero's latest AAR, sounds like he plays pretty mean too. "Ooops, I accidentally razed the Meklon homeworld...sorry bout that".

I'll state it clearly: I do NOT want an irrational AI. I want a challenging one, who doesn't care whether it's doing the 'right thing' when betraying me. I want them to do the right thing because without doing so, they'll not win the game.

So yeah, I do want an AI that isn't interested in simulating political pandering and detente, but is interested in fulfilling winning conditions. I don't want that AI to attack if it's suicidal, and I don't want them to attack if they will simply be destroyed. I absolutely do want them to attack me just as I might be getting useful, because I'm also a threat at that point but not too strong to take care of.

Or rather, I want the AI to have the potential to do these things. I want an AI that will weigh the pros and cons and decide. I don't want one that will attack me merely because I'm the biggest threat to winning, but I do want them to be aware that I'm the biggest threat and make allowances towards that, contingency plans, that sort of thing.

Again, I don't want the AI to attack when it can't possibly win. I haven't said that and continue not to do so.

This sounds a lot like CT's arguments from before. I'm not looking for a galaxy empire simulation in MOO3. I'm not looking for EU in space, nor am I looking to role play the part of a galactic leader. I'm looking for a fun strategy game with multiple opponents - and in any multiplayer game with a zero-sum victory condition, diplomacy is absolutely part of that. It's just not the diplomacy of a simgalaxy type of game.

This isn't a lack of depth on my or MOO3's part - it's a totally separate goal. I won't play SimCity 4 expecting to crush other cities around me. I'm not looking to rule all of Morrowind. I'm looking for a strategy game, one with many options and multiple strategies for victory.

Though I have to say, the talk about making a sim galaxy type game is sounding more and more interesting.

Harry Seldon · January 30, 2003, 22:27

Quote:

The player ended up going to war with two other factions, one of which was quite far away from his colonies. Seeing a moment of weakness, that first ally broke their agreement and attacked.

I think this is a fantastic move by the AI and I agree with Kalbear that this is desirable in my gameplay. Alliances are important but they should be a means to an end. I would be more than willing to form an alliance with a race to keep them from crushing me only to stab them in the back when they turned it to me. I want to WIN. Notice both empires didn't attack, just the strongest with the best chance of winning. It was beautiful subterfuge. I don't necessarily like to play MP games so it heartens me to see this AI respond more like my cutthroat friends would if I was playing them.

Finally, I have something truly nice to say about what I've heard about the game.

Harry Seldon · January 30, 2003, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheMad

Yes?

Seriously? Roland, you never struck me as the type to come in second place. Are you sure you're not flexing your diplomatic subterfuging muscles in anticipation of your first conquest?

viciouscycle · January 30, 2003, 22:39

The AI in Civ3 does not allways betray you. If you can beat another civilization into submission and basically turn it into a vassal state, it will be a loyal ally for the rest of the game. The AI in Civ3 isn't too bad... there are parts of the game that I don't like at all but the AI isn't one of them. The problems that have been cited regarding betrayal is when you have a substantial lead over the rest of the civilizations.

If you don't have an AI that reacts to rises in power by other opponents and merely plays a role, the challenge of the game is gone. Diplomacy, even in the real world, isn't about maintaining roles and static states. For example, France and the U.K. have been allies and enemies throughout recorded history. Diplomacy is a dynamic system.

Diplomacy in a game is a usefull tool if you know how to use it. That's part of being successfull in a TBS. If you can't figure out how to use diplomacy to help you win the game, then you're missing out on part of the fun. You have to carefully weigh your options when signing trade agreements and alliances and rights of passage and make sure that what you're doing will help your cause the most and help your opponents the least.

Having multiple empires in the game is what makes diplomacy necessary. You can play TBS games with just two players but that gets boring quickly and then there really is no need for diplomacy or trade of any kind. If you ever played any board games with friends where you could have multiple "sides" in the game, you would understand how important diplomacy, even on the side, really becomes. But you are all still trying to win the game! Chess is totally different because it is two players only.

Now I agree that I don't want an irrational AI. Far from it. I want an AI that is doing its best to win the game and make things fun and challenging. If all the computer is there for is to play a role, then you have a simulation, not a game. And I'm not saying that wouldn't be interesting, but it's not what I'm looking for.

kalbear · January 30, 2003, 22:43

I'll disagree about Civ3's AI - they did very stupid things, like challenge me with their cavalry when I had advanced armor. Just because they could take a couple cities.

Bastards. The AI should have a setting - 'understand irrational players'. Meaning that players have a very irrational view of their own territory and look unfavorably when they get attacked for no reason.

I loved it in SMAC when the computer player would rename towns it took. It was such a trivial thing - didn't change a thing in terms of gameplay - but boy did it piss me off. If I did it to them, it'd piss them off too. Heh.

All this talk of simgalaxy makes me wonder about the customization ability of MOO3. Is it possible to do more of a simgalaxy approach in the game through editors? Likely, I'll have to wait a month and see how well they do it in GalCiv.

RolandtheMad · January 30, 2003, 23:06

This goes in to how I expect the AI to respect my borders and how I would respect their borders in turn.

So, yes, I`d help another win if I was their ally. Who knows what could happen? Maybe by not having to concentrate on military I could get a tech win. Sometimes it is fun to simply be part of a winning team. Why must you always turn on the ally at some point? Why not carve up the universe between you?

I suppose I`m more in the roleplay group than the 'play to win' group. If I 'play to win' I`ll eventually find an unbeatable strategy (which is in *every* game, and will be in this one), then the game loses all challenge and fun. Roleplaying has many possibilities. You can roleplay the space Hitler set on conquest, or just another leader looking out for his people. The problem is that only the first one is really viable if provisions aren`t made.

To give an example of the usefulness of being a true ally - one time in Moo2 I started out poorly and in a poor position and I had a massive Meklar ally. For awhile it didn`t look like there was going to be much action in that game so I concentrated on tech. I gave this underdeveloped Meklar lots of my newfound tech but they still couldn`t seem to fend off the Sakkra hordes on the far side of their borders. I assume that since I was such a good ally yet neutral towards the Sakkra who I hadn`t encountered yet, they decided to turn over their people to my superior leadership and spare the citizens inevitable death and slavery under the Sakkra. It was a good move for all involved. The Meklars significantly boosted my industry and I went on to crush the Sakkra and all others in that game.

Also, what this game desperately needs are vassals and protectorates. I fought and fought for this back on Delphi but it was not to be. Oh well. Maybe they`ll be kind and throw it into an expansion.

Harry Seldon · January 30, 2003, 23:29

Ahhh! But both specific scenarios you mention were wins for you (I'm a little suprised by the moo2 one; that good fortune never fell my way). I'm eager to try to win in nonmilitary ways as well. Even in the other MOO games, a diplomatic win still required an extensive military campaign. I'm not saying I would always attack an ally, or even want an ally to always attack me. And I would agree up to a point that if I had no real chance to win I'd prefer one of my allies to win. I just wouldn't want it set in stone. That's the feeling I get when I read

Quote:

what this game desperately needs are vassals and protectorates

That almost sounds like forced alliances that MUST be honored. As I said, I'd like to keep the option open to attack an evenly matched opponent after lulling them with an alliance rather than racing for resources to see who will be the dominant force in our relationship.

Kc7mxo · January 30, 2003, 23:36

[EDIT: Nevermind]

RolandtheMad · January 30, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
Ahhh! But both specific scenarios you mention were wins for you (I'm a little suprised by the moo2 one; that good fortune never fell my way).

Well, speaking strictly from Moo2 experiences it is hard to find one that wasn`t a win for me. The Ai generally wasn`t trust worthy enough to be left as the more powerful ally. Once I allowed this and it turned out to be fortunate however - A Psilon empire and my Human empire split up the galaxy, then we voted the Psilons president of the Senate. It was a good game.

In SMAC I`ve went the game with a loyal vassal a few times, and I`ve held some good allies in CTP2, but like I said usually the Ai isn`t trust worthy enough to be allowed to have more power than myself.

Quote:

And I would agree to a point that if I had no real chance to win I'd prefer one of my allies to win. I just wouldn't want it set in stone.

Yes, that is why the middle path must be taken. Some computers must remain loyal and others must be less than trustworthy. Not knowing which is which add spice to the game.. but the loyal Ai must be seen and proven to exist first!

Quote:

That almost sounds like forced alliances that MUST be honored.

Yes, making them your vassal isn`t an even handed alliance. They are basically in servitude to you. The reason that it must be included is that it isn`t always feasible or desirable to completely obliterate an enemy. Sometimes you can force them to be your friends, and sometimes this is profitable. One reason for vassalhood that comes to mind is keeping them seperate from your empire to reduce administrative costs of occupying and managing their conquered planets.

Quote:

I said, I'd like to keep the option open to attack an evenly matched opponent after lulling them with an alliance than racing for resources to see who will be the dominant force in our relationship.

This is the middle path that must be taken. Will your ally be loyal, or when you`ve grown fat and complacent will they decide to harvest your decadent colonies? The thing is that the loyal empires must be proven to exist first! Otherwise there is no point in ever letting the guard down because we know that no allies are ever true allies.

As to racing for resources, that is your perspective I suppose. If it bothers you so much to be in the lower position in an alliance I guess there isn`t much I can say to you. Being in the lower position isn`t anything bad. An alliance is an even handed agreement to cooperate between two friendly empires. If the smaller empire is abused then it should be a vassal or protectorate instead of an equal partner in alliance.

patrickjb53 · February 2, 2003, 20:51

I think this will be a great game, especially after reading what the BT have had to say. It's always possible that some of the things that were cut could show up in a patch. After we start playing MOO we should start putting pressure on IG for MOO4 and the things we would like to see in MOO4.

Deus · February 2, 2003, 23:53

"I think this can be summed up best by this phrase:
A game is not the sum of it's feature set.
I'll say it again:
A game is not the sum of it's feature set. (...)
I'm not saying that lack of features makes good games. Far from it. But by the same token, adding features doesn't necessarily make a better game, and often detracts from it by adding complexity over fun. Some people like that; personally, I err on the side of fun. "

I like strategy games to be complex. With more complex rules you, as a player, have more freedom to make plans with imagination and strategy. There are more ways to win, and more deep and interesting. BECAUSE of that, in such games complexity IS fun. No one sacrifices fun to complexity. They use complexity to make the game fun. BUT lots of people, in fact, feel treatned by complexity. That's why moo3 is going to be much worst than it could be.

"So the most important thing that you should be asking yourself is not whether the features that were cut sound cool - because without implementation details or testing, ALL features sound cool - but whether the game, as you've seen it and heard it, sounds like a winner."

What do you mean with winner? A sales winner or a quality winner? Moo3 could have been both, but, because the managers went so obsessed with the first one, it is less likely going to be the second, and, in this kind of segmented market, maybe not even the first. Witch would be ironic.

"Does (...)?
You bet your ass it does. At least to me. (...).
(...)"

yes, it does. That's why I still have some hope. BUT I sure hope there is still some complexity left.

Jack Frost · February 3, 2003, 05:02

Amazing. The number of people passing solid judgement on a game they've never played.

Cutting features does NOT make for a less complicated game, some features are failed ideas.

Here is an example:

If you have ever played EU2, the trade system is completely pointless. Cutting the trade system completely would have made for a better game. It added zero depth to the game, was nothing more then an annoyance to the player and was a task that had to be repeated every min or two over, and over, and over.

another example:

Pollution in the Civ series. It wasn't realistic, it didn't effect your style of play, it didn't represent anything, it didn't require anything except a few clicks once in a while. Zero thought. It was an annoying task you needed to deal with every other turn late game. Pointless.

I mean there are thousands more, failed ideas, annoying implementations, in HoI the tech tree has like 400 seperate technologies to research. The fact that there are 400 seperate highly detailed technologies instead of 40 abstracted ones makes almost no difference in STRATEGY or play, but is a micromanagement nightmare since every 30 seconds you need to que up 5 more technologies that each individually have very little impact on the game.

Look, screw you with this "BUT lots of people, in fact, feel treatned by complexity" bullshit. I am just capable of understanding that complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't add **** to the game, doesn't make the strategy deeper, and doesn't add in any way to the game.

Just because you have endless paitence and are willing to devote days of your life to micromanaging mundane details in a game doesn't mean that somehow you are going to win the "hardcore gamer" award.

Harry Seldon · February 3, 2003, 09:24

Quote:

Just because you have endless paitence and are willing to devote days of your life to micromanaging mundane details in a game doesn't mean that somehow you are going to win the "hardcore gamer" award.

Damn. I'm going to have to find something else to put in that space on my mantle.

Grumbold · February 3, 2003, 09:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Frost
Cutting features does NOT make for a less complicated game, some features are failed ideas.

Here is an example:

If you have ever played EU2, the trade system is completely pointless. Cutting the trade system completely would have made for a better game. It added zero depth to the game, was nothing more then an annoyance to the player and was a task that had to be repeated every min or two over, and over, and over.

I disagree. The system was far from perfect but it allowed countries with historically strong trade links to punch harder than their weight. Venice would not be a player in the early game without its Centre of Trade, nor would it decline as easily were that CoT not diluted as time goes by. Ironically the system was much smoother as first conceived and released. It was a certain type of player that persuaded Paradox to make many nations far more competitive over trade in patches that led to some of the repetition you refer to.

Games should be applauded for striving to raise the bar even if they sometimes fail to smoothly jump their own self imposed hurdle. There are times when I'll happily play a streamlined 4-8 player game that can be reliably finished in an hour and enjoy its clearcut system. There are other times that I would prefer to pore for evening after evening over a more complex simulation struggling to achieve victory.

At the moment I'm undecided about MoO3. There certainly seems to be a lot going on. Whether the features turn out to be useful when we get to play or we find ourselves longing for something that is not there remains to be seen.

dashstar1972 · February 3, 2003, 11:32

Well, disturbed as I am by some of the cuts that have been made, I am still going to buy the game – no doubt about that.

IFPs seem to have some convincing arguments on both sides. On the one hand, they encouraged a personification of one’s role in the game and brought a new type of strategic choice to the game; on the other, as someone already pointed out, why put a whole lot of depth in a game and then prevent people exploring it? Then I read a post on the IG forums by Chantz where he pointed out a much more elegant implementation of the same strategic constraint: have ‘real’ limited time rather than a conceptual implementation of it. So, my understanding is that if you want to play a game with ‘limited time’ constraints, you can do it by way of setting a ‘real’ timer (however, I am not quite sure if this only applies to MP or SP as well).

As for the other issues, no refit does seem strange and even QS seems to acknowledge this. Many hints have been given that this is top of the patch list.

The other things I will sadly miss are those that allow for greater ‘personalisation’ and ‘player identification’. Things like renaming systems, choosing ethical systems, hiring and firing governors.

Lets just hope enough people buy this version to make an expansion pack (or heavy duty patch) worthwhile.

dashstar1972 · February 3, 2003, 11:55

Well, disturbed as I am by some of the cuts that have been made, I am still going to buy the game – no doubt about that.

IFPs seem to have some convincing arguments on both sides. On the one hand, they encouraged a personification of one’s role in the game and brought a new type of strategic choice to the game; on the other, as someone already pointed out, why put a whole lot of depth in a game and then prevent people exploring it? Then I read a post on the IG forums by Chantz where he pointed out a much more elegant implementation of the same strategic constraint: have ‘real’ limited time rather than a conceptual implementation of it. So, my understanding is that if you want to play a game with ‘limited time’ constraints, you can do it by way of setting a ‘real’ timer (however, I am not quite sure if this only applies to MP or SP as well).

As for the other issues, no refit does seem strange and even QS seems to acknowledge this. Many hints have been given that this is top of the patch list.

The other things I will sadly miss are those that allow for greater ‘personalisation’ and ‘player identification’. Things like renaming systems, choosing ethical systems, hiring and firing governors.

Lets just hope enough people buy this version to make an expansion pack (or heavy duty patch) worthwhile.

viciouscycle · February 3, 2003, 19:16

Complexity is an interesting issue. The most complex game that I have ever played is chess. Seriously. The core rules of chess are simple enough but the way the game works as a whole is incredibly intricate and incredibly fun. If you don't think the game is complex then please come give me lessons, show me the error of my ways... and beat Gary Kasparov while you're at it. Complexity does not come from rules; complexity comes from the strategies and tactics that one may employ in a game.

It seems to me that some people who are whining about MOO3 cuts are equating the number of features and rules to complexity and in turn equating complexity to fun. Have a little faith... I know this sounds crazy but what if the developers cut features because those features in question didn't add anything to the game, weren't any fun, were redundant, or led to unacceptable levels of MM? Crazy!

I'm not saying the game will be amazingly good but I hope it will be. Give the game a chance to succeed on its own merits rather than prejudge it by what features it may or may not have. If it turns out that it sucks, then we'll all move on and find other cool games to play.

Kc7mxo · February 3, 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Complexity is an interesting issue. The most complex game that I have ever played is chess. Seriously. The core rules of chess are simple enough but the way the game works as a whole is incredibly intricate and incredibly fun. If you don't think the game is complex then please come give me lessons, show me the error of my ways... and beat Gary Kasparov while you're at it. Complexity does not come from rules; complexity comes from the strategies and tactics that one may employ in a game.

You ought to give Go a try. I started playing a few months ago, its quite interesting.

Sikander · February 3, 2003, 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by viciouscycle
Complexity is an interesting issue. The most complex game that I have ever played is chess. Seriously. The core rules of chess are simple enough but the way the game works as a whole is incredibly intricate and incredibly fun. If you don't think the game is complex then please come give me lessons, show me the error of my ways... and beat Gary Kasparov while you're at it. Complexity does not come from rules; complexity comes from the strategies and tactics that one may employ in a game.

It seems to me that some people who are whining about MOO3 cuts are equating the number of features and rules to complexity and in turn equating complexity to fun. Have a little faith... I know this sounds crazy but what if the developers cut features because those features in question didn't add anything to the game, weren't any fun, were redundant, or led to unacceptable levels of MM? Crazy!

I'm not saying the game will be amazingly good but I hope it will be. Give the game a chance to succeed on its own merits rather than prejudge it by what features it may or may not have. If it turns out that it sucks, then we'll all move on and find other cool games to play.

There is a difference between breadth (SMACX) and depth (Chess). Chess is simple enough in breadth (number of rules, size of playing area, number of mobile units, terrain etc.) for a computer to absorb and analyse in depth (numbers of turns). SMACX is not, it is many orders of magnitude more complicated, so much so that it cannot even choose this turn's moves particularly wisely, even without wasting one nanosecond thinking about next turn.

I like this sort of breadth, because it is impossible to analyse the game in the same manner as chess, whether I am trying to do it or the tireless AI is trying to do it. You are left with something that approaches art rather than science in the way you might approach it. There is no perfect move, or rather there is no way to prove that any particular set of decisions made during a turn is in fact the best set of decisions, simply because you don't have the time to calculate all of the alternatives. Neither does Big Blue for that matter. This I find somehow freeing. I don't have to build my decisions from the bottom up, but can entertain thoughts about where I want to be in X turns, and try to get there via a hundred decisions that carry toward that goal over time.

To me this models grand strategy much more effectively than a purely tactical game like chess, and I like grand strategy. I like it not only for the difference in the modes of thought, but because it stirs my imagination. Chess has never really given me that sort of pleasure, and though I have a great deal of respect for Chess, it is really not my cup of tea.

viciouscycle · February 4, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

There is a difference between breadth (SMACX) and depth (Chess). Chess is simple enough in breadth (number of rules, size of playing area, number of mobile units, terrain etc.) for a computer to absorb and analyse in depth (numbers of turns). SMACX is not, it is many orders of magnitude more complicated, so much so that it cannot even choose this turn's moves particularly wisely, even without wasting one nanosecond thinking about next turn.

I like this sort of breadth, because it is impossible to analyse the game in the same manner as chess, whether I am trying to do it or the tireless AI is trying to do it. You are left with something that approaches art rather than science in the way you might approach it. There is no perfect move, or rather there is no way to prove that any particular set of decisions made during a turn is in fact the best set of decisions, simply because you don't have the time to calculate all of the alternatives. Neither does Big Blue for that matter. This I find somehow freeing. I don't have to build my decisions from the bottom up, but can entertain thoughts about where I want to be in X turns, and try to get there via a hundred decisions that carry toward that goal over time.

To me this models grand strategy much more effectively than a purely tactical game like chess, and I like grand strategy. I like it not only for the difference in the modes of thought, but because it stirs my imagination. Chess has never really given me that sort of pleasure, and though I have a great deal of respect for Chess, it is really not my cup of tea.

Comparing the AI for a TBS and an AI in a chess program is like comparing apples and oranges. Chess programs have evolved greatly over the past twenty-odd years or more. Think about how much research has gone into designing AI for one single game, chess, compared with the amount of time put in to developing the AI for another single game, say SMAC. If there was an AI for SMAC (or any other TBS) that was as good as even a freeware chess program (i.e. GNU Chess which can play at International Master strength) the game would routinely kick most everyone's a$$.

Chess is not a purely tactical game. Not even close. At least chess as played in standard tournaments. Blitz games... that may be different. The less time you have for moves, the less grand strategy can be considered and you are left with little other than pure tactics. I can see the same thing happening for MOO3 with multiplayer timed turns. The shorter the time span allowed to make moves in MOO3, the less long-term planning you will be able to accomplish and you will have to rely more upon tactics, reactionary measures, and short-sighted strategies.

With shorter and shorter time allowances in chess, the game becomes something else. People play entire games in a matter of seconds. Is this chess? Maybe... maybe not. Will the same thing happen with MOO3 when using time allowances that get shorter and shorter?

darcy · February 4, 2003, 03:50

Quote:

AN: Read: Off-road has (for now) one snag - once you have a "better" way, the AI pathfinder will plot the fastest course - even if it's through obstacles such as Guardians, New Orions and enemy AIs

(from latest AAR)

It's stuff like this which makes me lose faith in Moo3. After all these years, after thousand cuts, the developers still fail to provide a simple manual override for the apparently horrible pathfinding AI. It doesn't even matter how important offroad travel is: I want the freedom to make my ships take whatever route I want.

No, I haven't played the game, no, perhaps it doesn't affect gameplay all that much (although the beta tester had to sacrifice 180 ships to get past the bottleneck the AI forced him into). It's the mindset behind these decisions which bothers me. Apparently lots of eyecandy, alien languages along with deliberately erroneous translation, jealously guarding these silly little spoilers, in short, all this "eXperience" nonsense is more important to the developers than providing a simple key to force direct ship travel.

And the worst thing is, if Moo3 really does turn out to be crap and doesn't sell, the "market analysts" will conclude that nobody wants to play TBS anymore, although the only thing we don't want to play are badly designed TBSs.

[/paranoid rant]

Craig P. · February 4, 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by darcy
It's stuff like this which makes me lose faith in Moo3. After all these years, after thousand cuts, the developers still fail to provide a simple manual override for the apparently horrible pathfinding AI. It doesn't even matter how important offroad travel is: I want the freedom to make my ships take whatever route I want.

It's a definite annoyance (and has prompted about the only worthwhile thread in the bugs/suggestions forum on IGMOO), but it seems to be a relatively rare occurrence. At least one BT has stated that this will seldom be an issue.

I wonder if it's something that they just didn't run into in time, or if it was on the "gee, it'd be nice" list and just didn't make it in.