|
On November 22 2018 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Climate change in Civilisation isn't a big risk or particularily innovative. Civ 1 and Civ II had climate change...
...and you didn't even need an expansion to have it! As certain buildings are built like factories, do grasslands turn to plains and to desert or swamps. Though I guess cities actually being destroyed by ocean tiles is a new one, I doubt that will actually occur.
If you can't I will be really disappointed. I want to find the highest point on the globe and then flood the rest of the world for a domination victory.
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
On November 22 2018 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Climate change in Civilisation isn't a big risk or particularily innovative. Civ 1 and Civ II had climate change...
...and you didn't even need an expansion to have it! As certain buildings are built like factories, do grasslands turn to plains and to desert or swamps. Though I guess cities actually being destroyed by ocean tiles is a new one, I doubt that will actually occur.
Civ Call To Power had cities being destroyed by rising sea levels, interestingly
|
On November 21 2018 01:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ottomans (Suleiman)
Oh no... Not again with shitty "Barbary Corsairs" bonus... Can't we just get Ataturk?
|
On November 22 2018 11:52 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2018 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Climate change in Civilisation isn't a big risk or particularily innovative. Civ 1 and Civ II had climate change...
...and you didn't even need an expansion to have it! As certain buildings are built like factories, do grasslands turn to plains and to desert or swamps. Though I guess cities actually being destroyed by ocean tiles is a new one, I doubt that will actually occur. Civ Call To Power had cities being destroyed by rising sea levels, interestingly
Call to Power is still the best civ game made. I started a game about a week ago. Still fun even about 2decades later!
I have not been a fan of any of the newer versions of the game. The world space has been much smaller, too much of emphasis on quirky diplomacy, difference in movement and stacking, etc.
|
On November 23 2018 05:22 Kaz1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2018 11:52 Blazinghand wrote:On November 22 2018 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Climate change in Civilisation isn't a big risk or particularily innovative. Civ 1 and Civ II had climate change...
...and you didn't even need an expansion to have it! As certain buildings are built like factories, do grasslands turn to plains and to desert or swamps. Though I guess cities actually being destroyed by ocean tiles is a new one, I doubt that will actually occur. Civ Call To Power had cities being destroyed by rising sea levels, interestingly Call to Power is still the best civ game made. I started a game about a week ago. Still fun even about 2decades later! I have not been a fan of any of the newer versions of the game. The world space has been much smaller, too much of emphasis on quirky diplomacy, difference in movement and stacking, etc.
The game also had unmatched Diplomacy that for some reason hasn't been equaled in almost 20 years.
|
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators.
|
United States12238 Posts
On November 24 2018 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators.
My major complaint with recent Civ games is that the AI will actively try to thwart the player's win condition by any means necessary. That means that you could have civilizations who have been at war for millennia suddenly ally with each other and sneak attack you because you discovered Space Flight. You could attack and conquer Civ A, and despite Civ B and C never meeting Civ A, label you a warmonger without any proof and halt all diplomatic actions for the rest of the game simply because it's late in turns. It really takes a lot of the immersion out of the game when suddenly everyone in the game is against you just because you're doing well. It makes sense from a game design point of view, but there have got to be other ways -- more logical ways -- for AIs to stop the game from ending.
|
On November 24 2018 05:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators. My major complaint with recent Civ games is that the AI will actively try to thwart the player's win condition by any means necessary. That means that you could have civilizations who have been at war for millennia suddenly ally with each other and sneak attack you because you discovered Space Flight. You could attack and conquer Civ A, and despite Civ B and C never meeting Civ A, label you a warmonger without any proof and halt all diplomatic actions for the rest of the game simply because it's late in turns. It really takes a lot of the immersion out of the game when suddenly everyone in the game is against you just because you're doing well. It makes sense from a game design point of view, but there have got to be other ways -- more logical ways -- for AIs to stop the game from ending.
yeah stuff like this is why i pretty much go straight for domination victory in civ5 and 6 (and i still prefer 5 to 6 and play 5 more often than 6) and ignore everything else except make sure i stay close enough to the top in science production get a space race win if another civ is going for it as well and getting close. the diplomatic actions of the AI making zero sense half the time is less important if i'm constantly at war anyway *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
On November 24 2018 14:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 05:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 24 2018 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators. My major complaint with recent Civ games is that the AI will actively try to thwart the player's win condition by any means necessary. That means that you could have civilizations who have been at war for millennia suddenly ally with each other and sneak attack you because you discovered Space Flight. You could attack and conquer Civ A, and despite Civ B and C never meeting Civ A, label you a warmonger without any proof and halt all diplomatic actions for the rest of the game simply because it's late in turns. It really takes a lot of the immersion out of the game when suddenly everyone in the game is against you just because you're doing well. It makes sense from a game design point of view, but there have got to be other ways -- more logical ways -- for AIs to stop the game from ending. yeah stuff like this is why i pretty much go straight for domination victory in civ5 and 6 (and i still prefer 5 to 6 and play 5 more often than 6) and ignore everything else except make sure i stay close enough to the top in science production get a space race win if another civ is going for it as well and getting close. the diplomatic actions of the AI making zero sense half the time is less important if i'm constantly at war anyway *shrug*
This is why I want more 4x games to put end game "events" to add friction and resistance at the end game. Using the AI nations is one route, but as Excalibur_Z pointed out, it sometimes feels really artificial and gamey. Spicing up the final act of the game with some thematic events to alter the world state and power dynamics is a better solution than having the AIs turn on the player because they got close to dat End Game Tech.
|
|
|
On November 30 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2018 14:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 24 2018 05:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 24 2018 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators. My major complaint with recent Civ games is that the AI will actively try to thwart the player's win condition by any means necessary. That means that you could have civilizations who have been at war for millennia suddenly ally with each other and sneak attack you because you discovered Space Flight. You could attack and conquer Civ A, and despite Civ B and C never meeting Civ A, label you a warmonger without any proof and halt all diplomatic actions for the rest of the game simply because it's late in turns. It really takes a lot of the immersion out of the game when suddenly everyone in the game is against you just because you're doing well. It makes sense from a game design point of view, but there have got to be other ways -- more logical ways -- for AIs to stop the game from ending. yeah stuff like this is why i pretty much go straight for domination victory in civ5 and 6 (and i still prefer 5 to 6 and play 5 more often than 6) and ignore everything else except make sure i stay close enough to the top in science production get a space race win if another civ is going for it as well and getting close. the diplomatic actions of the AI making zero sense half the time is less important if i'm constantly at war anyway *shrug* This is why I want more 4x games to put end game "events" to add friction and resistance at the end game. Using the AI nations is one route, but as Excalibur_Z pointed out, it sometimes feels really artificial and gamey. Spicing up the final act of the game with some thematic events to alter the world state and power dynamics is a better solution than having the AIs turn on the player because they got close to dat End Game Tech. It's mopre of a case of short sighted AI. They should turn on the player about to win a victory, just as they should turn onto other AI who are about to win. The real problem I find is that you can never get the feeling that they prefer to win, with "characterful" diplomatic conditions which make some countries hate each other simply becuase they are peaceful, and the other was at war sometime in the past, stuff they like. For the most part AI civs just seem to trundle on till blandly and without thought till they are about to lose/win the game.
|
New Tech, and Victor promotion:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dPbsZT3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NdF5YOh.png)
|
On November 30 2018 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2018 14:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 24 2018 05:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 24 2018 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators. My major complaint with recent Civ games is that the AI will actively try to thwart the player's win condition by any means necessary. That means that you could have civilizations who have been at war for millennia suddenly ally with each other and sneak attack you because you discovered Space Flight. You could attack and conquer Civ A, and despite Civ B and C never meeting Civ A, label you a warmonger without any proof and halt all diplomatic actions for the rest of the game simply because it's late in turns. It really takes a lot of the immersion out of the game when suddenly everyone in the game is against you just because you're doing well. It makes sense from a game design point of view, but there have got to be other ways -- more logical ways -- for AIs to stop the game from ending. yeah stuff like this is why i pretty much go straight for domination victory in civ5 and 6 (and i still prefer 5 to 6 and play 5 more often than 6) and ignore everything else except make sure i stay close enough to the top in science production get a space race win if another civ is going for it as well and getting close. the diplomatic actions of the AI making zero sense half the time is less important if i'm constantly at war anyway *shrug* This is why I want more 4x games to put end game "events" to add friction and resistance at the end game. Using the AI nations is one route, but as Excalibur_Z pointed out, it sometimes feels really artificial and gamey. Spicing up the final act of the game with some thematic events to alter the world state and power dynamics is a better solution than having the AIs turn on the player because they got close to dat End Game Tech. It's mopre of a case of short sighted AI. They should turn on the player about to win a victory, just as they should turn onto other AI who are about to win. The real problem I find is that you can never get the feeling that they prefer to win, with "characterful" diplomatic conditions which make some countries hate each other simply becuase they are peaceful, and the other was at war sometime in the past, stuff they like. For the most part AI civs just seem to trundle on till blandly and without thought till they are about to lose/win the game.
I love this post because it highlights the different ways of seeing a Civ game. The one here is the boardgame view. You are playing a game, and the AIs are also playing a game, and the goal is winning by achieving victory conditions. Thus, it makes sense to gang up on the one about to win, because him winning means you don't win. This view doesn't really have any problems with "gamey" stuff, as long as the mechanics are interesting themselves, it doesn't matter if they are slightly removed from stuff that makes sense in a real world.
The other view involves more playing a role. You are playing the leader of a country, leading it through the ages. AI plays other leaders, and should act coherent in that role. So they shouldn't just start ganging up on you because you are about to launch a spaceship to Mars. Here, it is most important that stuff makes sense in-universe. The game mechanics should mostly represent real stuff (at some abstraction level)
Civ AI can obviously not fullfill both roles at once, and it has some problems in both these roles that have been highlighted before. But it is important to note that different people might view the whole game through a completely different lense.
|
United States12238 Posts
On November 30 2018 08:20 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 30 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2018 14:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 24 2018 05:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 24 2018 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators. My major complaint with recent Civ games is that the AI will actively try to thwart the player's win condition by any means necessary. That means that you could have civilizations who have been at war for millennia suddenly ally with each other and sneak attack you because you discovered Space Flight. You could attack and conquer Civ A, and despite Civ B and C never meeting Civ A, label you a warmonger without any proof and halt all diplomatic actions for the rest of the game simply because it's late in turns. It really takes a lot of the immersion out of the game when suddenly everyone in the game is against you just because you're doing well. It makes sense from a game design point of view, but there have got to be other ways -- more logical ways -- for AIs to stop the game from ending. yeah stuff like this is why i pretty much go straight for domination victory in civ5 and 6 (and i still prefer 5 to 6 and play 5 more often than 6) and ignore everything else except make sure i stay close enough to the top in science production get a space race win if another civ is going for it as well and getting close. the diplomatic actions of the AI making zero sense half the time is less important if i'm constantly at war anyway *shrug* This is why I want more 4x games to put end game "events" to add friction and resistance at the end game. Using the AI nations is one route, but as Excalibur_Z pointed out, it sometimes feels really artificial and gamey. Spicing up the final act of the game with some thematic events to alter the world state and power dynamics is a better solution than having the AIs turn on the player because they got close to dat End Game Tech. It's mopre of a case of short sighted AI. They should turn on the player about to win a victory, just as they should turn onto other AI who are about to win. The real problem I find is that you can never get the feeling that they prefer to win, with "characterful" diplomatic conditions which make some countries hate each other simply becuase they are peaceful, and the other was at war sometime in the past, stuff they like. For the most part AI civs just seem to trundle on till blandly and without thought till they are about to lose/win the game. I love this post because it highlights the different ways of seeing a Civ game. The one here is the boardgame view. You are playing a game, and the AIs are also playing a game, and the goal is winning by achieving victory conditions. Thus, it makes sense to gang up on the one about to win, because him winning means you don't win. This view doesn't really have any problems with "gamey" stuff, as long as the mechanics are interesting themselves, it doesn't matter if they are slightly removed from stuff that makes sense in a real world. The other view involves more playing a role. You are playing the leader of a country, leading it through the ages. AI plays other leaders, and should act coherent in that role. So they shouldn't just start ganging up on you because you are about to launch a spaceship to Mars. Here, it is most important that stuff makes sense in-universe. The game mechanics should mostly represent real stuff (at some abstraction level) Civ AI can obviously not fullfill both roles at once, and it has some problems in both these roles that have been highlighted before. But it is important to note that different people might view the whole game through a completely different lense.
I don't have too much board game experience where this is directly relevant, since all the board games I've played are games of perfect information, which Civ is not. If I were to reference a card game, though, it's kind of like playing Hearts where a player is trying to Shoot The Moon (collect all hearts + Queen of Spades). This is difficult to do because it involves mindgaming your 3 other opponents, and if you're successful you give everyone else a lot of points whereas if you fail, you end up getting a lot of points (the object is to have the lowest score). So what usually happens in these cases is one of the players will get suspicious and say "I think he's trying to go for it!" and all the other players will suddenly get more protective of deploying their point cards (hearts + Queen of Spades). Since Hearts is a game of imperfect information, nobody knows who has what cards in their hand, but the consequence of losing the gamble means that players will band together against the person going for the Big Play just because the risk is too great.
I believe the same is true of Civ. You don't necessarily know what techs a faction has, or how rich their economy, or how strong their army, as they close in on their victory condition. It makes sense that nations would band together to extend the game (and therefore, to ensure their own survival). The key difference is the allowable communication. In my Hearts example, everyone is playing together at the same table and socializing. In Civ, it's almost like people are playing Hearts in isolation booths, unable to communicate with one another to warn each other about the impending challenge. Each player may have their own beliefs and conjectures, and if they have open lines of communication through diplomacy or trade then it's okay for players to act on those suspicions. But if they don't have open channels? That's the part I have a hard time accepting. Some players may just be blissfully unaware because in their position, the risk is lower, or maybe they've been your ally for centuries and are thriving. But Civ AIs may just suddenly drop everything to turn against you even if it doesn't put them ahead.
I guess that's another significant component of my complaint: the AI generally doesn't play to win, they play to not lose. If the #2 civ is only slightly behind you, they're content with potentially falling to #3 or #4 as long as it means you're no longer #1.
|
|
|
On November 30 2018 08:20 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 30 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2018 14:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 24 2018 05:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 24 2018 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators. My major complaint with recent Civ games is that the AI will actively try to thwart the player's win condition by any means necessary. That means that you could have civilizations who have been at war for millennia suddenly ally with each other and sneak attack you because you discovered Space Flight. You could attack and conquer Civ A, and despite Civ B and C never meeting Civ A, label you a warmonger without any proof and halt all diplomatic actions for the rest of the game simply because it's late in turns. It really takes a lot of the immersion out of the game when suddenly everyone in the game is against you just because you're doing well. It makes sense from a game design point of view, but there have got to be other ways -- more logical ways -- for AIs to stop the game from ending. yeah stuff like this is why i pretty much go straight for domination victory in civ5 and 6 (and i still prefer 5 to 6 and play 5 more often than 6) and ignore everything else except make sure i stay close enough to the top in science production get a space race win if another civ is going for it as well and getting close. the diplomatic actions of the AI making zero sense half the time is less important if i'm constantly at war anyway *shrug* This is why I want more 4x games to put end game "events" to add friction and resistance at the end game. Using the AI nations is one route, but as Excalibur_Z pointed out, it sometimes feels really artificial and gamey. Spicing up the final act of the game with some thematic events to alter the world state and power dynamics is a better solution than having the AIs turn on the player because they got close to dat End Game Tech. It's mopre of a case of short sighted AI. They should turn on the player about to win a victory, just as they should turn onto other AI who are about to win. The real problem I find is that you can never get the feeling that they prefer to win, with "characterful" diplomatic conditions which make some countries hate each other simply becuase they are peaceful, and the other was at war sometime in the past, stuff they like. For the most part AI civs just seem to trundle on till blandly and without thought till they are about to lose/win the game. I love this post because it highlights the different ways of seeing a Civ game. The one here is the boardgame view. You are playing a game, and the AIs are also playing a game, and the goal is winning by achieving victory conditions. Thus, it makes sense to gang up on the one about to win, because him winning means you don't win. This view doesn't really have any problems with "gamey" stuff, as long as the mechanics are interesting themselves, it doesn't matter if they are slightly removed from stuff that makes sense in a real world. The other view involves more playing a role. You are playing the leader of a country, leading it through the ages. AI plays other leaders, and should act coherent in that role. So they shouldn't just start ganging up on you because you are about to launch a spaceship to Mars. Here, it is most important that stuff makes sense in-universe. The game mechanics should mostly represent real stuff (at some abstraction level) Civ AI can obviously not fullfill both roles at once, and it has some problems in both these roles that have been highlighted before. But it is important to note that different people might view the whole game through a completely different lense.
I'm definitely in the latter camp where I prefer to play Civ where the AI players are playing a role.
I don't mind playing some of the modern boardgames with finite endpoints and point systems but I dislike the classic ones like Risk. The problem I have with board games like Risk is basically what was stated above. Players can easily gang up on the leader and extend the game forever. Winning becomes more about one player persuading other players to finally let you win after the game has gone on for too long and everybody is tired and just wants to move on.
|
On December 01 2018 03:48 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2018 08:20 Simberto wrote:On November 30 2018 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 30 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2018 14:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 24 2018 05:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 24 2018 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A problem I have with more recent Civ games is that the AI doesn't try to win. Instead of replicating a human player who tries to win, it tries to be characterful and fulfil random diplomatic conditions that has nothing to do with winning the game, meaning that diplomacy is a mess as the AI cares more about random stuff or is otherwise easily manipulated.
If I remember in Call to Power, isn't it that coastal cities turn into sea cities if the tile get turned into water? I can't remember it was ages ago and I only ever played 1 game. I think the best thing in Call to Power was the various "diplomatic" units interacting like the Ecoterrorist which needed certain government types or the slavers vs the emancipators. My major complaint with recent Civ games is that the AI will actively try to thwart the player's win condition by any means necessary. That means that you could have civilizations who have been at war for millennia suddenly ally with each other and sneak attack you because you discovered Space Flight. You could attack and conquer Civ A, and despite Civ B and C never meeting Civ A, label you a warmonger without any proof and halt all diplomatic actions for the rest of the game simply because it's late in turns. It really takes a lot of the immersion out of the game when suddenly everyone in the game is against you just because you're doing well. It makes sense from a game design point of view, but there have got to be other ways -- more logical ways -- for AIs to stop the game from ending. yeah stuff like this is why i pretty much go straight for domination victory in civ5 and 6 (and i still prefer 5 to 6 and play 5 more often than 6) and ignore everything else except make sure i stay close enough to the top in science production get a space race win if another civ is going for it as well and getting close. the diplomatic actions of the AI making zero sense half the time is less important if i'm constantly at war anyway *shrug* This is why I want more 4x games to put end game "events" to add friction and resistance at the end game. Using the AI nations is one route, but as Excalibur_Z pointed out, it sometimes feels really artificial and gamey. Spicing up the final act of the game with some thematic events to alter the world state and power dynamics is a better solution than having the AIs turn on the player because they got close to dat End Game Tech. It's mopre of a case of short sighted AI. They should turn on the player about to win a victory, just as they should turn onto other AI who are about to win. The real problem I find is that you can never get the feeling that they prefer to win, with "characterful" diplomatic conditions which make some countries hate each other simply becuase they are peaceful, and the other was at war sometime in the past, stuff they like. For the most part AI civs just seem to trundle on till blandly and without thought till they are about to lose/win the game. I love this post because it highlights the different ways of seeing a Civ game. The one here is the boardgame view. You are playing a game, and the AIs are also playing a game, and the goal is winning by achieving victory conditions. Thus, it makes sense to gang up on the one about to win, because him winning means you don't win. This view doesn't really have any problems with "gamey" stuff, as long as the mechanics are interesting themselves, it doesn't matter if they are slightly removed from stuff that makes sense in a real world. The other view involves more playing a role. You are playing the leader of a country, leading it through the ages. AI plays other leaders, and should act coherent in that role. So they shouldn't just start ganging up on you because you are about to launch a spaceship to Mars. Here, it is most important that stuff makes sense in-universe. The game mechanics should mostly represent real stuff (at some abstraction level) Civ AI can obviously not fullfill both roles at once, and it has some problems in both these roles that have been highlighted before. But it is important to note that different people might view the whole game through a completely different lense. I'm definitely in the latter camp where I prefer to play Civ where the AI players are playing a role. I don't mind playing some of the modern boardgames with finite endpoints and point systems but I dislike the classic ones like Risk. The problem I have with board games like Risk is basically what was stated above. Players can easily gang up on the leader and extend the game forever. Winning becomes more about one player persuading other players to finally let you win after the game has gone on for too long and everybody is tired and just wants to move on.
I'm definitely in the camp where multiplayer Civ is the first variation, where everyone should play to win, but with AI I prefer a more roleplaying like experience. AI is AI and it is there to give the basics of the game, but Civ is definitely at its best for me played in a more boardgame like setting, LAN with friends, where both the ingame and out-of-the-game moves and relationships matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
