22-10-2001 20:50									#1
	Firaxis: AI and randomization follow-up questions Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark I think this is one of the first time I've seen a Firaxian address something about the AI and their tendencies. So you are saying that we can set ALL of the civs to the highest aggression setting and expect to get hit hard early? Or what about the opposite? If I set all of them to the lowest setting, will they focus on a peaceful diplomatic game? How will the AI act or react when something doesn't go their way (setting-wise?). For example, if a non-aggressive civ becomes cornered and the only way out is to fight hard, will it? In other words, to make Civ3's civs less predictable (e.g., Chinese always growing fast and agressive), just change their settings? But what if I don't want to know what the Chinese will or won't do??? And taking your Babylonians example. With them back-stabbing you EVERY game, isn't that too predictable? How can one hide or randomize the setting in the file so that a civ's tendency will not be predictable or known?

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS You could, in theory, set the aggressiveness to the maximum for all Civs and set the strategies to be similar or identical (i.e., always build offensive ground units, or whatever). It was really a conscious design choice, though, for each Civ to play a certain way, and this goes back to the "quality vs quantity" argument. To my knowledge there's not a "randomize" function right now that changes the AI personalities, but it's certainly an idea I can pass along to the team. And re: the Babylonians, perhaps I was being a bit dramatic about them "backstabbing", but let's just say I have had a few confrontations with them that ended less than fortuitously for me Some of the testers seem to really despise Gandhi so I guess a lot of it is just in how you play the game. Dan

Just following up on this exchange from a month ago. Was the “randomize” function able to be developed? If not, what provisions have been made to produce a truly random game where the actions and abilities of the AI civs are not known or pre-defined?

	22-10-2001 21:36									#2
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I sure hope randomizing is possible. It would be really lame to know each civs tendencies going into the game. Kinda eliminates a bit of the strategy doesn't it?

	22-10-2001 21:46									#3
	Remove this text

But apparently quite of few folks here think that pre-defined tendencies are a good thing, esp. with all of the talk about civ attributes and unique units/golden ages. Little do they know that after a few games, such predictability might reduce replayability.

	22-10-2001 21:47									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I think that they shouldn't automaticly randomize, but this should be a supported option when you start the game. Just like randomizing starting places and resources.

	22-10-2001 22:00									#5
	Got spare money?

Right! Randomize feature would be cool to use in lower level games. I think that when playing deity then i will just have to know in advance how will probably act who i find near me

	22-10-2001 23:22									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I'm all for tendicies because it helps give each leader thier own personality.

	23-10-2001 03:31									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Mike, since you are around (and a shameless bump to get this back up), can you comment on this, please?

	23-10-2001 05:17									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

In MP with friends (or enemies, iow, not strangers) you know that certain players act in certain ways, some players will turn belly up at the slightest show of force, others will fight to the last man against overwhelming odds. Some people have no honor and will use every underhanded trick in the book, others have no shame and will not hesitate to form alliances to save themselves.
Real people definetely have tendencies to be agressive or pacifist (camper), Wimps tend to consistentely wimp out once they think they have, Stubborn players tend to remain stubborn.

An example, when playing multiplayer FFA games of Red Alert 2 I have a friend which is quite predictable, invariably, once I have destroyed the majority of his army/base he surrenders (quits), he does this in 90% of games.
In contrast I always fight to the last man, if it's against overwhelming odds I do it to annoy the guy crushing me, if there are more players in the game I go down fighting to hopefully give the remaining players a chance to beat the guy which beat me.

Because our behaivours are at some level predictable, does this mean multiplayer must be boring? Would I be better of playing with complete strangers? Personally I enjoy exploiting others weaknesses.

The same with unique AI personalities, by knowing how an AI tends to act, whole new avenues of diplomacy and politics are opened up, you can try all sorts of tricks (like directing the agression of a frisky Caesar at another agressive Civ, instead of condemning yourself to a war with Caesar, you know the Romans are agressive, but you dont have to be the target )
So even if there is a randomize feature I wont be using it, because it removes a whole element of the diplomacy game...

	23-10-2001 05:42									#9
	Tired of ads?

I'd really like a randomize function for both leader personalities and unique units. Such a function would definitely add to the unpredictability and thus replayability of the game. Knowing your enemy before the start of the game takes part of the discovery process. Anyway, I'd like to see a belligerent Gandhi and an American Impi.

	23-10-2001 06:23									#10
	Put an end to popups!

The AI faction leaders in SMAC had certain tendencies that you could pretty much expect in the game. But there WAS a 'randomize faction leader personality' option in the game startup.

	23-10-2001 06:23									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

At least when I'm playing Civ II, I don't think to myself, "Oh it's the Zulus I know they're gonna declare war on me" I just pretend that I don't know anything ahead of time, so that I can really get into the game.

Afterall, Hammurabi didn't know that the Code of Laws he made would lead to Genetic Engineering. You just have to use your imagination when playing Civ.

	23-10-2001 09:46									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I suppose having the choice of 16 civs you can chose the ones that you want to play against. I liked the concept in SMAC of knowing what a faction was like because of their uniqueness rather than all of them playing the same. Wanting to kill Miriam in every game made it worthwhile!

	23-10-2001 18:20									#13
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If randomisation didn't make version 1 of the game I hope these sorts of features will make the multiplayer add-on.

	23-10-2001 18:32									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by SITS I suppose having the choice of 16 civs you can chose the ones that you want to play against. I liked the concept in SMAC of knowing what a faction was like because of their uniqueness rather than all of them playing the same. Wanting to kill Miriam in every game made it worthwhile!

Miriam was cool

	23-10-2001 18:48									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by knott Miriam was cool

Friend of my enemy

	23-10-2001 19:19									#16
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Blake In MP with friends (or enemies, iow, not strangers) you know that certain players act in certain ways, some players will turn belly up at the slightest show of force, others will fight to the last man against overwhelming odds. Some people have no honor and will use every underhanded trick in the book, others have no shame and will not hesitate to form alliances to save themselves. Real people definetely have tendencies to be agressive or pacifist (camper), Wimps tend to consistentely wimp out once they think they have, Stubborn players tend to remain stubborn. An example, when playing multiplayer FFA games of Red Alert 2 I have a friend which is quite predictable, invariably, once I have destroyed the majority of his army/base he surrenders (quits), he does this in 90% of games. In contrast I always fight to the last man, if it's against overwhelming odds I do it to annoy the guy crushing me, if there are more players in the game I go down fighting to hopefully give the remaining players a chance to beat the guy which beat me. Because our behaivours are at some level predictable, does this mean multiplayer must be boring? Would I be better of playing with complete strangers? Personally I enjoy exploiting others weaknesses. The same with unique AI personalities, by knowing how an AI tends to act, whole new avenues of diplomacy and politics are opened up, you can try all sorts of tricks (like directing the agression of a frisky Caesar at another agressive Civ, instead of condemning yourself to a war with Caesar, you know the Romans are agressive, but you dont have to be the target ) So even if there is a randomize feature I wont be using it, because it removes a whole element of the diplomacy game...

Blake: I read your post last night and wanted to think about it before I replied.

I agree that tendencies may be ok, but not to the extent of strategic predictability or limitations. One example would be starting techs. Why in the world would you and the AI civs start with the exact same techs every game? Shouldn't that be a factor on starting location, ala Civ2, instead of pre-coded, abstract attributes? In other words, don't you think that, when starting a new game, you shouldn't know whether you will get 0 techs or 5? I believe that such a thing we enhance replayability.

Here's a better example. What I prefer is for the AI civ to act like a human, albeit in a simplistic way. For example, some/many can radically shift from a peaceful strategy to a bloodlust one given the right situation, or vice-versa (or more typically, go back and forth a few times). It's about taking advantage of a strategic situation that will get you ahead and/or to win. I don't want an AI civ to ALWAYS be peaceful if certain situations demand them to fight out of a corner (or to retreat and rebuild if they come up a wall).

Let me use an example from a recent Imperialism II game. Playing as English on a random map with Spain and Portugal to the north, France to the south and Sweden to the east, all on one continent. I was determined to build peacefully into the latter stages of the game, despite the turmoil around me. I kept a close eye on the diplomacy and at one brief time, I found that if I declared war on Spain, no one else would declare war on me. Spain managed to get themselves isolated and since I was stronger militarially, I took advantage of that window of opportunity and gobbled up their provinces. Then I went back to getting even stronger while the others fought among themselves.

To me, it should be about the AI taking advantage of a strategic situation regardless of what their pre-defined "roles" are. I don't want to play a game in which the Indians (for example) are ALWAYS peaceful builders. I want them to come out fighting if they see a strategic advantage. That would be a challenging AI instead of one that would limit the AI's strategic options because it doesn't fit their "role".

But having said that, I do believe that there will be enough other factors to consider, ranging from geography, resources, diplomacy to culture, that even if each of the AI civs have hardcoded "tendencies", each game will be unique enough. I just don't like the idea of factions, pre-defined tendencies or other factors that would limit the AI civs in what it can or cannot do.

	23-10-2001 19:30									#17
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark But apparently quite of few folks here think that pre-defined tendencies are a good thing, esp. with all of the talk about civ attributes and unique units/golden ages. Little do they know that after a few games, such predictability might reduce replayability.

Right! I fully agree. Also, this borders on (mild) racism. Players are led to think of certain civs as "aggressive" or "wussies". Pre-determined racial templates... as someone here calls it in his sig.

I do think it will be editable, but it looks like it's fixed in the normal game...

	23-10-2001 19:35									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I have to agree that predefined tendencies for each AI civ limits the strategy a bit. As with most good suggestions, it ought to be an option to turn on or off.

	23-10-2001 19:36									#19
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Grim Legacy Right! I fully agree. Also, this borders on (mild) racism. Players are led to think of certain civs as "aggressive" or "wussies". Pre-determined racial templates... as someone here calls it in his sig. I do think it will be editable, but it looks like it's fixed in the normal game...

I think it depends on how much it is 'defined'. If it is painted with a broad brush then it can make it interesting. Otherwise you are playing against 15 versions of the same thing which I think limits replayability.