06-12-2001 15:58									#1
	Please don't lower the game to the AI's it's level. Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I want a game with in depth startegies, long term planning and that involves a lot of thinking.

I'm fully aware of the fact that humans are better in that then computers but please do NOT lower the depth and strategical level of the game to the level the AI can understand it like humans.

I rather have a game with long term in depth planning with an average AI then a simplified game an 4 years old person can understand with a good AI.

You can still let the AI cheat or give him other advantages to make him better(only on high difficult levels of course). But a tbs that doesn't require brains and strategy to play is simply not fun.

	06-12-2001 19:52									#2
	Suffering from ads?

Just out of curiousity, is there something you've seen either here or elsewhere that specifically leads you to fear that QS might limit the depth of the game for the sake of the AI?

Or is it just vague eminations from your anxiety closet that are overwhealming you? If its the second, I'm sure we can find ways of helping you to beat up on the snorklewhacker behind those eminations.... cause I sort of doubt that a lack of depth will ever be a problem with MoO3.

	06-12-2001 22:42									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Bleyn Just out of curiousity, is there something you've seen either here or elsewhere that specifically leads you to fear that QS might limit the depth of the game for the sake of the AI? Or is it just vague eminations from your anxiety closet that are overwhealming you? If its the second, I'm sure we can find ways of helping you to beat up on the snorklewhacker behind those eminations.... cause I sort of doubt that a lack of depth will ever be a problem with MoO3.

It is because I think that they in civ3 in some cases choosed a better AI above in depth strategies and while I find civ3 in general a good game is that the thing that went wrong the most in my view.

But because I didn't wanted to end in a war between the radicals of "civ3 sux!" and "civ3 is perfect" didn't I mention civ3 in that post.

I also feared a: colonies as many plantes as possible, invent the biggest weapon, build a gigantica flied of ships with that weapon, attack->victory type of game. And where there is nothing else to achieve and no other strategies in the game, where you need just 4 brain cells to win(1 for colonize, 1 for research,1 for build ships and 1 for attack)

Many space empire games I played(like pax imperia, the worst game I bought ever) where like that.

	07-12-2001 00:31									#4
	Support Apolyton

IIRC, your second concern has been addressed by QS. Stormhound mentioned in a previous thread that actually wiping another race out will be a Herculean task, much less all the other races.

	07-12-2001 08:47									#5
	Tired of ads?

You're correct. Wiping out an empire won't be easy in Moo3, possible, but not easy.

Moo3 is about strategic depth, so the AI, if anything, will be pulled up to accomodate that.

	07-12-2001 08:49									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Deimos IIRC, your second concern has been addressed by QS. Stormhound mentioned in a previous thread that actually wiping another race out will be a Herculean task, much less all the other races.

This is the actual tendency of the TBS genre to render the eradication ( or the genocidal ) thing more obsolete and emphasize to a more hybrid empire building where the player should do well in peaceful compounds like diplomacy in order to succeed. In Civ III it is much more difficult to conduct extensive genocides next to the prequels and related classics; now MoO3 seems to level this to a more stable civish relationships between races until the end of a long game but don't get me wrong - wars should take place as often , and harshly, and the stuff available to read yet shows us they will be quite attritional instead of genocidal.

	08-12-2001 00:38									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by kolpo It is because I think that they in civ3 in some cases choosed a better AI above in depth strategies and while I find civ3 in general a good game is that the thing that went wrong the most in my view. But because I didn't wanted to end in a war between the radicals of "civ3 sux!" and "civ3 is perfect" didn't I mention civ3 in that post.

Funny but I thought FIRAXIS developed Civ3 while QUICKSILVER is developing Moo3. Why should the design document of one reflect in the desing of the other? Considering they have both been in the works for a long time now (with Civ3 released) to automatically assume Moo3 will be poor because another game wasn't to your liking is paramount to saying it will rain today because you stubbed your toe.

quote: I also feared a: colonies as many plantes as possible, invent the biggest weapon, build a gigantica flied of ships with that weapon, attack->victory type of game. And where there is nothing else to achieve and no other strategies in the game, where you need just 4 brain cells to win(1 for colonize, 1 for research,1 for build ships and 1 for attack) Many space empire games I played(like pax imperia, the worst game I bought ever) where like that.

Yes, I am hoping that this is better as well. I have faith in Alan (loved the Moo bible) and with everyone else at QS that this game will exceed most expectations.

	08-12-2001 02:18									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Funny but I thought FIRAXIS developed Civ3 while QUICKSILVER is developing Moo3. Why should the design document of one reflect in the desing of the other? Considering they have both been in the works for a long time now (with Civ3 released) to automatically assume Moo3 will be poor because another game wasn't to your liking is paramount to saying it will rain today because you stubbed your toe.

But It COULD happen that they will maybe make the same mistake like civ3 they also have a lot of there fans who demand good AI and that pressure could maybe lead to the same mistake. I just wnated to give a warning.

I didn't meant that MOO3 will be bad. I just feared a little bit that they COULD maybe make the same mistake.

But I'm not pessimistic nor optimistic about that we simply can't know how it will be(like my quote says)

	09-12-2001 15:30									#9
	Put an end to popups!

Well, the fact is that simple games with good AI (such as chess) can produce very complex strategies. I can't see MOO3 being a simple game though. And don't let the AI cheat, whatever he says, just don't. Cheating AI is BAAAAAAAD. Do it properly. AI & Balance are fundamental parts of the game that need to be done well.

	11-12-2001 05:39									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Let the AI do whatever is necessary to be challenging. High level AIs DO cheat -itīs in their genes.

But, please, kill the rush strategies in the cradle!

What I mean is: The following (CivIII) strategy should NOT work:

01 Hurry to build up a temporary advantage

02 Rush your neighbour

03 IF all players are eliminated: WIN

04 Goto 01

	11-12-2001 16:20									#11
	Tired of ads?

I really agree that AI that cheats is really bad and no fun.

But I also like to play a game that I can win (or lose) in a short amount of time.
In MoO 2 MP, I can win a game on a 1v1 in one hour, top!
In starcraft, it can be done in 15 minutes.

But if ou don't want to play a game to rush, fine, tell others that that game isn't allowed to rush! But sometimes I don't have enough time to play a whole 6-players, 6-hours (or more) moo 2 game, but I still want to play!

I hope I'm not thread jacking, but the rush strategies have been mentioned.

	11-12-2001 17:29									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I second the opinion that cheating AIs are bad. Or, if they cheat, let it be by knowing things they shouldn't rather than giving them unfair production advantage (e.g. civ): It's OK to cheat by letting them plan things much better than they should because they don't know things, but not to give them production advantages.
I can't stand 2 AI kinds:
The one in which the opponent, having less resources, is able to output more production: It gives a sense of being unfair, like if suddenly in chess a pawn changed into a rook when in the middle of the board. I can't do that!
The one which doesn't attack or seize opportunities (CTP2 if someone ever tried that, and even MoM, in which the opponents were never a danger at any level). MoO never had this flaw, I expect it will remain thus.

	12-12-2001 05:09									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Zealot But if ou don't want to play a game to rush, fine, tell others that that game isn't allowed to rush!

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was speaking about Single Player; simple rush strategies should never work against the AI; this is the nail in the coffin of any TBS. And no, you should not be able to finish a TBS in an hour or less. There is something dead wrong with the game if you can do that.

	12-12-2001 18:30									#14
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune I have no idea what you are talking about. I was speaking about Single Player; simple rush strategies should never work against the AI; this is the nail in the coffin of any TBS. And no, you should not be able to finish a TBS in an hour or less. There is something dead wrong with the game if you can do that.

Huh?
And what are you talking about? There's some bad communication here. I just gave my opinion about rushing in a game.
And really don't think that a TBS game can't be finished in one hour! In fact, it's even more funnier! For example, in MoO 2 MP, you can destroy everybody with Frigates loaded with MIRV nuclear missiles.
Is it easy to win? No, unless you're playing against a newbie. You still need to know the game pretty well, and have good strategies.
Is it fast to win? Well, it's a lot faster that having to wait for plasma cannons if your ultimate goal is to destroy your opponent!

MoO 2 is a great game, and its MP shows how balanced it is. Because all that technology available can be used to untie tied players. Sooner or later there will be a player that can achieve supremacy over the others, and that is different than having to build, build, build lots of ships. Yet, you can win a game if you just rush and use some appropriate strategies.

	13-12-2001 04:18									#15
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Zealot For example, in MoO 2 MP, you can destroy everybody with Frigates loaded with MIRV nuclear missiles.

I can believe that that is technically possible in MoO2. If so, itīs a design error. With a TBS, like with a puzzle, you should need to use just about everything thatīs in there to win the game, especially on the higher levels. There simply shouldnīt be a shortcut like you describe.

I realize it takes some skill to find those shortcuts, but those skills should be employed by the playtesters, and the shortcuts they find should then be killed. (Only the shortcuts, not the people who invent them, or at least only in the gravest cases. )

	13-12-2001 16:52									#16
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune I can believe that that is technically possible in MoO2. If so, itīs a design error.

No! It's not an error! It's your oppinion! You're saying that because you have never really played any MP TBS game!

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune With a TBS, like with a puzzle, you should need to use just about everything thatīs in there to win the game, especially on the higher levels.

What you're saying could be fun, but this isn't an RPG, where you need to have a really powerful character in order to end the game. Maybe Warcraft III will change something about that. Let's wait and see. But I don't think a player should be forced to wait to get to the "end of the game" (whatever you mean by that, either getting all the technology, killing all opponents, or something else).

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune I realize it takes some skill to find those shortcuts, but those skills should be employed by the playtesters, and the shortcuts they find should then be killed. (Only the shortcuts, not the people who invent them, or at least only in the gravest cases. )

Do you really think that is possible?
Starcraft is one of the most played strategy games ever! And it has changed its concepts several times!
For example: Carriers used to cost 300 minerals, and everybody seemed to go for Carriers and built lots of them. So about six months ago they released a patch increasing its cost up to 350 minerals. Now, for a game released in 1998, that is still heavily played, only in mid-2001 gets a tweak in carriers show how much testing a game sometimes needs in order to the developers find out how the playing standards are accepted by the playing community.

	14-12-2001 00:39									#17
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Zealot Starcraft is one of the most played strategy games ever! And it has changed its concepts several times! For example: Carriers used to cost 300 minerals, and everybody seemed to go for Carriers and built lots of them. So about six months ago they released a patch increasing its cost up to 350 minerals. Now, for a game released in 1998, that is still heavily played, only in mid-2001 gets a tweak in carriers show how much testing a game sometimes needs in order to the developers find out how the playing standards are accepted by the playing community.

You have a point here, but this is a tiny balance issue. At least there is no balance problem with the rules themselves; that at least they got right before release.

Second, Starcraft is not a TBS. I hate RTS games; imo, they shouldnīt influence the TBS genre at all. For example, I believe CivIII has been influenced by Age of Kings, and not to its advantage. Simplicity is necessary for an RTS, for obvious reasons, but with a TBS game, simplicity is not a necessary evil. Itīs *just* evil.

And again, you should never be able to win the game in the opening stage. I am more interested in SP than MP, and if Rushing is viable in SP, then where is the point in *not* doing it? You know you can always guaranteedly win by Rushing, which makes the entire game pointless in my eyes. There is no skill at all involved, once you figure out the method how to do it.

	18-12-2001 05:36									#18
	AI Suffering from ads?

A TBS that does very well with its AI is SSI's Imperialism I & II. The AI plays by the same rules as the player and makes no distinction between the player and the other empires.

You have the option to specify what, if any, advantages you want to give the AI's and a number of game conditions. All in all, it is very well done.

The user interface is very good also. Not a lot of excess physical stress required and easy on the carpel tunneling. And no placebo buttons (buttons you have to click to find out you can't use them)

I want to know that the AI is playing by the same rule book and gets information just like I do. The human and the computer have different advantages, but that does not justify giving one special privleges.

I want to play against an intellegence, not someting that is overpowered or omnicient. If I want to fight someting that is specifically designed to attack me I can go to the video arcade.

	18-12-2001 05:47									#19
	And Again Increase Your PM Length

For an example of a truely horrible user-interface and rampent program cheating borrow or steal a copy of Merchant Prince II (don't pay money for this travesty).

Ten years ago this game design would be shameful, as a 21st century second generation game it is unforgivable.

	23-12-2001 06:13									#20
	Starcraft games either last 5 minutes or an hour Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

i still remember this 3v3 where my 2 allies and myself were zerg and...
If moo3 has no risky payoff strats that either end in victory(or with some advantage to having taken the strat) or defeat(or loss of some kind) then it will become a do this and win type game. So that means that there will of course be, atleast in multiplayer games, short ones. I myself prefer longer games though.