 |
| |
|
|
Blake
|
 |
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:21
|
|
In SMACX, your AI pact mates would sometimes give you tech gifts, if you were weak and had a good reputation, and they were several techs ahead. Basically they pitied you, and gave you tech out of the goodness of their hearts.
They were however, fairly sensible about it. They wouldn't give you pity techs if:
They have recentely given you a gift (around 4 turns)
The tech has a un-built secret Project (wonder) associated with it.
You can be reasonably expected to pay for the tech (this shouldn't be mistaken with being able to pay for the tech by selling your right arm, left kidney and grandmother).
So they'll even give a gift if you CAN afford to pay, but are also very weak, so if the going price is 100 credits for the tech, and you have 200 credits, but are much weaker, they'll give you the tech and ask for nothing in return. IOW they are honorable enough not to take what meger possessions you do have.
You also can't *choose* what tech to recieve.
In Civ3 a game can get really hopeless. It'd be less hopeless if the AI had some human qualities such as pity and mercy.
The basic rules for choosing whether a pity gift is in order, for Civ3 would go somehing like this:
The AI must be several techs ahead of the player (more than two).
The player must be much weaker than the AI.
The player must be on good terms with the AI (never fought with the AI). The player must also not be snuggling up to the AI's enemies.
The player must have a good reputation.
The player must not have recentely received a gift (from that AI).
Agression should also play a part (less agressive AI's should be more keen to give pity gifts)
The AI should gift a tech with comparitvely little trade value.
Also, the AI should only give a gift when the Human makes an effort to trade ie there shouldn't be a option for "request gift" instead the AI will spontaneously offer the gift.
I'm pretty sure this wouldn't break the game, because The Rules would prevent a player from ever surpassing an AI on the basis of it's gifts, it would only serve to make a hopeless situation less hopeless. It would also infuse the AI with a much needed glimmer of humanity (and in that regard, the SMAC AI leaders are lightyears ahead of the Civ3 AI.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:21
|
|
Nations show each other pity only when it is to their advantage. When conflicts arise, that all goes in the crapper.
The English and French helped Native American tribes, as did the Colonies, when it suited them, against the Spanish, against each other. When the United States was formed, and the colonial powers faded from America, the reason to show pity was gone, and the natives were crushed.
So goes the world.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
In Civ3, you can launch an assault on AI civ, and after taking a few cities from them, you can literally blackmail them giving up all their tech advantages. If you do this often, you inadverdently end up on the top.
Playing the psychotic bastard is the way to go in Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
|
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:21
|
|
Oh I know you can extract tech from AI's with force and arm-twisting. I just think there should be a way without having to beat up your neighbours. Gifting would also provide a suvival mechanism for stronger peacenik civs. Provide avenues of play other than taking tech with force.
The motivation (advantage, if you please) is generally that the gift-reciever will feel indebted, thereby making them a sturdy ally when they are bought up to speed. I do this sorta thing all the time, I admit it doesn't always work (especially with AI's) but that's a risk and one I'm willing to take. It can also provide appeasement to prevent the weaker civ from becoming desperate and resorting to (what should be) desperate means.
Question: You are an underdog, there are two other civs. One laughs at your plight, the other gives you gifts of tech to help you in your time of need. Eons later you have caught up with the two civs, which civ will you favor trade with, and which will you eradicate?
quote:
Playing the psychotic bastard is the way to go in Civ3. |
This is also a peev of mine. Your pretty much expected to be a psychotic bastard. And the AI's are like fully automated mechanised psychotic bastards. It's not like making (some of) the AI's a little more 'nicer' would reduce the fun of the bastards (whom get to gleefully cackle about the gullibility of the gift giving civ). But it would make it more enjoyable for the more peaceful players.
A real life examples is USA and USSR arming weaker nations, in exchange for loyalty. And thats really how it works, you give a gift now, and the payment is in the form of future loyalty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Civ3's biggest flaw is that it penalizes you for playing peacefully and nicely.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
Well, this is definitely a good point. Although I would not call it "instilling the AI with a sense of pity", but "making the AI even more cunning".
Here is what I have in my mind: I, too, give techs away for free to hopelessly small AI civs. Somtimes just because I feel sorry for them, but mostly because by helping them, I am making the life of my serious opponents more difficult.
If there is a small civ or two stuck on a continent with one larg(er) one, I will often even give techs away simply to make the small ones stronger and more difficult to destroy for the large one. I may need allies one day...
I would probably be a bit offended if Cleo come to me and offer Free Artistry just because she'd consider me hopelessly behind...  So, what I suggest is making the AI understand the concept of "helping the enemies of my enemy". While instilling the sense of pity might be difficult, instilling this concept might be easier.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
opaque
|
|
England
Aug 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Civ3's biggest flaw is that it penalizes you for playing peacefully and nicely. |
True, but the fact that the AI was never agressive in CTP2 and that you were encouraged to play peacefully and nicely was one of the most complained about things with the game I thought. Then it was considered a dumb, not unagressive AI, and playing peacefully was somewhat boring.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by opaque
True, but the fact that the AI was never agressive in CTP2 and that you were encouraged to play peacefully and nicely was one of the most complained about things with the game I thought. Then it was considered a dumb, not unagressive AI, and playing peacefully was somewhat boring. |
This is not what I mean. I mean that the game scoring system only looks at your population number, your territory size, and the date of your victory. It doesn't take consideration of the techs you researched, improvements you built, cultures you generated, and Wonders you created. These are own things that builders achieve, but warmongers get high population numbers and huge territories quite easily.
To get good scores, you have to be a warmonger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
I agree that structuring the AI in this way would make the game feel more....alive to me. Immersive. And that would be a very good thing.
It'd also be nice if things worked this way in reverse. I have been locked in a war with a rival civ that, even when threatened with utter extinction (they've got one city left, I have sixteen bada$$ units parked right outside the gates...no hope of survival), and they STILL wouldn't part with any of their techs.
Stubborn is one thing, but c'mon!! So...I killed them anyway.
The way the game is structured at present, there's no good incentive to leave any civ alive in the long term. I can't form protectorate states (similar to "pact brothers/sisters or vassals in smac), so I can't count on a little civ's loyalty. I might keep them alive but hobbled, and squeeze them for money by selling outdated resources to them, but that's hardly the same thing as forging a real, meaningful, lasting partnership with a neighboring Civ. There's just no incentive to do that in the game, and that's too bad, because the game would be stronger if that were the case. I think that the mechanism Blake proposes would be a step in the right direction.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KingJoshi
|
|
Columbus, Ohio
Jun 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
The way the game is structured at present, there's no good incentive to leave any civ alive in the long term. I can't form protectorate states (similar to "pact brothers/sisters or vassals in smac), so I can't count on a little civ's loyalty. I might keep them alive but hobbled, and squeeze them for money by selling outdated resources to them, but that's hardly the same thing as forging a real, meaningful, lasting partnership with a neighboring Civ. There's just no incentive to do that in the game, and that's too bad, because the game would be stronger if that were the case. I think that the mechanism Blake proposes would be a step in the right direction.
-=Vel=- |
That's one of my biggest problems in terms of diplomacy. I would love to form brotherhoods or some for of bond with the AI, not just some mutual protection pact. But even when I haven't done anything wrong and they are gracious with me, they can attack me on the next turn some times. It gives me no incentive to be nice to them. (especially cuz you can give them a lot of free stuff before going for the UN vote if you want to win through diplomacy). And sometimes they attack me when I'm much stronger.
Even if I was equally advanced on techs, if the AI was "possible" of being friends with, I might give them a free tech. In theory, they "could" give me one later and we could help each other surpass other civs. You'd still have the prisoner's dilemma, since if you initiated the kindness, you wouldn't know if the AI would return it, but the possibility doesn't even exist as of now. I guess they sort of do that with each other. But they should be able to form that with me. Would lowering the AI-Ai trade rate to lower than 100 do that? Would that make it too easy?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2002 06:32
.
and disgusting cheat of settling undiscovered resource spots. Pleeeeease Firaxis, stop that horrible cheat. Warmongers love it, it tells them which enemy cities to take, and builders get penalised by having to build AMCAP (as many cities as possible) hoping to net the resources when they emerge.
|