10-02-2003 05:36									#31
	Put an end to popups!

I think it hard designing AI's for most games. One problem is the diversity of the player’s abilities. Some players when they play on the 'Average' setting kick the computers butt, then other players like myself, get their butts kicked. So how does a game developer make a games AI so that everyone can enjoy the game. I believe by having many levels of difficulties, that a game can be made challenging for everyone (around 7 to 8 levels would be best).
Hopefully MOO3 has enough levels of difficulties to make it fun for everyone.

	10-02-2003 06:03									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

IG 1 was harder actualy. I played it on Hard and it was funny how easily I could win against big deadly computer's fleets. IG 2 was winnable on normal. It wasn't as much problem. 16 battleships? After they would attack 3 my planets they would be probably destroyed. AI was rather dumb. It was done by Hungarians IIRC, and they learned this: "if you'd wanna have good game, you must have goooood graphic." They are taught that on their schools. They concentrated so much on graphic so they forgot game behaviour.
I would not write how can you abuse AI in IG2, now. I'd be rather happy if you'd find some mistakes you did and win it without abuse of AI. From what you said, I think you were rather slow, or you didn't protected opponents of your biggest enemy. How many planets have you own? And how many planets did you take from enemy?

quote: reinsatlled

It must be really hard torture to...

	10-02-2003 06:18									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold If it has the jump on you just keep it capturing the same planets over and over by recapturing them once the enemy megafleet has moved elsewhere. Once you can build 3 of the best fortresses on your main planets you're pretty safe even if his fleets are overwhelming.

It depends on game. How many fortreses could be build on planet? IIRC i had 4 and they was destroyed.

	10-02-2003 07:02									#34
	Support Apolyton

quote: I dunno why Kc. I won the game on normal as all 3 races without huge difficulties both times I played through after an initial learning game. All I did was expand as fast as possible both in size and in technological development.

I dunno. I kept trying, and I'd ussually wipe out one or two races, but eventually I'd meet one that would just annilate me. But playing on easy, was absolutely pathetic. I never did try playing on hard though. So I dunno. For me, IG2 on normal was helluva harder than moo2 on impossible, and exponentially harder than civ2 on deity.

And fortresses? What are you talking about? My fortresses were ALWAYS getting smashed as far as I can remember. After my first couple games I stopped building them because they were the first things to get blown up.

Its been a while since I played IG2 though. Last time I tried it wouldn't run with my new video card. Just kept bombing out to desktop.

	10-02-2003 09:38									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

In GalCiv the AI isn't supposed to gang up on the person who's winning. Has anyone heard anything on how the AI in MOO3 deals with the winning player?

	10-02-2003 09:51									#36
	Suffering from ads?

quote: In GalCiv the AI isn't supposed to gang up on the person who's winning.

That's not entirely true. If the AI can ally itself with another civ and challenge the leading power it will do so. That means it will with you, too, if you're not the powerhouse of the region. If the AI can't find anyone to ally itself with for whatever reason, it will surrender when losing becomes inevitable.

	10-02-2003 11:19									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Harry Seldon That's not entirely true. If the AI can ally itself with another civ and challenge the leading power it will do so. That means it will with you, too, if you're not the powerhouse of the region. If the AI can't find anyone to ally itself with for whatever reason, it will surrender when losing becomes inevitable.

True. What i meant was, in the words of Draginol- "If you are winning the game, your friends remain your friends. In fact, they may want to move beyond friends and become your allies." I'm sure non-friendly AI civs will still try to gang up on you and kick your butt though.

	10-02-2003 13:21									#38
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by raghar It depends on game. How many fortreses could be build on planet? IIRC i had 4 and they was destroyed.

If you build your heavy fortresses inside your cities so that the tanks have to drive down your roads to get to them then it splits the attackers firepower. If you have 3 fortresses next to each other they ought to inflict major damage on the attacking force even if they get destroyed. After 2 or 3 successes the fleet will have to go home to get more tanks. You recapture your planets cheaply before the enemy defenses are built and rebuild the fortresses. Meanwhile your fleet is capturing and holding their worlds...

If the enemy fleet is huge you may have to force all ground battles to be played instead of autoresolving. The autocalc gives the attacker too much of an advantage that they dont get when its fought out.

	10-02-2003 23:17									#39
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: If you build your heavy fortresses inside your cities so that the tanks have to drive down your roads to get to them then it splits the attackers firepower. If you have 3 fortresses next to each other they ought to inflict major damage on the attacking force even if they get destroyed. After 2 or 3 successes the fleet will have to go home to get more tanks. You recapture your planets cheaply before the enemy defenses are built and rebuild the fortresses. Meanwhile your fleet is capturing and holding their worlds... If the enemy fleet is huge you may have to force all ground battles to be played instead of autoresolving. The autocalc gives the attacker too much of an advantage that they dont get when its fought out.

Oh, ground fortresses. I thought you meant space fortresses. My starbases seemed to be the first thing to go everytime.

I always had numerous fortresses barricaded in the cities, with the enemy forced to come to them. But eventually the AI would get orbital bombardment, and that would basically be the end of their usefullness.

	10-02-2003 23:33									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by ammt603 In GalCiv the AI isn't supposed to gang up on the person who's winning. Has anyone heard anything on how the AI in MOO3 deals with the winning player?

Dogpile, especially if it's the human. Quote from a BT:

quote: If the AI thinks you are going to win (or on the path to winning) it will declare war on you. The AI wants to destroy human players above all else.

Source:

http://www.orionsector.com/pages/faq/askbetas.shtml

About a third of the way down in a comment from "Lore Weaver". Sounds discouraging. I want diplomacy that makes sense, not a manufactured challenge just because I'm "winning". But, we'll have to see how it plays out.

	11-02-2003 00:45									#41
	Suffering from ads?

quote: About a third of the way down in a comment from "Lore Weaver". Sounds discouraging. I want diplomacy that makes sense, not a manufactured challenge just because I'm "winning". But, we'll have to see how it plays out.

Yeah, I prefer to play games like this for fun, not to win. And when it becomes obvious I'm going to win, I ussually just start over.

	11-02-2003 04:56									#42
	Got spare money?

One betatester makes a comment so it must be true....

Some people have the sort of playing style that makes the AI's dogpile them in any game. Of course thats the Ai's fault, not theirs for being useless at politics, assuming they even bother with it. I just love the "I'm the biggest baddest dude, everyone should fear and respect me" attitude of some players. You only have to look round the world now to see all the smaller players scurrying to get nukes and biologicals to increase their leverage while indulging in brinksmanship of the highest calibre to avoid getting crushed.

	11-02-2003 07:35									#43
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: "I'm the biggest baddest dude, everyone should fear and respect me" attitude of some players.

ANd if you take this attitude, then the AI should dislike you. But if you're right, then they should also fear you.

But if you don't take this attitude, but just happen to be strong, I don't think the AI should suddenly break your alliances and sneak attack you without any reason.

	11-02-2003 07:57									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"But if you don't take this attitude, but just happen to be strong, I don't think the AI should suddenly break your alliances and sneak attack you without any reason."

Well I'm not sure I agree there. Quite often the AI will do it's best to simulate a human player, and human players will certainly be inclined to attack somebody they think is about to win. Alliances will help somewhat, but ultimately most alliances don't last if your about to lose the game because of them.

	11-02-2003 08:27									#45
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold One betatester makes a comment so it must be true....

Like I said, we'll have to see how it plays out. Yes, it's the only indication of dogpiling that I've seen, but then again, he's one of the few who actually have the game.

I'm still caustiously optimistic about this game. I just hope that the late game diplomacy isn't a step back rather than a step forward (genre-wise). Irrational dogpiling sucks.

	11-02-2003 17:11									#46
	Suffering from ads?

Very difficult to define rational rather than irrational dogpiling. If you brush them off and destroy them its easy to accuse them of being irrational, yet it might have been their last best chance to prevent your victory.

My definition would be based around EU2 I guess. In various builds countries would declare war on you because your "badboy" status was so high they felt they ought to, yet they had made no prewar preparations and often would be incapable of backing up their words with action.

A nation that manoeuvers into a combat position, declares war and achieves a short term victory could be considered rational, particularly if you have been ignoring the diplomatic moves that would have soothed them. It is especially rational if (to go back to Eu2 again) their DoW will encourage others to join in against you. Unfortunately to really make it work you need the concept of occupied territory, so that a condition of peace may be the return of all lost territories plus a forfeit. That way 5 AI's may individually get badly hurt but eventually collectively demand a high price from the player as a condition of peace.

	11-02-2003 19:00									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Irrational would be my long-time ally with whom I have multiple diplomatic agreements suddenly attacking me for no other reason than the fact that I might win. I agree that those with whom I do not have decent diplomatic relations should become more and more hostile the stronger I get, and even my allies should be harder to appease if I'm warmongering all over the universe. But they should be harder to appease, not impossible to appease.

	11-02-2003 19:01									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold You only have to look round the world now to see all the smaller players scurrying to get nukes and biologicals to increase their leverage while indulging in brinksmanship of the highest calibre to avoid getting crushed.

Or to indulge in their maniacal tendencies to TAKE what they want by force while trying to prevent the bigger kids on the block from helping the smaller due to the increased threat.

Don't be confused with life and a game, just because a nation is small doesn't automatically make them a victim and unlike the game realm in reailty there is usually someone bigger around who will help the small, picked on nations. The UN coalition, led by the US to free Kuwait from Iraq is a prime example of a smaller nation being helped defend against a larger agressor.

	11-02-2003 19:08									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Stuie Irrational would be my long-time ally with whom I have multiple diplomatic agreements suddenly attacking me for no other reason than the fact that I might win. I agree that those with whom I do not have decent diplomatic relations should become more and more hostile the stronger I get, and even my allies should be harder to appease if I'm warmongering all over the universe. But they should be harder to appease, not impossible to appease.

I agree with this. Most of the previous 4X type games before Civ3 woulkd automatically have the AI declare war on the human player simply because the human player was becomming powerful. A "real" example of this would be if England had suddenly cancelled all treaties and declared war on the US during WW2 when it became obvious that the US was becomming powerful and would contribute the majority of the winning war effort.

It doesn't make sense to have an AI who you have been peaceful with and/or who has been an ally in fighting others simply declare war out of the blue, even if you have done much diplomacy, as is the piss-poor attempt at AI that most game companies throw in for added challenge. If you haven't attacked a particular AI and have binding treaties, they shouldn't attack you unless severely provoked. Civ3 was the first game in which I have seen the AI act "rationally" in all my years of playing various 4X games.

	11-02-2003 21:29									#50
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ozymandous Or to indulge in their maniacal tendencies to TAKE what they want by force while trying to prevent the bigger kids on the block from helping the smaller due to the increased threat. Don't be confused with life and a game, just because a nation is small doesn't automatically make them a victim and unlike the game realm in reailty there is usually someone bigger around who will help the small, picked on nations. The UN coalition, led by the US to free Kuwait from Iraq is a prime example of a smaller nation being helped defend against a larger agressor.

I think you read more into my comment than was there. There is virtually no nation at this present time that does not aspire to having a nuclear capability. Either because it makes them more powerful or because they fear the consequences if someone they are on bad terms with gets them first. The small guys are not the victims, no. Neither are the big guys who already have nuclear weapons and like to mould the world to suit their interests.

	11-02-2003 21:30									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Civ3 was the first game in which I have seen the AI act "rationally" in all my years of playing various 4X games.

If you were willing to ignore the AI's extrodinarily long memory. . . Stupid thing would start a war, you'd whoop it, and it would never forgive you. Damn zulus.

	11-02-2003 21:49									#52
	Increase Your PM Length

Here is a link http://www.twistedmonkey.net/

It shows a review of MOO3 .He likes the game very much but complains about the "the broken Diplomacy" He claims that "The AI will always go to war".

	11-02-2003 21:51									#53
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ozymandous I agree with this. Most of the previous 4X type games before Civ3 woulkd automatically have the AI declare war on the human player simply because the human player was becomming powerful. A "real" example of this would be if England had suddenly cancelled all treaties and declared war on the US during WW2 when it became obvious that the US was becomming powerful and would contribute the majority of the winning war effort. It doesn't make sense to have an AI who you have been peaceful with and/or who has been an ally in fighting others simply declare war out of the blue, even if you have done much diplomacy, as is the piss-poor attempt at AI that most game companies throw in for added challenge. If you haven't attacked a particular AI and have binding treaties, they shouldn't attack you unless severely provoked. Civ3 was the first game in which I have seen the AI act "rationally" in all my years of playing various 4X games.

You and I have very different opinions of Civ 3 so I won't go there. European history is absolutely chock full of examples of alliances of convenience and switching power blocks all attempting to either obtain dominance, crush a hated enemy no matter what the cost or just survive while keeping one eye out for the Pope in case they get threatened with excommunication. One minute the Turks are the enemy and it is every mans duty to support the crusade. The next the French are aiding the Turks to put a check on the power of the Emperor. Alliances don't last. Thats real politics.

In this century only years after being the terror of the continent Germany was one of the bastions of the West against Russia, whom the Allies almost fought at the time. The minute Russia gets weakened NATO stats bickering internally because its different members were really only allies of convenience, not lifelong idealogical soulmates.

A game turn in these things is usually 1 or more years. Can a nation/ planet/ civilsation be fighting one another one century, allies the next and warring again by the third? You bet. Just about every country on our planet has done it and its that sort of behaviour we try to model. Should aliens be more reliable and trustworthy?

So should an "ally" which you drop a bit of tech to occasionally declare war on you when you are at peace? Absolutely not. Should they decide to take a chance when you're embroiled in another internecine war and they figure sooner or later they're going to be next because you're running out of victims? Hell yes! Especially if the diplomatic model allows them to ally with your other enemies as a matter of convenience.

	11-02-2003 21:59									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: There's a fair amount to complain about as well, unfortunately. The first thing anyone will notice is that the graphics look like absolute ass. The menus and UI resemble some interfaces I saw back in the 386 days, and a lot of the pretty things you saw even in MOO2 while navigating your fleets, planets, etc, have now been placed with just straight charts and control panels, which at some point makes me feel like I'm playing a spreadsheet. On the plus side, once you get engrossed in the game, you won't notice the graphics anymore, so this is negligible. The diplomacy, though it includes a bunch of cool new features, seems fundamentally broken to me. I've designed races that have no greater purpose or ability than to sweet-talk alien nations, and I've been unable to keep even them out of pointless, arbitrary wars. When alien races get upset with you, there's never any context in their messages as to why they're mad, and a lot of times I have no idea what we're going to war over. Also, once you're in a war, good luck ever ending peacefully. Every time I've ended a war with a race, they declared war on me again within 3 turns. Finally, the queuing system for building stuff absolutely sucks. The icons showing what a planet is building are absolutely useless unless you delve several menu levels deep into a planetary information screen, changing things around is a pain in the ass, and you can only queue up 3 things at a time. This means that a lot of times, you'll drop the ball and forget to update a queue once the initial 3 items you set are done, and the viceroy will waste countless system resources building **** that you don't need or want. Quicksilver: It should be easier to look at and update the queue for any planet, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you set the queue limit at 3. It seems arbitrary and stupid to me. Sorry.

so this is negligible. The diplomacy, though it includes a bunch of cool new features, seems fundamentally broken to me. I've designed races that have no greater purpose or ability than to sweet-talk alien nations, and I've been unable to keep even them out of pointless, arbitrary wars. When alien races get upset with you, there's never any context in their messages as to why they're mad, and a lot of times I have no idea what we're going to war over. Also, once you're in a war, good luck ever ending peacefully. Every time I've ended a war with a race, they declared war on me again within 3 turns.

http://www.twistedmonkey.net/

	11-02-2003 22:09									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Perhaps once he's played another 10 hours he will have a pretty good idea why they declare war. Who knows?

I'm reminded of Civ III and many other games where the feelings espoused in the first flush of acquisition by reviewers and forum regulars alike was markedly different to those same peoples' opinions a month later (mine included.)

	11-02-2003 22:10									#56
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Interesting. I'm not familiar with SM's reviewing style - what games he likes/doesn't like - but he makes some fairly good points. What I don't get is that virtually none of the AARs have this kind of warmongering feel in diplomacy - at least not by the AI itself. I wonder if he made some wacky Ithkul diplomat race and went after the pacification of the universe, the hard way. That would be...well, really funny.

He's also the third reviewer we've heard from in a row that's talked about the massive complexity of the 'simplified' game.

	11-02-2003 22:17									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yeah I'd expect it of magazine authors who probably were hoping for a list of spaceship powerups and instructions about which keys to press to warp, dock and switch between weapons. Interesting coming from someone who claims not only to know Moo2 but to have played it.

	12-02-2003 01:04									#58
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: So should an "ally" which you drop a bit of tech to occasionally declare war on you when you are at peace? Absolutely not. Should they decide to take a chance when you're embroiled in another internecine war and they figure sooner or later they're going to be next because you're running out of victims? Hell yes! Especially if the diplomatic model allows them to ally with your other enemies as a matter of convenience.

The english didn't invade the US while we were off fighting in afghanistan. Heck, they were there helping us. And we're basically a bunch of rebels who gave them the finger two hundred years ago. . .

Alliances between countries of cultures friendly to one another can often last a very long time. Thats the kind of alliances I'd like to see in games. I don't want to see the meklars (who I've been allied with for two hundred years) suddenly invade me when I happen to declare war on the Sakra.

	12-02-2003 02:13									#59
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I don't mind if the AIs all turn against the winning player, after all that's the logical thing to do for someone who wants to win the game himself.

What I don't like is being treated any differently just because I'm not an AI. Artificial sympathy among un-allied AIs is a really cheap workaround and on the same level as other artificial AI cheat bonusses.

	12-02-2003 02:25									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think I might understand his (the reveiwer who said stuff today and complained about the diplomacy) diplomacy complaints....

if he was trying to sweettalk everybody, as he says, it would piss of the Sakkra and other races like that.....they only respect strength and tough words. If you sweettalk them they will attack you.

Also, the AI races wont just let you sit there undefended, just because your diplomacy skills are good....you need SOME defense....at least for SOME of the races to not attack you. (the peaceful ones like trilarians wil likely want peace with you no matter what, unless you are lizards.)

Thinking about it makes his diplomacy comments make more sense....
I think he doesnt know about how different races respond better or worse to different ways that you address them....like if you act nice to the Sakkra, they WILL attack you...you gotta be really tough with them.