Log in

View Full Version : Roman AI..too agressive



lancelot
10-17-2004, 20:25
Does anyone else get this? within 10 turns or so, the senate and often the other romans have declared war on virtually everybody.

And then every other faction seems to get the bug and go nuts, declaring war on everybody. Is this normal?

And I often find the AI will often agree to trade rights only to attack the next turn.

I was hoping the diplomacy would be an improvement over MTW but it seems any agreement is as worthless in RTW as it was in MTW.

Me no like!

Odysseus
10-17-2004, 20:52
In my game, they are more epaceful then Ghandi.

Orda Khan
10-17-2004, 22:15
And I often find the AI will often agree to trade rights only to attack the next turn.

I was hoping the diplomacy would be an improvement over MTW but it seems any agreement is as worthless in RTW as it was in MTW.

Me no like!

Yes, it's utter garbage. I have already shelved the game and I can honestly say I was very disappointed with stupid diplomacy. I simply got fed up with weak factions declaring war on me....so unrealistic. This was the reason I never really took to SP in either STW or MTW, such a pity to find all that changed in RTW was a pretty campaign map. Unfortunately RTW offers even less on MP. All in all, I think I wasted quite a bit of money

......Orda

GFX707
10-17-2004, 22:24
Yup, doesn't matter if they are half as strong as you and your ally....sooner or later they all declare war in turn and then won't accept peace no matter what you offer....it's one aspect of the game that's really disappointing.

Bhruic
10-17-2004, 22:43
Really, what did you expect? That the little factions are all going to sit back and just calmly wait for you to mass troops on their border and attack them? Or that they should just assume that you're such a nice, peaceful guy that you wouldn't even dream of attacking them?

And when you're beating them in a war, should they say "Oh, yes, we'll make peace with you, because you've just become much stronger than us, and we'll trust in the fact that you'll never want to attack us again"?

I suppose those options would be fine if the game were called "Rome: Total Boredom". But the fact that the object of the game is completely wrapped around conquering means that not trying to conquer is pointless. I'd do the exact same thing they are doing, if I was in the AI shoes.

The diplomacy in this game works extremely well, and is quite versatile, as long as you understand the underlying premise - the other factions aren't going to trust you, and they are going to want to expand. I've made numerous long-term (50+ turns) alliances, signed numerous ceasefires, and made quite effective use of diplomacy.

A "for example": I was playing Carthage, and was taking over Sicily. I attacked the Scipii first, and took their city. This weakened me, so the Greeks declared war and attacked. I managed to fight them off, and take their city. After that, I didn't pursue the war with them, as the rest of the cities were too far away. About 10 turns later, I got a ceasefire with them. Why? Because they didn't have any cities near me, and I didn't have any cities near them. They knew that I wasn't in a position to attack them, and they realized that being at war was foolish, as they weren't in a position to attack me either. So ceasefire and trade agreement, and we were at peace for the rest of the game.

Second "for example": Same game as Carthage. Everyone claims that the Numidians will attack. However, I notice they are at war with Spain. I go to war with Spain. I make an alliance with Numidia. They drag me into a war with Egypt (I was supporting their ship), I drag them into a war with Gaul (again, ship support). Net result? We are both at war with the same 3 factions. Despite being neighbours, we have a solid alliance that lasts the entire game.

What's the point of these examples? They show that, just like in real life, if you want something, you have to give something. Making an alliance with another faction where you have no common interests or enemies is not going to make for a lasting alliance. If you are neighbours, they will attack you. However, collaberate on a war against a mutual third party, and the alliance will stand. The same goes for ceasefires, if your armies are all stationed near their cities, and your territory surrounds theirs, they aren't going to want to make a ceasefire with you. It just wouldn't make sense for them to do so.

Bh

GFX707
10-17-2004, 23:03
Really, what did you expect? That the little factions are all going to sit back and just calmly wait for you to mass troops on their border and attack them? Or that they should just assume that you're such a nice, peaceful guy that you wouldn't even dream of attacking them?

How about NOT commiting suicide by DECLARING WAR on a country that is 50 times stronger than them?


And when you're beating them in a war, should they say "Oh, yes, we'll make peace with you, because you've just become much stronger than us, and we'll trust in the fact that you'll never want to attack us again"?

No, perhaps because they stupidly declared war on you and should realise that otherwise they'll just get crushed.


I suppose those options would be fine if the game were called "Rome: Total Boredom". But the fact that the object of the game is completely wrapped around conquering means that not trying to conquer is pointless. I'd do the exact same thing they are doing, if I was in the AI shoes.

Then you are an imbecile.


The diplomacy in this game works extremely well

That's the best joke I have heard all week.


and is quite versatile, as long as you understand the underlying premise - the other factions aren't going to trust you, and they are going to want to expand. I've made numerous long-term (50+ turns) alliances, signed numerous ceasefires, and made quite effective use of diplomacy.

If the AI shares a border with you they will declare war whether you are their ally or not. It's always the same. Then everyone else who shares a border with you will declare war too. It doesn't matter if they are 1/100th your size, they will still do it.


A "for example": I was playing Carthage, and was taking over Sicily. I attacked the Scipii first, and took their city. This weakened me, so the Greeks declared war and attacked. I managed to fight them off, and take their city. After that, I didn't pursue the war with them, as the rest of the cities were too far away. About 10 turns later, I got a ceasefire with them. Why? Because they didn't have any cities near me, and I didn't have any cities near them. They knew that I wasn't in a position to attack them, and they realized that being at war was foolish, as they weren't in a position to attack me either. So ceasefire and trade agreement, and we were at peace for the rest of the game.

Try the same thing with an AI faction that borders you and stupidly declares war.


What's the point of these examples? They show that, just like in real life, if you want something, you have to give something. Making an alliance with another faction where you have no common interests or enemies is not going to make for a lasting alliance. If you are neighbours, they will attack you. However, collaberate on a war against a mutual third party, and the alliance will stand. The same goes for ceasefires, if your armies are all stationed near their cities, and your territory surrounds theirs, they aren't going to want to make a ceasefire with you. It just wouldn't make sense for them to do so.

Bh

Not true. I was allied with Egypt who I joined because they were at war with everyone I was at war with, and scythia too because so were they. About 10 years later while STILL sharing common enemies and allies they decided to just declare war on me as soon as we shared a border. Play the game more, and stop assuming

Tzar Kaloyan
10-17-2004, 23:09
Excellent points Bhruic! I can confirm your examples by own experience playing Spain -- after taking the Carthagenian city on the peninsula, they signed a ceasefire. On the other hand, Gauls never signed an alliance with me and soon after I took the Carthagenian city, they attacked me.

The only sore point for me are the Romans. They don't have any cities on the Iberian peninsula, but yet continue to disembark near Orsa. Unfortunately for them, there is an 8-star, +5 Attack, +5 Command general waiting for them there. You would think that after losing dozens of thousands of men and after buying many maps from me, they will decide to invade a less guarded city or take ceasefire, regroup and come in force. Instead, they keep sending stacks of 400 or so men, that get slaughtered by my 700+ elite force in the area. That I call unrealistic and utterly unlike the Romans in real life.

One final point: I wish the AI will handle bribes better. From my many hours of playing this game, I have seen the AI bribe an army of mine only once! And I always play on vhard/vhard. I have also noticed that the AI will NOT remove rebels from its path -- it is riduculous seeing a 4-unit rebel army block the passage to Orsa, forcing a 20-stack Gaul army to go all the way around! And the Gauls have 2 diplomats sitting right there!

Compared to prior TW games, this AI is definitely improved. Is it perfect? No, but that's why there will be more TW series!!! ~:cheers:

Colovion
10-17-2004, 23:09
I've yet to be impressed with the AI diplomacy - Rome is always your enemy and I seem to always attract everyone as my enemy. Now this would make sense if the computer teamed up against me but the only factions that do that are the Roman ones. Everyone else seems fine to declare war and keep warring with you until they're dead. It would deffinately make sense if everyone around you sees you getting strong and declare war - but it makes a lot less sense when they never admit defeat. I mean I want to Ceasefire and Trade with them - you'd think a losing side of a war would be all for this.

It's a 3D Diplomacy model with a 2D AI reacting to your demands/offers.

Slaists
10-17-2004, 23:19
Well, historically, Rome was everyone's enemy in those times... So, the game is kind of historically correct in that sense...

Bhruic
10-17-2004, 23:33
How about NOT commiting suicide by DECLARING WAR on a country that is 50 times stronger than them?

To what point? They might as well just surrender and give up. Maybe you'd be entertained by a game where all the small countries just spontaneously surrendered, but I doubt most people would be.


No, perhaps because they stupidly declared war on you and should realise that otherwise they'll just get crushed.

And they aren't going to get crushed if they do give up? "Oh, wait, they agreed to a ceasefire, I can never attack them again!" Get real.


Then you are an imbecile.

Ah, yes. Funny how in your other thread you're getting your panties in a twist because people accused you of being insulting. No, you're oh-so-obviously never insulting.


That's the best joke I have heard all week.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't work.


If the AI shares a border with you they will declare war whether you are their ally or not. It's always the same. Then everyone else who shares a border with you will declare war too. It doesn't matter if they are 1/100th your size, they will still do it.

Uh, yeah, thanks for completely missing my example. You know, the one where I was Carthage, and allied with the Numidians (who share multiple borders) and they never attacked. Or my current game where I'm the Armenians, and am allied with the Seleucid, who have not attacked me after more than 50 years of play.

What you don't seem to "get" is that just because it happens in your game doesn't mean it has to happen. Learn how diplomacy works, and you can make use of it. Continue to whine about how it's broken (when it's not), and you'll get nowhere.


Try the same thing with an AI faction that borders you and stupidly declares war.

Of course it's not going to work. They want to expand, you're a neighbour, they will try and take your provinces. That is the point of the game. But even still, if another faction declares war on them, and I go to war with that faction, I'm sure I could get a ceasefire. Common enemy.


Not true. I was allied with Egypt who I joined because they were at war with everyone I was at war with, and scythia too because so were they. About 10 years later while STILL sharing common enemies and allies they decided to just declare war on me as soon as we shared a border. Play the game more, and stop assuming

Just having mutual enemies isn't a guaruntee they won't attack. It's a huge motivator. If the faction feels strong enough to fight multiple enemies, then yes, they may go to war with you. In the same way as when I'm the strongest faction in the game, I'm going to go to war with multiple enemies because I can support it. Again, they want to win. They can't win if you do. So they have a built in motivation to want to attack. You have to give them a good enough reason to not do so, or they will.

And considering that it's me who has been successful at keeping alliances, and it's you that hasn't, perhaps you should look into who it is between us that is assuming things.

Bh

Akka
10-18-2004, 01:06
Really, what did you expect? That the little factions are all going to sit back and just calmly wait for you to mass troops on their border and attack them? Or that they should just assume that you're such a nice, peaceful guy that you wouldn't even dream of attacking them?

And when you're beating them in a war, should they say "Oh, yes, we'll make peace with you, because you've just become much stronger than us, and we'll trust in the fact that you'll never want to attack us again"?

I suppose those options would be fine if the game were called "Rome: Total Boredom". But the fact that the object of the game is completely wrapped around conquering means that not trying to conquer is pointless. I'd do the exact same thing they are doing, if I was in the AI shoes.
No offense, but that's one of the most stupid posts I've read on this board.

What you describe is good for Risk. It's good for non-immersive, shallow, unidimensionnal games that would, in fact, deserve the "Total Boredom" title, yes.
But then, I expect a bit more of such a game, a game which bathe in culture, history, details, descriptions... All in all, a game that is built for immersion, for you to take the place of a ruling family, to change history and carve your own empire, and which bother to have a very developped diplomatic system.

In one word, a game a bit more fleshed-out, deep, and IMMERSIVE than one-dimensionnal binary system the like you praise.
I am the player. I know I'm in a game, and I can react as if I'm playing a game. But to have the AI acting like it, like if they were playing a game, is NOT good.
I'm not interested in playing against "player B, using the faction named 'Greek Cities' ", which will think "oh crap, he's got advance on me. I'm no more strong enough to win the game now, so at least let's annoy him to busy until the game is over".
I'm interested to play against Minaxetes the Greek, heir of a millenia-old civilization that is on the sunset of its grandeur, and that attempt to rule an actual COUNTRY who he's the king. Someone who has his dreams of reviving the legendary empire of Alexander, and bringing again enlightment to the world with cultural advances, but who HAS a lot to lose at stake.
Someone who has his COUNTRY at stake, his position of leader, the future of his family and his people.
Not someone who see "oh crap, I've only three provinces left, bah this game isn't worth playing anymore, I can't win". Or some binary AI who compute "human player strong, so me need to attack else human will win".

It's awful for realism and immersion to have AI reacts like players. They should react like kings. After all, they are supposed to be kings in the game, right ? I mean, the point of having troops fleeing, is that they are emulating how soldiers would react under a lot of stress. The very POINT of the game is to simulate the situation it presents. And it's totally STUPID for a king to refuse a ceasefire when he lose a war and his kingdom is on the verge of extinction.

Additionnally, there is more than one hundred provinces. I can perfectly make peace with someone, and NOT ATTACK HIM EVER AGAIN. I can grab all the necessary provinces required to win from others. So even in game terms, it still makes more sense to recognize a defeat than to continue.
And even, accepting to be a protectorate make his territories count for me in the count for victory, so I have even less reasons to attack him if he accepts to become a protectorate.

GFX707
10-18-2004, 01:08
At that point I was FAR stronger than Egypt. It just doesn't make sense for them to declare war when they know they will get beaten.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 01:23
No offense, but that's one of the most stupid posts I've read on this board.

No offense taken, because I find your response to be one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

I mean, your main point seems to be "The AI shouldn't actually play the game, only I should". Maybe you find the idea of a hopelessly incompetent AI entertaining. I certainly don't. I want an AI that is designed to provide for a challenging game. I want an AI that is actively trying to beat me. How you can possibly manage to try and twist "immersion" into meaning the AI players should be idiots, I can't comprehend.

As for the whole "there are 100+ provinces" concept... Do you really think that has an bearing at all? If you've spent the past X turns conquering a factions cities, and they are down to a few left, is there any reason for them to think that you wouldn't want to conquer them? I mean, if you truly don't want to, you'd go for protectorate status.

Sure, in terms of realism, in that situation, it would make sense to make a ceasefire. Because you've actually got to worry about your people and their future. But this is a game. There is no future. Putting that into the game when the player isn't going to play that way would be stupid.

Bh

Ktonos
10-18-2004, 01:31
Well I am sure that if someone did a poll with "Does Diplomacy needs to get more realistic"....well...I am sure of what the results would be.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 01:35
Well I am sure that if someone did a poll with "Does Diplomacy needs to get more realistic"....well...I am sure of what the results would be.

How are you defining "realistic"? What would make diplomacy more "realistic" for you? And how many players do you think handle their diplomacy "realistically"?

Bh

Sethik
10-18-2004, 01:39
I've noticed that the only time I get attacked by allies is when I share a border with them AND the city has a very weak garrison. If you're keeping a couple peasents and town watch next an enemy stack of 12 units then you're begging for it. Put yourself in their shoes. If you see a chance for a quick grab at territory and the possiblity of inflicting major damage before the enemy can regroup troops to fight then why not take the chance?

I think that if you war for a certain country for so long, the AI develops a great hate for you and would rather fight to the death then sue for peace. I remember sacking tons of Macedonian cities and them refusing to sign a ceasefire after a couple cities. This is also the case if you broke your agreements with them or other factions in the past.

Although there are cases where they are just retarded.

Ktonos
10-18-2004, 01:52
How are you defining "realistic"? What would make diplomacy more "realistic" for you? And how many players do you think handle their diplomacy "realistically"?



Well, eventhough Akka has already answered your question, I will add that a Civ-like AI behaviour would be realistic.

Akka
10-18-2004, 01:58
No offense taken, because I find your response to be one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

I mean, your main point seems to be "The AI shouldn't actually play the game, only I should". Maybe you find the idea of a hopelessly incompetent AI entertaining. I certainly don't. I want an AI that is designed to provide for a challenging game. I want an AI that is actively trying to beat me. How you can possibly manage to try and twist "immersion" into meaning the AI players should be idiots, I can't comprehend.
Whose king is the idiot ?
- The one who save his country, his throne, his family and his soldiers by making peace.
- The one makes his kingdom disappears, his family lose all power, his soldiers die and his people be conquered, by stubbornly refusing to accept the ceasefire proposed, reasoning that the faction he's at war will come back in fifty years to finish him off, because it's the rules of the game ?

And YOU are the one saying I twist a principle into meaning AI players should be idiots :rolleyes:

As for the whole "there are 100+ provinces" concept... Do you really think that has an bearing at all? If you've spent the past X turns conquering a factions cities, and they are down to a few left, is there any reason for them to think that you wouldn't want to conquer them?
I may be wrong, but the very point of proposing a ceasefire, is to end a war.
So if I'm proposing a ceasefire to the AI, they should reject it because they consider that I've no good reason to end the war, and as such my peace proposition is inacceptable ? :dizzy:

I mean, if you truly don't want to, you'd go for protectorate status.
Well, they refuse as much to be a protectorate as peace.

Additionnally, why should a war necessarily ends with the complete conquest or the reduction to protectorate status to one belligerant ? Is it how you see the game ?
My, how shallow.

Sure, in terms of realism, in that situation, it would make sense to make a ceasefire. Because you've actually got to worry about your people and their future. But this is a game. There is no future. Putting that into the game when the player isn't going to play that way would be stupid.
Well, that's a reasoning good for Risk and one-dimensional players. You don't need the cultural and historical background of RTW to play such games. In fact, you don't even need diplomacy in such games, as diplomacy is something that existed BECAUSE our lives aren't a game.
But here is a game with this historical and cultural background, and which emulate diplomacy precisely to give these realistic options. So dumbing them down back to the Risk level, is a waste and is what is actually stupid.

All in all, your reasoning is "what is realistic is stupid, because it's not reality, it's a game". Well, that's your loss, but there is plenty of people that actually see that the point of having an immersive game full of such historical, cultural and realistic detail, is precisely to make use of them and to try to emulate the situation the game itself pretends to be in.
There is no point in pretending you're impersonnating the ruling family of an historical empire, with a bountiful of realistic descriptions and details and mechanism, if it's to throw all this out of the windows and go back to a Pacman-like reflexion-level.

How are you defining "realistic"? What would make diplomacy more "realistic" for you? And how many players do you think handle their diplomacy "realistically"?
All these players that see the point of having these features in the game.
And all those who have more immersion abilities than an amoeba, and are able to simulate like if they "were there".
Which means, quite a lot in fact.

metatron
10-18-2004, 02:37
Agression was a martial mindset prised in the days of the Republic. When Augustus took control, there was some complaint over the "restrained" practices of the new army.

DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 02:48
The AI is bad, even by TW standards. I have never had the enemy accept a cease fire, ever. I can destroy their armies, sack their cities, and nope, they will not agree to cease fire.

...

In most cases, I do not want to conquer them, as they are off in some far-flung province that is far too distance from the rest of my empire, so if they surrendered, they would be safe. But no, they keep sending armies at me.. ~:confused:

Diplomacy is completely useless, I do not use it. There is no point, even if you do manage to get them to agree to something, they will literally attack you the next turn. Oh, and to add insult to injury, diplomats take upkeep. Oh well, at least you can use them to mass bribe entire legions, just like they did in real life. ~:handball:

Colovion
10-18-2004, 02:55
Usually the only reason I train diplomats to get better is for bribing at lower prices (I assume that works). There aren't many intricacies in the diplomacy model which the AI can be depended on to logically choose when they are at an advantage/disadvantage. It's a good thought, but there aren't many tangible results. I've had a few alliances last for a long time - yes - but how is that a grounds for claiming the AI/Diplomacy is great? I'd say that means it's just bare minimum (I mean I had alliances in MTW that lasted for the same length of time....)

soibean
10-18-2004, 02:58
The AI is bad, even by TW standards. I have never had the enemy accept a cease fire, ever. I can destroy their armies, sack their cities, and nope, they will not agree to cease fire.

if I want to get a cease fire with an army I just stop attacking them and play the defensive until they agree to it... so far it has worked well for me but its not 100%

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 03:01
Whose king is the idiot ?
- The one who save his country, his throne, his family and his soldiers by making peace.
- The one makes his kingdom disappears, his family lose all power, his soldiers die and his people be conquered, by stubbornly refusing to accept the ceasefire proposed, reasoning that the faction he's at war will come back in fifty years to finish him off, because it's the rules of the game ?

The first one is the idiot in this game. In this game the only purpose is to expand your empire. If you're not doing that, then you will lose. Plain and simple.

Instead of looking at it from the "you'd be stupid to refuse a ceasefire" point of view, look at it from the other side. You've got a powerful country that is trying to make a ceasefire with you. Why would they do that? If they had the military might to conquer you, they'd be foolish not to. The only reason they would want to make a ceasefire is if they are over-extended, and need the time to recover. If that's the case, why would you possibly want to accept? You'd want to attack, as the other country is signalling to you that they are weak.


Additionnally, why should a war necessarily ends with the complete conquest or the reduction to protectorate status to one belligerant ? Is it how you see the game ?
My, how shallow.

And what other purpose is there? The game is designed so that the only way to win is to conquer provinces. I can only win by either getting 15 or 50, depending on which I choose, and by eliminating a specific faction. There is no "make an alliance with X factions" victory condition. There is no "gain X protectorates" victory condition. There is no "be nice to your neighbours" victory condition.

If you want to pretend there is, by all means, go ahead. But the rules and the mechanics of the game are designed to support the condition that does exist - conquest. With that in mind, no, there really is no reason to make peace with another faction unless you have to, or you can use the troops better in some other location. Anything that isn't moving you to the victory condition is (relatively speaking) a waste of time.


Well, that's a reasoning good for Risk and one-dimensional players. You don't need the cultural and historical background of RTW to play such games. In fact, you don't even need diplomacy in such games, as diplomacy is something that existed BECAUSE our lives aren't a game.
But here is a game with this historical and cultural background, and which emulate diplomacy precisely to give these realistic options. So dumbing them down back to the Risk level, is a waste and is what is actually stupid.

Actually, there can be a great deal of diplomacy take place in a game of Risk. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You've apparently decided that you've got the elistist "high ground" here, so far be it from me to suggest otherwise.

What you don't understand is that the historical and cultural background of the game have nothing to do with the way the game is played. If you changed all the unit names to orcs and goblins, and changed the city names, and placed it on a fantasy map, the underlying gameplay would not change at all. I put that in bold, just so you wouldn't miss it. You see, the rules the game uses do not take any advantage of historical or cultural backgrounds. I'd be happy if it did. I'd love to see a game where diplomacy could have a big impact on things. But as long as the only victory conditions for TW games is militarily, TW will not be such a game.

With that being the case, the diplomacy system as it exists in the game, fits it perfectly.


There is no point in pretending you're impersonnating the ruling family of an historical empire, with a bountiful of realistic descriptions and details and mechanism, if it's to throw all this out of the windows and go back to a Pacman-like reflexion-level.

All these players that see the point of having these features in the game.
And all those who have more immersion abilities than an amoeba, and are able to simulate like if they "were there".
Which means, quite a lot in fact.

Please, stop with the idiotic strawman fallacies. It's quite obvious that I've never said anything about "pacman-like reflexion-level", so arguing about it is absurd. I can understand if you can't actually argue my points, but creating your own simplistic ones to argue against doesn't help you in the slightest.

Bh

DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 03:04
Your argument hinges on "its a game". I didn't play MTW like a game. I built up my empires and didn't go out on world spanning conquests. I want a ceasefire because I am sick of paying money for cannon fodder instead of buildings.

And yes, if they didn't attack me, most of the time, they would not be attacked unless they were in a strategic position in the area of my expansion. Usually it is some idiots who start a war with me, and then continue fighting after I have taken everything I want. So yes, if they agreed to peace, they would be spared.

Colovion
10-18-2004, 03:09
Bhruic I get where you're coming from but I come from somewhere else.

I like it when people can play games differently. I don't want to always have to beat the game before 150BC - i want to maybe have the first 100 years to be nice to most of my neighbors, maybe send a few stacks over the seas to invade some other faction - do it slow and methodical. As it is and in teh play style you have it's just conquest after conquest until you're done. I mean this is fine and all and sometimes that is all I want to do - but other times I want to sit back and play the diplomacy game.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 03:10
Your argument hinges on "its a game". I didn't play MTW like a game. I built up my empires and didn't go out on world spanning conquests. I want a ceasefire because I am sick of paying money for cannon fodder instead of buildings.

And yes, if they didn't attack me, most of the time, they would not be attacked unless they were in a strategic position in the area of my expansion. Usually it is some idiots who start a war with me, and then continue fighting after I have taken everything I want. So yes, if they agreed to peace, they would be spared.

No, my argument hinges on "The developers designed a game". See, you want to do something outside the scope of the rules of the game, and you expect the game to cooperate. But the game doesn't know that you are sick of paying money for cannon fodder. The game doesn't know that you aren't out for world spanning conquests. The game knows that in order to win, you need X provinces. Therefore, the game is going to try and stop you.

I mean, how exactly do you expect another faction to know if they are "in the area of your expansion"? How do you expect them to know that you think their last province is too far away, so you have no interest in capturing it? As far as they are concerned, you are going to want all the provinces you can get. And, in general, they'd be right, for the majority of players. So that's how they should react.

Now, obviously, I'd prefer it if they waited, and built a large army instead of trickling out small groups, but that's quite outside the scope of diplomacy.

Bh

DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 03:24
Bhruic, decent AI would very easily be able to tell that I was not out to get them if I only sacked and took their cities in retribution after crushing their invading armies. A decent AI would be able to see that they have gained nothing, and lost territory and men in a war that they started.

I would understand this sort of behavior if they were fighting for survival, but that is not often the case, as the player does not ask for peace in that circumstance. When I am out to conquer a troublesome power (read: egypt), I do not give quarter or offer peace, I annihilate them completely.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 03:31
Bhruic, decent AI would very easily be able to tell that I was not out to get them if I only sacked and took their cities in retribution after crushing their invading armies. A decent AI would be able to see that they have gained nothing, and lost territory and men in a war that they started.

Wait, so you're telling me that they attack you, you destroy their armies, march into their lands and take their cities, and they are supposed to believe that you have no further intentions of attacking them?

Heck, I wouldn't believe that. I don't know why you'd expect an AI to.


I would understand this sort of behavior if they were fighting for survival, but that is not often the case, as the player does not ask for peace in that circumstance. When I am out to conquer a troublesome power (read: egypt), I do not give quarter or offer peace, I annihilate them completely.

And how does the AI determine what you consider a "troublesome power"? And how are they supposed to know what you do when you are out to conquer one? I mean, sure, you don't give quarter or peace, but what if Joe Smith does?

If the AI only had to be designed to fit your exact playstyle, I'm sure they could do a decent job of it. But they have to (try to) fit everyone's playstyle.

Bh

troymclure
10-18-2004, 03:31
i don't mind the ai in RTW it's not always great but sometimes it feels like there is a purpose behind it. :)
Perhaps if we had more info about how factions viewed us it would all make more sense, right now you have to talk to them and try and gauge by their tone of conversation. While this is kind of cool im sure back in the day you could have had an advisor with up to date information on how various factions feel about you.
Something akin to the diplomacy system in EU2 would be awesome with the rest of RTW behind it.

DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 03:36
If the AI only had to be designed to fit your exact playstyle, I'm sure they could do a decent job of it. But they have to (try to) fit everyone's playstyle.

Bh

Well, that is exactly the problem right there. The AI does not react at all to the actions of the player. The AI factions feel very, very hollow as a result.

Kommodus
10-18-2004, 05:01
Interesting. I clearly see two different points of view in this thread, both of which have merit. As I understand them, they are as follows:

1. This is a game, which must be challenging in order to be entertaining. Since the object of the game is, basically, to conquer the world, the AI can assume (from a standpoint of playing a game) that the player will try to conquer the world. Thus, when the various factions notice the player getting powerful, they attempt to gang up on him, attacking en masse even if, individually, they have no hope of winning the war. They will fight to the last, knowing that if they accept peace, the player will soon turn his attention towards them (for he must in order to win the game). This succeeds somewhat in making the game challenging, for at least the player does not have the ability to destroy the AI factions piecemeal; if he could, each successive conquest would get easier, since the player would be more powerful and better equipped once he had finished off each faction.

2. This game models actual history, in which rulers used common sense to govern their lands. Thus, it would be absurd to go to war with a faction far more powerful than your own; to do so would only invite the destruction of your people and culture. If a ruler felt threatened by a more powerful neighbor, he would be more likely to use diplomacy to avert war, even if he had to make some concessions to his adversary. Cities, traders, and small nations tend to cling to whoever is powerful, attempting to stay on his good side; they would never deliberately antagonize him. Thus, forcing the AI to think like a game-player makes diplomacy less realistic and less important. It sacrifices realism and immersion for the sake of added challenge.

As I said, both of these points of view have merit. The issue, as I see it, is that the game does not accurately model geopolitics. In reality, there is no clearly defined "goal" for nations, and "conquering the world" is not a realistic goal anyway. Shogun was loosely based on a Risk-style board game called "Samurai Swords," and this series has never shaken free of its roots. I'm not sure that it could. In real geopolitics, there are no game-winning conditions; empires continue to rise and fall ad infinitum. It's also impossible to conquer endlessly, and far-flung empires are nearly impossible to hold on to. To make diplomacy truly realistic, a dramatic departure from the traditional premise of this series would be required.

It should be noted, however, that the Romans did, in fact, acquire an empire by defeating one faction at a time. The Etruscan kings, Carthage, Gaul, Macedonia, the Greek cities, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and others, fell under Roman power one by one. Many of them were allied with Rome for a time, attempting to use Roman power to their own advantage, only to find themselves hopelessly overpowered when Rome turned against them. They were all at one time more powerful than Rome, but were eventually eclipsed by Rome's growing power. Many empires have been formed through conquering one nation at a time, before most of the world realizes the threat.

On the other hand, Napoleon found that many nations formed alliances against him when they perceived his threat, even though individually they were weaker than him. This was his undoing. So it can happen both ways. There may be genuine concerns about this game's diplomacy system, but I hope you can at least understand each other's perspectives.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 05:09
That's a fair summation, although I don't think I ever said anything about the "AI ganging up if the player is ahead" routine - which I find kind of cheesy.


In reality, there is no clearly defined "goal" for nations, and "conquering the world" is not a realistic goal anyway

That I think is the main point. Arguing about what is "realistic" immediately falls apart when you consider that point. You can't make a realistic game when the only object is military conquest. Because that just isn't historically (or realistically) accurate. As soon as you do so, you limit the gameplay to a large degree.

Personally, I'd be thrilled to see other options in RTW other than straight-out military. But it's always been difficult for the 4x TBS game to do come up with other options.

Bh

DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 05:12
My argument comes from the fact that I play the game simply for the sake of playing it. I am not aiming for any particular objective. Actually, I think I've only totally completed one or two games of MTW and none of RTW. I enjoy building up my cities more than conquest(not to say that sacking isn't fun), so I would like a diplomatic system that allows for this consideration. I find it disspointing that MTW's diplomacy actually is better if you play like me.

andrewt
10-18-2004, 07:31
I like RTW's diplomacy more than MTW. In MTW, there was more of a sense of the AI ganging up on the player. The only usual wars were the three way battle between Egypt and Turkey and Byzantium, the three way battle between France and Britain and Germany and the battle between Spain and Almohad. Aside from that, the AI factions are always allied with each other and rarely go to war then all gang up on the player when the player gets more powerful.

In RTW, there is more of a feeling that the AI factions are trying to grab land and expand instead of cooperating against the player. I just like the fact that the AI factions are more likely to go to war with each other instead of having perpetual peace. That said, I think the AI should keep alliances more. More alliance vs. alliance fights would make diplomacy more important than the current 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs. 1, etc. I also like the fact that the AI factions keep alliances with you even until the end. They don't all cancel when you conquer x amount of provinces.

Akka
10-18-2004, 10:37
The first one is the idiot in this game. In this game the only purpose is to expand your empire. If you're not doing that, then you will lose. Plain and simple.
Well, the problem is, you only see the game through "game mechanics", which is point of view that throw out of the windows about three quarters of the game.

Instead of looking at it ... speaking) a waste of time.
Same as above. All this reasoning is based on "it's a game with game rules, and the AI must be made to challenge the player according to the game rules". Which is perhaps a little tiny bit more efficient and challenging, but again throw out of the windows the essence, the interest, and the flesh of the game.

Actually, there can be a great deal of diplomacy take place in a game of Risk. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You've apparently decided that you've got the elistist "high ground" here, so far be it from me to suggest otherwise.
And you try very hard to not understand, as it seems.
Reread what I said.
I said that "You don't need the cultural and historical background of RTW to play such games." and "But here is a game with this historical and cultural background, and which emulate diplomacy precisely to give these realistic options".
I know there is plenty of reflexion in Risk, that goes along exactly the same lines and same state of mind than you described.
What I point is that, when most of the game is BASED on cultural and historical details and flavour, then it's a WASTE of all these detail, of the essence of the game, to throw them out as irrelevant and use a mentality that is actually fits for Risk, which itself doesn't require this culture and history.

What you don't understand is that the historical and cultural background of the game have nothing to do with the way the game is played. If you changed all the unit names to orcs and goblins, and changed the city names, and placed it on a fantasy map, the underlying gameplay would not change at all. I put that in bold, just so you wouldn't miss it. You see, the rules the game uses do not take any advantage of historical or cultural backgrounds. I'd be happy if it did. I'd love to see a game where diplomacy could have a big impact on things. But as long as the only victory conditions for TW games is militarily, TW will not be such a game.
You exactly prove my point above. Doing these changes would not, in fact, change anything to the game mechanics nor the victory condition.
But it would change the flavour, the essence, the ambiance and the immersion of the game. Which are far more important than the game mechanics, as we, human players, aren't machines reasoning in 0 and 1 and unable to see beyond the game mechanic to see the "soul" of the game.

With that being the case, the diplomacy system as it exists in the game, fits it perfectly.
No. It fits Risk, but it doesn't fits the situation the game is trying to emulate.

Please, stop with the idiotic strawman fallacies. It's quite obvious that I've never said anything about "pacman-like reflexion-level", so arguing about it is absurd. I can understand if you can't actually argue my points, but creating your own simplistic ones to argue against doesn't help you in the slightest.
It's you who seems to have a problem understanding simple explanations.
I'll make it even simpler :
- You only need the game mechanics to have the kind of game reasoning you described. As you yourself explained, all the cultural and historical and "role-playing" details of the game are irrelevant if you ONLY consider the game mechanics.
- As they are irrelevant, if it's to play only with the game mechanics in mind, there is no point in putting these details in the game.
- These details, this flavour, this ambiance, are in the game nevertheless.
- As such, it means that the game is trying to emulate an ambiance, trying to immerse the player into a situation such as described (taking the place of a ruling family and act as if "like here").
- Then it means that the AI should be programmed not to be strictly limited to the game mechanics, but to try to help with this immersion.

Seems quite obvious to me.

lancelot
10-18-2004, 12:29
Well, seeing as I started this thread perhaps I should chime in again, if for no other reason than to save it from the flame-fest it is degenerating into.

Firstly, if anyone thinks the RTW AI is good then perhaps this is not the thread to communicate it in. I started this thread because I was unhappy with the AI-so lets keep on topic/

And yes there are examples when the AI acts 'sensibly' (if you can apply that definition) but there are many more examples of it not, and I DO NOT see a huge improvement over MTW, yes, there are more options but thats about it.

Further I do agree that this game in only about expanding empires, BUT that is the END and it is the MEANS in getting there that I think there are problems.

Nuff said.

Info and advice would be swell... ~;)

Slyspy
10-18-2004, 13:51
Total War is a game about conquest pure and simple, for players and the AI. Everything else is just a garnish. Those seeking a more in depth diplomatic game, or those who would prefer a less aggressive and deeper game would perhaps be better off playing Europa Universalis II. I myself like the Total War series for the conquest, both strategic and tactical, but have found EU2 to be more interesting and have a higher replay value.

Boudicca
10-18-2004, 14:11
Slyspy...it is somewhat funny, but whenever I get bored of too few diplomatics in MTW or RTW I start playing "Europa Univeralis II"...and that was what came up as first thought to my mind, when I read this thread...

Ktonos
10-18-2004, 15:03
I disagree with the whole "conquering the world" objective. It could easily be something like victory points and "get to be the super power" of the Ancient world.

Civ3 and EU2 are Diplomacy based games and Rome's campaign map engine is much alike to Civ3.

The AI Diplomacy has the same problem with defining diplomatic stances between AI factions as with the player. I personally think that there are "fixed relations" between certain alliances. Egypt vs Seleucids, Thrace vs Macedon, Greece vs Macedon, Britania vs Germania, Carthage vs Numidia and Rome vs everyone. I know that you can have and maintain alliances with your arch-rival but its very very rare and unrealisticly hard to achieve.

Also a given faction can easier ally with certain factions than other. From my experience as Greece (and as any other faction watching the Greek AI) Gaul is the most "alliable" faction. Apart from those "fixed relations" diplomacy acts decent, but those factions are usually the most crucial for you. Much like "Axis and Allies" diplomacy between ... Axis and Allies.

Maybe CA could "soften up" the given relations so it could be possible to ally (or just keep peace) with Macedon as Greece, but still hard.

Another thing is that the AI ALWAYS believe that you are a dishonorable scum, even if you have never ever betrayed ANYONE.

Maybe, just maybe its a bug (to big bad bag to get to release). If it is, then I am certain that CA will remove it in patch. CA never disapointed us with game support.
If not a bug, then it would be perfect to create your own "honorable-dishonorable" reputation (and the AI as well).

The argument "the AI acts like its in a game in order to survive" is no good. All players, or most of them, act like they are rulers so the AI should do. The game AI need to "roleplay" its factions diplomacy because it will profit from it.
An alliance with the player when appropriate could mean the anihhilation of a super power and expansion. On the other hand a war with the player could mean the total or partial distraction of the given faction.

GFX707
10-18-2004, 15:47
Weak AI factions should be looking for alliances, not declaring war on the strongest faction in the game!

TinCow
10-18-2004, 15:48
Heh, I am playing as Carthage currently and I am annoyed because NONE of the Roman factions have EVER declared war on anyone but me. 100+ years of attacks by all the Roman factions can be a bit trying.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 15:51
Originally Posted by Akka
Well, the problem is, you only see the game through "game mechanics", which is point of view that throw out of the windows about three quarters of the game.

I wrote a nice long rebuttal, but realized that's it's probably futile. Your above point is wrong. I see gameplay as an extension of game mechanics. Trying to make gameplay "the game" isn't accurate.

However, this discussion is pretty pointless. You think that immersion should come before good gameplay. I think good game play should come before immersion. It appears that CA agrees with me, as that's the way they designed the game.

Case closed.

Bh

Spino
10-18-2004, 16:08
I think that the AI is a touch too aggressive, but not terribly so. After all, this is Rome TOTAL WAR, not Pax Romana! My biggest complaint is that the AI needs to be a little more selective about who it goes to war with. It's a bit like Medieval all over again, with most AI factions fighting multi-front wars.

Akka
10-18-2004, 16:17
Gosh. You just take everything upside-down and make the absurd into logic and the logic into absurd.

As usual, you are wrong. What you seem to be completely unable to grasp is that you can have a great deal of game immersion while still following the rules of the game. Breaking the rules of the game to forward immersion, however, is never a good way to make a game.
Yes it is.
That's breaking to immersion to make the AI stick to the rules and going against all the spirit and the essence of the game to do that which is absurd.

Again, an entirely black and white viewpoint. It's about as stupid as saying that having trees in a FPS is a complete WASTE if you can't climb them. The cultural and historical details of the game are what create the atmosphere. Saying that the atmosphere is wasted if the AI makes sound gameplay decisions is just sheer foolishness.
And again you show an inability to graps the fundamental concept.
Trees aren't the basis of the game in FPS, neither in flavour nor in gameplay. While ruling a country is somehow the basis of RTW. If you wish to make a parallel with FPS, then it would rather be to have a huge barreled shotgun that deals 15 damage points, and a little air-propelled bullets toy gun deals 250 damage points in an area of effect.
Gameplay-wise, it's only damage points and rules. Game-wise, it's an absurd, unrealistic and anti-immersive bogus design decision.

Yes, exactly. Thank you for completely proving my point. You can have the exact same gameplay, but change the "flavour" of the game and have a completely different feel to the game. In other words, the gameplay doesn't control the flavour of the game. So if the gameplay isn't linked to the flavour, then stop complaining about the gameplay ruining the flavour.
Wow.
You manage to got it completely in reverse.
I was saying that these details are actually the flesh and meat of the game, and you interpret it as meaning that rules of the game are what are important :dizzy2:

I'll make it simpler, then : the rules of the game and the AI should be built around the flavour and the ambiance, NOT the other way around.

When "challenge" and "immersion" come into conflict, "immersion" should always lose. It just doesn't get simpler than that.
Well, again, the same horrible argument. I've encountered the same on Civ3 boards, and plenty other boards.
"challenge" is what is needed to maintain interest in the game. But "challenge" is not, contrary to what people like you constantly say, the end of the game. It's a MEANS.
You first and foremost build the game according to its sould and its spirit, you make strong immersion and ambiance and flavour, and THEN you try to find way to make the game challenging.

People only looking for the challenge, miss the vast majority of a game, as they are so focused on the game mechanics that they miss the subtetlies of immersion around (and don't give me the "black and white" garbage ; your quote pretty much show this disregard for the meat of the game to the benefit of "challenge").

Good games are game with a lot of immersion, not game with a lot of challenge. Of course, games with both are even better. But, contrary to what you say, it's immersion which should win any conflict with challenge. It's immersion which is the very point of a game, and even more an historical game.
No point in basing your game on history, if it's to trump it and destroy realism at each corner :rolleyes:

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 16:23
I'll make it simpler, then : the rules of the game and the AI should be built around the flavour and the ambiance, NOT the other way around.

The rules of the game should be, yes. In this case, the rules were built around conquering other factions. So either deal with that, or look for a new game to play, because that isn't going to change.

Bh

GFX707
10-18-2004, 18:22
Why should these smaller factions, instead of spending money improving their countries, squander it all on completely stupid and illogical wars that they can never win?

The AI should think like the leader of a nation and not like some moronic child (me have border with Rome me invade Rome oh no me dont exist any more). When they declare war on a faction much bigger they are just committing suicide! Wouldn't it be more fun/challenging to face off against that same faction if it had instead built its nation up and made better decisions? I think you should really be playing command & conquer because that seems to be your mindset. Are you new to the TW series?

Nelson
10-18-2004, 19:58
Ultimately, I think Bhuric is right. There is no other path for the AI to take that might not result in a game with little or no action on the part of many factions. The fact is that a truly realistic diplomacy model would not only inhibit the AI but would curtail players in a huge way too. As it is, you are free to make war on anyone at any time. How realistic is that? Remove that ability and players would be incensed so it’s pretty tough to have a wide open war game with a lot of strings attached to who came make war upon whom.

It is goofy at times when a reasonable offer is refused by the AI for unknown reasons. If we consider the time and money it would take to develop big time strategy map AI it becomes clear we just can’t have it for $45. And that assumes that most people would like it if we had it. Diplomacy is ancillary for me (and the game too). I use it when I can but I expect armies to do the talking not diplomats. Total War.

Akka
10-18-2004, 20:17
That's somehow sad to see people who are unable to get beyond the "me fight me win !" mentality. But, well, it's their own game they are spoiling.

I just hope that CA hear the prayers of the ones who would like more realism, logic and consistency, which is part of what make games great and rememberable, rather than the "challenge challenge challenge !!!", which never made by itself a game a classic.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 20:35
rather than the "challenge challenge challenge !!!", which never made by itself a game a classic.

...and without which, no game has ever been a "classic".

Bh

Akka
10-18-2004, 22:14
...and without which, no game has ever been a "classic".
Well, as always since the start of this thread, you're dead wrong.

DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 22:35
What does this have to do with a challenge? There is nothing challenging about the AI sending fodder armies at you. A challenge would be having the AI wait to gauge your reaction and then, if they decide that you are a hostile threat, sending the two or six armies they've been saving for the occasion.

That would go along with the non-suicidal AI, which certain people claim wouldn't suit the game. I disagree. There is a differance between a challenge and an annoyance. RTW's AI factions are mostly the latter.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 22:38
Well, as always since the start of this thread, you're dead wrong.

By all means, try and prove me wrong. Point out some "classic" games for which there was no challenge.

Bh

andrewt
10-18-2004, 22:40
...and without which, no game has ever been a "classic".

Bh

If that's the case, then I can count using my fingers the games released in the past 10 years that could be considered classics. Ever since the late Super NES/Early Playstation era, games, even PC games, have mostly been crappy on the difficulty scale.

DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 22:42
By all means, try and prove me wrong. Point out some "classic" games for which there was no challenge.

Bh

Final Fantasy 6/7

Anyway, read my post above. If you think that the suicidal AI is "challenging", you are not very good at the game.

Colovion
10-18-2004, 22:49
also I think Akka wasn't saying that he wants the game without challenge, instead I think he meant that he'd rather more depth than constant waves of enemies beign thrown at his armies for him to repel

if we wanted that we'd go play BeachHead 2000 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/beachhead2000/)

Akka
10-18-2004, 22:55
By all means, try and prove me wrong. Point out some "classic" games for which there was no challenge.
You're the one saying that challenge is the end of it all, and that it's the main point of a game, and that it should takes precedence over anything else in a game.

If it takes precedence over the rest, it means that it's the most important point for a good game.
So it means that the most challenging games are the ones which were "classics".
Well, you pretend it's the case. The burden of proof is on you. Give me the list of games that were classics because they were the most challenging.

And then, after you've come back with a totally empty list, take a while to wonder why, if challenge is so important, all the classics were classics due to something else.

Of course, if you can prove me that all the classics (Doom, Civilization, Half-life, Dune, Warcraft, Myst, Master of Magic, Zelda, Sonic, GTA 3, Speedball, Falcon, Final Fantasy, Diablo and countless others) were classics due to challenge, you would have a point.
But hey... They were not.

Bhruic
10-18-2004, 23:04
You're the one saying that challenge is the end of it all, and that it's the main point of a game, and that it should takes precedence over anything else in a game.

No, now you are putting words into my mouth. I said challenge should take precedence over immersion. That isn't the same as saying it is the most important thing. I think that a well crafted game will have both. I've said as much in other threads. I'd be extremely happy to see RTW having options for victory that weren't tied to military conquest. And if that were the case, I'd be happy to have the diplomacy system enhanced.

My point is, however, that without any option but military conquest for victory, having a diplomacy system that takes anything other than military conquest into consideration is counter-productive.


If it takes precedence over the rest, it means that it's the most important point for a good game.
So it means that the most challenging games are the ones which were "classics".
Well, you pretend it's the case. The burden of proof is on you. Give me the list of games that were classics because they were the most challenging.

As stated above, I never said as much, so the burden of proof is on you.


Of course, if you can prove me that all the classics (Doom, Civilization, Half-life, Dune, Warcraft, Myst, Master of Magic, Zelda, Sonic, GTA 3, Speedball, Falcon, and countless others) were classics due to challenge, you would have a point.
But hey... They were not.

Actually, you've presented a wonderful list of challenging games. Would Doom have been a classic if the monsters shot non-damaging paintballs at you? Would Master of Magic be a classic if the AI empires never expanded beyond their capital because they didn't want to be expansionists? Would Warcraft have been a classic if instead of building up units to attack you, the Orcs decided to take up flower gardening?

...

Really, when it comes down to it, we are both on the same side of the "RTW could have been better if..." debate. The difference we seem to be having is that you are asking for half of the system. That is, you don't see a problem with keeping the system of "only military victory", but designing the AI to not be interested in military victory. I do see a problem with it. But I think we would both agree that an option other than military victory would be the best solution (at least, I hope you would agree to that).

So how about we stop this rather pointless bickering and agree to disagree?

Bh

vodkafire
10-18-2004, 23:09
I don't know what the complaint is about. It's 215 BC in my game and the Brutii had only conquered a whopping 1 province(appollonia), and the Jullii 2(sardinia and orca) I wished they were much more aggressive since I had to do all the work (28 provinces by now), securing their border regions for them. In fact, they are both rich as hell, with all large cities and at least 3 full stacked armies, just camping at their borders(they now only border me, but they've been camping there since the beginning of the game).

Osbot
10-18-2004, 23:41
The AI in this game for diplomacy works on an "anger" meter. If you insult them, attack them, siege them they will cut off ALL diplomatic relations in that you cannot get anything done with them. Lets take two examples here.

Example 1) You are the super power, you, or they initiated a war, you are winning. You continue to occupy their towns and destroy their armies. Under almost no circumstances will they accept a ceasefire, and if they do it is only at the return of their cities. The way to get a ceasefire is to sit back and let things cool down for awhile, go ten years or so without active hostilities and they will readily accept a ceasefire. I can't count the number of ceasefires i've attained like this, Gaul, Dacia Greek_Cities, Armenia, Pontius, Thrace, Brutii the list goes on. I mean for real, you just occupied their capital and now you're offering peace, sorry but only an idiot would accept those terms.

Example 2) You are the little guy, look they have no reason to offer or accept a ceasefire, they are in control. Everything is done on their timetable.

It's very simple, the AI behaves in a fairly realistic way when it comes to peace. The AI is a little quirky when it comes to interpretting diplomatic advances, in a recent campaign as Armenia, I had the seleucids cancel our alliance because I kept trying to trade maps with them. I was even given several popup warnings.

For a real life example, lets look at WW2. The AI does not subscribe to the French style of diplomacy, they go more for the British/Soviet style. They don't surrender after a couple battles, they will force you to exterminate them and forcibly occupy every inch of their country. Im glad the AI doesnt act like the French did in ww2 or this would be an extremely fast game ;p

DisruptorX
10-18-2004, 23:56
Well, firstly the french were uttely crushed by the German blitzkrieg, as were the allied British forces with them. Unfortunately the French couldn't exactly retreat like the British did and had no other option. They held off the Italians just fine. Not a good analogy.

Secondly, The AI will refuse ceasefires for 20+ years, because *they* are the ones sending fodder armies in. That's just stupid, any way you look at it. It's not like they are wearing me down, either. They are being sent home in peices doing little or no damage in fruitless seiges.

Osbot
10-19-2004, 00:14
Firstly, the Soviets lost nearly 4 million people in less than a year. Good thing they didnt surrender when it looked like defeat was just around the corner!

The French folded like a lawn chair. Their armies surrendered or were captured largely intact. The French gave up, they were not yet defeated yet. Imagine if the Soviets gave up after the initial shock of Barbarossa when they actually lost around 3.8 million men inside of a year? Large formations of French soldiers were evacuated or fled the country. Was Frances defeat inevitable, with the way their Generals conducted the war yes. The analogy is sound, if all the AI nations agreed to unconditional peace with the enemy because they got caught with their pants down this game would not be worth playing.

The Soviets were fighting to the last men, the British would have fought to the last man had Sealion happened. To win a war you need to make sacrifices, the incompetent French leadership cut a deal to save their asses plain and simple. Im glad the AI in this game doesnt do that at the first sign of trouble, even if it is a losing cause. There is something romantic about fighting the good fight against all odds doncha think?

I could lecture you on the principle, you're only defeated when you admit you are defeated, but i'll spare you.

Ktonos
10-19-2004, 00:24
Could a dev post an opinion about this?

DisruptorX
10-19-2004, 00:24
So.....let me get this straight........You should always fight to the death when invading another country? ~:confused:

Give me some historical examples of a weak country attacking a FAR stronger one unprovoked, getting its ass handed to it, then continuously sending armies to their deaths as quickly as they could raise them for the next 20 years.

That is the AI's tactic.

Colovion
10-19-2004, 05:15
The Crusades

hahahaha

Colovion
10-19-2004, 05:34
The AI in this game for diplomacy works on an "anger" meter. If you insult them, attack them, siege them they will cut off ALL diplomatic relations in that you cannot get anything done with them. Lets take two examples here.

Example 1) You are the super power, you, or they initiated a war, you are winning. You continue to occupy their towns and destroy their armies. Under almost no circumstances will they accept a ceasefire, and if they do it is only at the return of their cities. The way to get a ceasefire is to sit back and let things cool down for awhile, go ten years or so without active hostilities and they will readily accept a ceasefire. I can't count the number of ceasefires i've attained like this, Gaul, Dacia Greek_Cities, Armenia, Pontius, Thrace, Brutii the list goes on. I mean for real, you just occupied their capital and now you're offering peace, sorry but only an idiot would accept those terms.


I took two cities from Thrace and then the year after that they were fine with being Allies. The turn after, Protectorate.

It's all over the place I tell you - very little pattern to these crazy computer AI.

DisruptorX
10-19-2004, 05:48
The Crusades

hahahaha

Well, thats close. Although the main reason the crusades did as well as they did was because the Muslim states were not strong. They were fragmented and weak.

Akka
10-19-2004, 08:25
No, now you are putting words into my mouth. I said challenge should take precedence over immersion. That isn't the same as saying it is the most important thing. I think that a well crafted game will have both. I've said as much in other threads. I'd be extremely happy to see RTW having options for victory that weren't tied to military conquest. And if that were the case, I'd be happy to have the diplomacy system enhanced.
Everyone does prefer to have a game immersive AND challenging.
But the point is, there is many games that has been great because of their special ambiance, and many due to their new concepts, and many more due to their attention to details and realism, and NO ONE due to its challenge.

Challenge is a bonus, a good bonus, but (unless in case of caricaturally easiness), it's NOT as important, so it's certainly NOT the thing that should takes precedence.

My point is, however, that without any option but military conquest for victory, having a diplomacy system that takes anything other than military conquest into consideration is counter-productive.
The fact that there is nothing but military conquests as objective is somehow a flaw. But then, going from here to add more flaws isn't the good thing to do.
As DisruptorX said, anyway, AI suiciding themselves by throwing their pityless garrisons against a ten times more powerful empire does NOT make the game any more challenging.
Just more annoying.
I fail to see where is the challenge in crushing some scattered soldiers, and finishing off a three-provinces large faction.

Actually, you've presented a wonderful list of challenging games. Would Doom have been a classic if the monsters shot non-damaging paintballs at you? Would Master of Magic be a classic if the AI empires never expanded beyond their capital because they didn't want to be expansionists? Would Warcraft have been a classic if instead of building up units to attack you, the Orcs decided to take up flower gardening?
You missed the point. First, many of these games were very easy to win (Doom III, challenging ? Is that a joke ?).
And secondly and mainly, the point is : challenge is NOT what these games are remembered for. Of course that the AI reacted and the enemies moved. But challenge was never the point that made them great. It's like graphics : sure, you need to have pixels at the screen to look at, but don't tell me Civilization was an example of a great graphical game.

Really, when it comes down to it, we are both on the same side of the "RTW could have been better if..." debate. The difference we seem to be having is that you are asking for half of the system. That is, you don't see a problem with keeping the system of "only military victory", but designing the AI to not be interested in military victory. I do see a problem with it.
That's nonsense. How suiciding yourself shows you're interested in military victory ?
And alternatively, I ask you the question : when the goal is to conquer the world, how the AI is supposed to cope when it's in a situation where it is beaten plain and simple ? You seem to say that it should pretend it can still win against the obvious, or at least die in a last attempt to annoy the player. None make any sense, even in the strictly "game mechanics" point of view.

But I think we would both agree that an option other than military victory would be the best solution (at least, I hope you would agree to that).
Sure.
But well, two things :
- First, even in a purely military victory, the fact stay, there can be only one victor. So, as I said above, what about the "players" who are in no position to win at some time ?
I would say that, even on a game point of view, it's better to not win, but still be in the game, than to be eliminated. Consolation prize, somehow.
- Second, and more important : the victory conditions, depend on how you see them. What I mean is that you can look at them differently. Not as the defining way to play, but rather just as a milestone. Just a way to say "at this time, if there was a winner in the game, that would be this guy". A bit like how we say the Romans were the "winner" of Antiquity at the time of their Empire. Not that others people suddendly disappeared, and not like if that prevented these Romans to, later, decline and disappear. I see the victory condition like that. A totally formal way to declare a victor, but that have no particular effect except for the player himself, which knows that now, he can stop playing if he wants.

So how about we stop this rather pointless bickering and agree to disagree?
It passes the time :P

Akka
10-19-2004, 08:29
The AI in this game for diplomacy works on an "anger" meter. If you insult them, attack them, siege them they will cut off ALL diplomatic relations in that you cannot get anything done with them. Lets take two examples here.

Example 1) You are the super power, you, or they initiated a war, you are winning. You continue to occupy their towns and destroy their armies. Under almost no circumstances will they accept a ceasefire, and if they do it is only at the return of their cities. The way to get a ceasefire is to sit back and let things cool down for awhile, go ten years or so without active hostilities and they will readily accept a ceasefire. I can't count the number of ceasefires i've attained like this, Gaul, Dacia Greek_Cities, Armenia, Pontius, Thrace, Brutii the list goes on. I mean for real, you just occupied their capital and now you're offering peace, sorry but only an idiot would accept those terms.
That's so absurd it's laughable.
I mean, it's PRECISELY because the opposing faction has destroyed my army and IS occupying my capital, that I know things aren't good, that I'm on the verge of annihilation, and that, now, really, I badly need them to accept to stop killing me.

Saying "no, I'm too angry because you're on my territory to make peace, I won't talk about a ceasefire until you pack up and leave !", it's just, well, ridiculous.

Bhruic
10-19-2004, 16:38
Everyone does prefer to have a game immersive AND challenging.
But the point is, there is many games that has been great because of their special ambiance, and many due to their new concepts, and many more due to their attention to details and realism, and NO ONE due to its challenge.

Challenge is a bonus, a good bonus, but (unless in case of caricaturally easiness), it's NOT as important, so it's certainly NOT the thing that should takes precedence.

No, challenge is absolutely fundamental. The amount of immersion you have is what takes a good game and makes it great. But the game will never be "good" in the first place if there isn't a challenge.


The fact that there is nothing but military conquests as objective is somehow a flaw. But then, going from here to add more flaws isn't the good thing to do.
As DisruptorX said, anyway, AI suiciding themselves by throwing their pityless garrisons against a ten times more powerful empire does NOT make the game any more challenging.
Just more annoying.
I fail to see where is the challenge in crushing some scattered soldiers, and finishing off a three-provinces large faction.

The "challenge" is that you are facing more enemies. If every single small empire just gave up because they can't do anything, then who's going to be your enemy? You might as well play the game for 10 turns, look around, say "Gee, I've got the most provinces" and give up. No one is going to attack you, so you can just sit back and relax. Again, if you find a game where no one ever attacks you fun, great. RTW wasn't made for people like you.


You missed the point. First, many of these games were very easy to win (Doom III, challenging ? Is that a joke ?).

You said "Doom", not "Doom III". Doom III is not a classic, and never will be. Mainly, because it's not a challenge, because most people found it way too repetative. A great case for a beautiful looking game that just isn't up to snuff.


And secondly and mainly, the point is : challenge is NOT what these games are remembered for. Of course that the AI reacted and the enemies moved. But challenge was never the point that made them great. It's like graphics : sure, you need to have pixels at the screen to look at, but don't tell me Civilization was an example of a great graphical game.

As I said, challenge is fundamental. It is required for a great game. Of course it's not going to be what they are remembered for. No more than a great game is remembered for it's UI. It doesn't mean that it's not necessary, and it doesn't mean that a bad one is just as useful as a good one.


That's nonsense. How suiciding yourself shows you're interested in military victory ?
And alternatively, I ask you the question : when the goal is to conquer the world, how the AI is supposed to cope when it's in a situation where it is beaten plain and simple ? You seem to say that it should pretend it can still win against the obvious, or at least die in a last attempt to annoy the player. None make any sense, even in the strictly "game mechanics" point of view.

You keep talking about this "suiciding" yourself. What exactly is that suppose to be? The AI never intentionally tries to kill itself. And if you think that refusing a (stupid) ceasefire is "suicide", then you are deluding yourself.


- First, even in a purely military victory, the fact stay, there can be only one victor. So, as I said above, what about the "players" who are in no position to win at some time ?
I would say that, even on a game point of view, it's better to not win, but still be in the game, than to be eliminated. Consolation prize, somehow.

The role of the AI is less to try and win themselves (because I'm not even sure they can), but to prevent the player from winning. From that point of view, "giving up" makes no sense.


- Second, and more important : the victory conditions, depend on how you see them. What I mean is that you can look at them differently. Not as the defining way to play, but rather just as a milestone. Just a way to say "at this time, if there was a winner in the game, that would be this guy". A bit like how we say the Romans were the "winner" of Antiquity at the time of their Empire. Not that others people suddendly disappeared, and not like if that prevented these Romans to, later, decline and disappear. I see the victory condition like that. A totally formal way to declare a victor, but that have no particular effect except for the player himself, which knows that now, he can stop playing if he wants.

No, the victory conditions depend on what the game tells you the victory conditions are. Making up your own victory conditions in your head is fine. But expecting the AI to understand that you are making up victory conditions in your head is stupid.


It passes the time :P

I suppose so.

Bh

GFX707
10-19-2004, 17:13
Look at games like Europa Universalis II - that is what I would have liked the campaign map of RTW to have been more like. The diplomacy works fine there, and every country you share a border with isn't attacking you all the time. It's still fun and challenging. I always prayed for a game that was Europa Universalis II's campaign map mixed with MTW's battles and I thought this would come close....well it sort of did and sort of didn't too

Mori Gabriel Syme
10-19-2004, 20:04
The AI is bad, even by TW standards. I have never had the enemy accept a cease fire, ever. I can destroy their armies, sack their cities, and nope, they will not agree to cease fire.
I've had several ceasefires accepted. I've even been at war with & then traded with the Greeks. Seems that every time the Senate noticed I wasn't at war with the Greeks, they'd vote to have me blockade a Greek port. Now the Greeks refuse to accept a ceasefire after an ally pulled me into a naval battle. The difference now is that we share a border, & near one of my least developed & defended cities, too.

Akka
10-19-2004, 21:23
As I said, challenge is fundamental. It is required for a great game. Of course it's not going to be what they are remembered for. No more than a great game is remembered for it's UI. It doesn't mean that it's not necessary, and it doesn't mean that a bad one is just as useful as a good one.

No, challenge is absolutely fundamental. The amount of immersion you have is what takes a good game and makes it great. But the game will never be "good" in the first place if there isn't a challenge.
Well, you just admitted that immersion was what made a game great. First step :p

Now, the existence of "challenge" is, of course, necessary. But then, it's like graphics. You need to have coloured pixels at the screen to have something to look at (it would be hard to play with a black screen...), and if it's ridiculously low, then it can ruin a game and make it a piece of crap.
Samely, we need to have something to do, and we need to have at least token difficulty to do it, or else boredom comes and no game can be interesting.

But it's more about noticeable existence than quantity. A game with nice graphics increase its immersion and the pleasure of the eye, and overall it improves the game (going from sprites to 3D-models hugely improved the immersion of RTW over MTW, and as such made it a better game than its predecessor). But when you start to put graphcis at odds with immersion (bad design, restricting gameplay and ambiance in order to be able to increase the number of polygons of the models, things like that), you actually decrease the overall interest of the game.

Well, same with challenge. Better challenge increase the interest of the game, as it make it more commiting to play. But when it goes against immersion, it decrease the overall interest of the game, by pushing you out of the game with "hu, what the hell, this is stupid" or "Ah well... It's really just a AI after all". Having the sudden feeling that it's just an AI and not the supposed King of Macedon against you, is a darn big shot at the immersion.

The "challenge" is that you are facing more enemies.
Wow, there is a pityful 200-men stake that will attack my 1000-men strong legionnary army. How challenging.

Please :rolleyes:

If every single small empire just gave up because they can't do anything, then who's going to be your enemy?
The big ones. Or an alliance of the small ones, but then ALL TOGETHER.
If there is no big ones, nor a powerful enough stack of little ones, left, then it means that I pretty much HAVE winned the game, somehow, isn't it ?

You might as well play the game for 10 turns, look around, say "Gee, I've got the most provinces" and give up. No one is going to attack you, so you can just sit back and relax. Again, if you find a game where no one ever attacks you fun, great. RTW wasn't made for people like you.
If only challenge is interesting me, then I can as well launch the game, then exit it. Because I KNOW I'll win.
And it's not because some idiotic guy will throw his fearsome two hundred peasants on my urban cohort in a pathetic attempt to suicide itself, or will stubbornly say "nah I won't make peace" the day before his last city fall, that I'll have any chance to win reduced.

You said "Doom", not "Doom III". Doom III is not a classic, and never will be. Mainly, because it's not a challenge, because most people found it way too repetative. A great case for a beautiful looking game that just isn't up to snuff.
Finished Doom in Ultra-violence with only one save at the start of each level. I wasn't exactly amazed by the game because of the challenge. It was rather because it was the first game when I could feel like if I WAS the guy, because I saw by his eyes, and I was like a real marine in real situation. Immersion, again. Not challenge.

You keep talking about this "suiciding" yourself. What exactly is that suppose to be? The AI never intentionally tries to kill itself. And if you think that refusing a (stupid) ceasefire is "suicide", then you are deluding yourself.
Refusing a ceasefire when you're being exterminated is suicide. That's plain, simple, obvious logic, like 1+1=2.
That's precisely why ceasefire has been signed during whole history, you know ?

Attacking someone who is ten times stronger than yourself is suicide.
That's precisely why the little guy shut up when the huge muscular guy tells him to.

The role of the AI is less to try and win themselves (because I'm not even sure they can), but to prevent the player from winning. From that point of view, "giving up" makes no sense.
Gah. That's an absolutely horrible point of view. The role of an AI is to have the role it should have.
In a F1 simulation, the role of each AI pilot IS to win the race. According to your definition, they should make a wall before the player so he can't be the first. A simulation with such AI would be a pathetic joke.
In a FPS game, the role of an enemy AI is to act like the enemy it's supposed to represent. Which means that a brainless monster will fight to the death, and a marine will retreat when wounded, and a small rat will flee without even fighting, unless cornered. According to your definition, every single monster should just fight to the death. Fact : it's much more interesting to play a game when the enemies acts like real ones, than a game with all enemies being dumb bot rushing at you.
As a side note, one of the major complain in Morrowind was precisely that all the wildlife acted like you said it should, and players were tired to be attacked by suicidal rats and Cliff birds. Another proof that your definition is wrong.
And in a strategic game where AI are supposed to be the leaders of kingdoms, well, AI should act as if they were the leaders of kingdoms.
And as such, take the decisions that a real leader would take, and not play the lemmings by suiciding themselves on the player.

What you describe, is the exact definition of what frustrated many players in Civ series and MTW itself : the "everybody against me", oppposed to the "each one being an independant entity". It's the basis of a huge number complaints in both series, so somehow your definition seems failing.

No, the victory conditions depend on what the game tells you the victory conditions are. Making up your own victory conditions in your head is fine. But expecting the AI to understand that you are making up victory conditions in your head is stupid.
See above. The AI should play his role. Not being annihilated is a better way to attain victory than acting stupidly just because it will require the player a bit more annoying clean-up, anyway.

Jeanne d'arc
10-19-2004, 22:45
I was allied to the greek states for about 5 years and suddenly they break the alliance by attempting to sink 1 ship ~:eek: .Perhaps if they asked me for military acces first and then attack me with a large army to betray me but no that ship has to be sinked........
The diplomacy AI needs some tweaking asap.

To bad theres no option to make alliances through the forms of marriage, naturally those alliances would stand much longer.I gues thats not historicly accurate :book: .

Colovion
10-19-2004, 22:48
Games aren't fun because they're just challenging - games are fun because they're challenging in interesting, new ways. Challenge is a reason to play the game once, but the interesting and new challenges is what makes games worth playing more than once.

Jeanne d'arc
10-19-2004, 23:26
Games aren't fun because they're just challenging - games are fun because they're challenging in interesting, new ways. Challenge is a reason to play the game once, but the interesting and new challenges is what makes games worth playing more than once.
RTW is worth playing more then once cause every campaign u play is different in some way, theres always new things to find out and the player is free to choose the desteny of his empire.MTW had this but RTW has this twice as much.

Hamburglar
10-19-2004, 23:49
I'm of the opinion that the current diplomacy is kind of ridiculous.

I'm all in support of the game being challenging but the AI just pulls random suicidal diplomatic moves.

Example 1:

Playing as Carthage. Make an alliance (w/ access) with the Greeks almost immediately. Roman army is sieging the Greek city on Sicily. I am sending troops to HELP them against the Romans, split apart into small armies to get there quicker. What do the Greeks do? Send a 500 man army out to kill my helpless slinger reinforcements that are moving up behind my main army... End result is that I say the hell with Greece and I let Rome take their city.

WHY THE HELL would any country attack their ally that is coming to HELP THEM? Even if its part of some devious Machiavellian plan it'd be a bit more devious if they actually let my troops save their stupid city instead of actually wasting lives slaughtering the rescuers.

Example 2: 40 years later, we're still at war. They like to randomly sink my boats with their boats. Haven't seen any Greek ground troops. Ask them every year for a ceasefire but they never want one. Meanwhile the Romans are sacking their countryside (I'm at war with the Romans as well) and they won't have peace with me to get some trade going and allow us to team up on Rome. The damn Greeks actually SINK MY SHIPS that are on the way to invading Italy.


Example 3: Same game. Spain and Gaul are at war with me. They want Cordoba. Cordoba has an 8 star general and a huge army and stone walls. I'd estimate that about 40-50,000 Spanish and Gallic troops have died sieging that city. I've lost less than 2,000. Never once have my troops even left the stupid city to invade them but they both insist on being at war with me and sending pathetic barbarian armies in endless attempts to take the same stupid city and I try to call a ceasefire every turn. Meanwhile, they are at war with the Romans and the Julli are stealing Gaulish lands. Do the Gauls ever think that I could be a useful ally agains the Romans and that maybe it's kind of useless to send armies marching 10 years through Spain to die at my city while Rome is wiping them out? Nope.



The AI just does ridiculous suicidal wars for no apparent reason other than they hate the human player. It doesn't help me lose - it just makes the game more annoying. AI factions would be a lot more challenging if their primary effort was to survive at all costs rather than to fuck with me at all costs. Gaul and Greece would be much worthier enemies if they expended their efforts protecting their own land and trading with me to build up money to fight the Romans instead of fighting a meaningless losing war against a country that has only ever been nice to them.


The way the AI behaves highlights the fact that it is just a goofy little game and that I'm not fighting the Greeks - I'm fighting a stupid little program that does everything it can to sink every boat I make for no apparent reason while their people die by the thousands to fellow AI players.




Now I am fully in support of a challenging game but the AI's goals should not be to STOP THE HUMAN but to WIN FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. Greece should not be trying to prevent me from winning - Greece should be TRYING TO WIN on its own. This means that it should protect its own balls before trying to kick mine simply because I'm the human and it doesn't want me to win. The AI is just plain suicidal for no reason.


I felt it most during my Juli campaign when I had to exterminate the Gauls, Britons, Spaniards, and Germans simply because they would not accept a ceasefire. I realize what is being said in that obviously they hate me and they don't trust me but a ceasefire can ONLY be benficial if I am utterly wiping out their cities. I offer them a ceasefire and they have two choices, essentially.

Choice A: Accept the ceasefire. The Romans are pigs and they may break it but this is our only chance to recover. If they wanted to wipe us out completely they have the full power to do so under the current war. They may break the ceasefire but so far this is our only chance to get out of this war. Maybe in the future we can build up and strike them when they are busy somewhere else.

Choice B: Refuse haughtily. They've only taken 7 cities and won 50 battles without a single loss. We're utterly bankrupt and they're rich. Surely we can still win this war! Let's keep fighting!


The computer almost always picks Choice B even though it results in their annhilation. I want the AI players to desperately try to survive. I wouldn't mind them stabbing me in the back if I made peace with them as long as it showed they were at least thinking in the long term.

Colovion
10-20-2004, 00:33
Imagine how much more immersive the game would be if you actually felt like you were just one of many factions trying to survive (or even dominate) in the given time period - instead of a human playing a computer game against AI.

Ktonos
10-20-2004, 14:52
If challenge is more important than immersion, then the "Great Battles" series is far much classic and better games than the Total War series.

Bhruic
10-21-2004, 01:25
Now, the existence of "challenge" is, of course, necessary.

Well you just admitted challenge is necessary. First step.


The big ones. Or an alliance of the small ones, but then ALL TOGETHER.
If there is no big ones, nor a powerful enough stack of little ones, left, then it means that I pretty much HAVE winned the game, somehow, isn't it ?

Er, yes, so you don't want to have the "AI gang up on player" routine, but you want all of the small AI empires to make alliances and attack you?

As for whether you have won the game or not, how about an example. You've got 20 provinces, and 8 AI empires have 10. Have you won? You've got twice as much as any other empire in the game. None of them are as powerful as you. So by your logic, they should all just give up, go home and sit there, and hope that you don't attack them.

Which would make for a pretty stupid game, imo. They shouldn't have to all ally together to attack me because, as you say, that just puts it into the "all AI vs human" approach.


If only challenge is interesting me, then I can as well launch the game, then exit it. Because I KNOW I'll win.

Oh, please, how silly an argument is that? It's not about knowing you'll win, or knowing you'll lose. I know I'm going to win pretty much every game I play that doesn't rely on luck. Challenge is what determines how hard I have to work to win. If you could start up RTW, click on a single button, and have the game play the victory screen, would you enjoy the game? I'd hope not.


Finished Doom in Ultra-violence with only one save at the start of each level. I wasn't exactly amazed by the game because of the challenge. It was rather because it was the first game when I could feel like if I WAS the guy, because I saw by his eyes, and I was like a real marine in real situation. Immersion, again. Not challenge.

*sigh* And who said that you'd be amazed by the challenge? I thought we'd worked past you assuming that I said anything about challenge being the thing someone remembers about a game.

Look, I'll say it one more time: Challenges are necessary, but not sufficient by themselves. That is to say, you aren't automatically going to have a "classic" game by making it challenging, but if it is not challenging, you certainly won't.


Refusing a ceasefire when you're being exterminated is suicide. That's plain, simple, obvious logic, like 1+1=2.

Hardly. If someone has a large army standing outside your city, there is absolutely no reason to believe they want a ceasefire. I mean, come on, numerous people have told you exactly how you can get a ceasefire - pull your armies back, so the other empire doesn't think you are about to invade it. So why is it when you are told not only that you can get ceasefires, but you are told precisely how to go about it, you still insist on assuming you can't get them?

It's pretty simple, after all, make the AI think you are planning to attack, and it won't believe you aren't going to invade. Make the AI think you are serious about a ceasefire, and they will often sign then.


Attacking someone who is ten times stronger than yourself is suicide.
That's precisely why the little guy shut up when the huge muscular guy tells him to.

Oh, I see. So when I attack empires in this game that are 10x stronger than me, I'm committing suicide. Right. So 50 years later, when I win the game, I guess I should tell them that I'm already dead. Because, you know, I committed suicide.


As a side note, one of the major complain in Morrowind was precisely that all the wildlife acted like you said it should, and players were tired to be attacked by suicidal rats and Cliff birds. Another proof that your definition is wrong.

No, the complaint was not that they attacked you, it was that there was no reason for them to attack you. You see, the game rules for Morrowind were not tied up in wildlife attacking you.

Now contrast that to RTW, where the game rules are tied up in the AI factions attacking you. Big difference.

Bh

Colovion
10-21-2004, 01:52
Oh, I see. So when I attack empires in this game that are 10x stronger than me, I'm committing suicide. Right. So 50 years later, when I win the game, I guess I should tell them that I'm already dead. Because, you know, I committed suicide.

The thing is that the other faction probably wasn't 10x stronger than you - you must have had an edge somewhere through economy, military or alliances with another faction. IF they're 10x stronger in all of those things over you the only thing that can make it so that you win is because the computer is a dimwit and can't manage their empire well enough to present a challenge - even when they are 10x stronger than you.


Hardly. If someone has a large army standing outside your city, there is absolutely no reason to believe they want a ceasefire. I mean, come on, numerous people have told you exactly how you can get a ceasefire - pull your armies back, so the other empire doesn't think you are about to invade it. So why is it when you are told not only that you can get ceasefires, but you are told precisely how to go about it, you still insist on assuming you can't get them?

Yes, people tell eachother how they have gotten ceasefires - but it isn't the same every time. I was in happy alliance with Dacia for about 15 turns helping them kill the Julii and Brutii. The Dacians had been beaten back by them but they regained strength after our alliance and took back the province they had lost. Then the Dacian AI thinks it's a better idea to attack me, who has a higher military prowess to the Romans and I'm neutering them in other parts of the map and I want to be friends with the Dacians. They attack me after for no reason. I have Alliances - Dacia has none. Where's the mentality in that? I beat Dacia back over the rest of the campaign all the way North and finally corner them in Locus Gothi. I don't kill them because I didn't have the forces nearby and I withdraw all my forces and let Domus Dulcis Domus rebel so there is a buffer zone. Guess what? Still no ceasefire. Even after offering many things in return - you'd think that THEY would be begging for me to stop slaughtering them but they don't. Yes, I know all the little tricks for the diplomacy model - but the AI doesn't know how to use the diplomacy model it seems. They still play a 2D model when there is a 3D model to be used. You know how they know you want a ceasefire? When you offer 10,000 Denarii, a Province, Trade Rights, Ceasefire and remove all troops from a once Province barrier between their Province and the closest troops of yours are 2 units of Militia Hoplites.

Don't you see a problem here?

Bhruic
10-21-2004, 03:16
IF they're 10x stronger in all of those things over you the only thing that can make it so that you win is because the computer is a dimwit and can't manage their empire well enough to present a challenge - even when they are 10x stronger than you.

Yup, I've never said the AI is particularily good at managing their empire.


You know how they know you want a ceasefire? When you offer 10,000 Denarii, a Province, Trade Rights, Ceasefire and remove all troops from a once Province barrier between their Province and the closest troops of yours are 2 units of Militia Hoplites.

Don't you see a problem here?

Ok, let's say that we are playing a mythical "multiplayer" version of RTW. We are at war. I come up to you and offer you 10,000 Denarii, a Province, Trade Rights, Ceasefire and removal of all troops from a Provincial barrier. Now how do you respond? I mean, you almost certainly agree, because you get a lot of stuff for "free". But wouldn't you then turn around and immediately attack?

I certainly would. You've just advertised to me that you're horribly weak and, for some reason, really need a ceasefire. That means that it would be to my advantage to attack you.

Now I'm not saying that all of the AI's decisions make sense. But, then, people make a lot of stupid decisions in real life too. I'm sure there were rulers who refused to accept ceasefires with people that were beating them.

Bh

Colovion
10-21-2004, 03:54
Yes - if you offered me that kind of offer would make me want to attack you soon after taking your offer - assuming that I'm not the Dacians with one Province left and keeping up hostilities would destroy me. I was offering it to them because I didn't want to attack them and kill them anymore. I had two stacks of troops just doing nothing which I could have used but I didn't because I wanted to use it elsewhere - not needed, just a whim.

Computer AI = Fight to the Death

We've seen this in almost any game ever created. It's boring. We want something new and interesting ot hold our attention.

Right now = yawwwn.

Bhruic
10-21-2004, 04:28
Computer AI = Fight to the Death

We've seen this in almost any game ever created. It's boring. We want something new and interesting ot hold our attention.

Right now = yawwwn.

So you want your AI to do what, exactly? Recognize when you decide to let an AI survive with one province on a "whim"? Shrug and give up?

I mean, so far I've seen lots of "the AI should know when it's beaten", but very little about how that is supposed to make the game better. It would certainly make winning easier, but winning is easy enough in RTW as it is. I don't need any more help in that department.

Bh

Colovion
10-21-2004, 06:07
So you want your AI to do what, exactly? Recognize when you decide to let an AI survive with one province on a "whim"? Shrug and give up?

I mean, so far I've seen lots of "the AI should know when it's beaten", but very little about how that is supposed to make the game better. It would certainly make winning easier, but winning is easy enough in RTW as it is. I don't need any more help in that department.

Bh

I didn't want to fight them the whole game - they attacked me when everything about my faction overshadowed theirs. Giving up is not ceasefiring. How is agreeing to take all my offers that benefit them giving up? To directly echo many other people: I want them to try to survive, what they're doing is suicide. It might have made sense for them to attack me when they did - when my northern border was weaker than all of my other borders - but once I start taking settlements and show no sign of slowing down that is when they should have a lightbulb go off and think "hey, maybe I should start consolidating my losses instead of agrivating more."

The AI in this game isn't just one entity - it really is many made of many factions in the game. If one faction has an ally and I start encroaching on either of their territory or they feel like using their combined strength to take something of mine - that makes sense. What doesnt' make sense is an allyless AI faction attack my faction when I have 3 allies and most of them border their territory - that's suicide and makes for way too easy of a game.

For the AI to know when they're beaten and ask for ceasefires while still fighitng back is what we're asking for - there is no "We Surrender" option so the AI can never really give up - but they can ask for the only intelligent thing: Stop Killing Us.

troymclure
10-21-2004, 06:19
i have one thing to say in all this. CA i think your one of the best gaming companies around but please please hire the guy who did the diplomacy model for europa universalis to join your team. :)
seriously i have to agree with the posters who want a non-suicidal A.I, it's been a problem with the series since shogun (though back then it was more believable) and it just takes away from my supsension of disbelief. I can accept the fact that some civs would prefer to fight to the death then sign a ceasfire but evey single one of them? Realistically in war once a nation is down to it's last city you are going to get them begging for a ceasefire and they should probably be willing to accept whatever terms you give them. Lose a war and pay the consequences, see the treaty of versailles.
This is how it happens in real life and other computer games and i think it actually makes them better. I mean how much of a challenege is destroyig that one last province anyways? when it gets down to one or two provinces and it's armies are clearly inferior/outnumbered IMO the A.I should be the one to start offering cease-fires and large amounts of gold.

Arakasi
10-21-2004, 06:55
Good posts Bhuric. I'd have to say I agree with what you're saying. Tough taking so much flak, but your posts have been consistent and respectful. Keep up the good work.

Akka
10-21-2004, 08:13
Well you just admitted challenge is necessary. First step.
I never said that the existence of challenge wasn't important. But I always said that immersion was of a higher priority. If you try to plagiarize, at least do it well :P

Er, yes, so you don't want to have the "AI gang up on player" routine, but you want all of the small AI empires to make alliances and attack you?
No.
But weak factions should start to seek allies, to not be the prey of bigger ones.

As for whether you have won the game or not, how about an example. You've got 20 provinces, and 8 AI empires have 10. Have you won? You've got twice as much as any other empire in the game. None of them are as powerful as you. So by your logic, they should all just give up, go home and sit there, and hope that you don't attack them.
Ok, now learn to read :
"If there is no big ones, nor a powerful enough stack of little ones, left, then it means that I pretty much HAVE winned the game, somehow, isn't it ?"

Oh, please, how silly an argument is that? It's not about knowing you'll win, or knowing you'll lose. I know I'm going to win pretty much every game I play that doesn't rely on luck. Challenge is what determines how hard I have to work to win. If you could start up RTW, click on a single button, and have the game play the victory screen, would you enjoy the game? I'd hope not.
Yes, challenge determines how hard I have to work.
And immersion determines how INTERESTING it will be to work.

I prefer an interesting game to a hard game, and as such it's much more preferable to have factions acting in a believable, realistic way ("gosh, we're losing the war, better let it be peace before we take too much of a beating"), than like some Risk-player.

*sigh* And who said that you'd be amazed by the challenge? I thought we'd worked past you assuming that I said anything about challenge being the thing someone remembers about a game.

Look, I'll say it one more time: Challenges are necessary, but not sufficient by themselves. That is to say, you aren't automatically going to have a "classic" game by making it challenging, but if it is not challenging, you certainly won't.
And again : if you're ready to destroy majorly immersion just in order to add an extremely minor degree of challenge, then it must be that you consider challenge so much more important than immersion.
Or you're contradiction yourself.

So let's sum it up :
- Faction acting as absurdly as you say, destroy immersion, and add (nearly none) challenge.
- You say they should act like that, because it's more important to have this little tiny bit of challenge added, even if it means that immersion will be hurt quite a lot.

Logical conclusion : you consider challenge to be so much more important than immersion for the interest of a game.

And then you say that it's not that important, but you just need a bit of challenge.

Make up your mind.

Hardly. If someone has a large army standing outside your city, there is absolutely no reason to believe they want a ceasefire. I mean, come on, numerous people have told you exactly how you can get a ceasefire - pull your armies back, so the other empire doesn't think you are about to invade it. So why is it when you are told not only that you can get ceasefires, but you are told precisely how to go about it, you still insist on assuming you can't get them?

It's pretty simple, after all, make the AI think you are planning to attack, and it won't believe you aren't going to invade. Make the AI think you are serious about a ceasefire, and they will often sign then.
Ok, the reasoning "you are giving them a beating with your army rampaging on their territory, so they won't accept a ceasefire because you might attack them", is so bogus, nonsensical and absurd I don't even need to counter it. Just take a nanosecond to think about it and see the problem.

("no, we won't accept a ceasefire, because they are fighting us !" :dizzy2: )

Oh, I see. So when I attack empires in this game that are 10x stronger than me, I'm committing suicide. Right. So 50 years later, when I win the game, I guess I should tell them that I'm already dead. Because, you know, I committed suicide.
If they are really 10x stronger than you, yes that's a suicide. Something you actually don't do, BTW.

No, the complaint was not that they attacked you, it was that there was no reason for them to attack you. You see, the game rules for Morrowind were not tied up in wildlife attacking you.
Well, aren't we talking about the REASON of AI attacking us, and the absurdity of them refusing to sign a ceasefire while they have urgent reasons to do it ?
Yes ?

Thanks for proving my point.

Now contrast that to RTW, where the game rules are tied up in the AI factions attacking you. Big difference.
No. The problem is exactly the same : illogical behaviour, that can only be explained if you take a purely "that's a game so the AI should do that to the player" point of view, and which make no sense in a realistic, immersive point of view.

Good posts Bhuric. I'd have to say I agree with what you're saying. Tough taking so much flak, but your posts have been consistent and respectful. Keep up the good work.
He doesn't "take flak". He's having absurd reasoning, and people point that, that's all.

Colovion
10-21-2004, 09:43
I got it, the reason why this is so frusterating.

in MTW in the first few turns you'd have Diplomats flooding you asking for Alliances and those Alliances weren't all that trustworthy

in RTW you have to fight tooth and nail for any kind of Alliance - and even then you still can't trust them

lancelot
10-21-2004, 13:33
Good posts Bhuric. I'd have to say I agree with what you're saying. Tough taking so much flak, but your posts have been consistent and respectful. Keep up the good work.

You obviously didnt read the earlier ones, he and someone else were calling each other idiots. I stepped in at some point to get people back on topic, without much success.

TheDuck
10-22-2004, 03:26
Good posts Bhuric. I'd have to say I agree with what you're saying. Tough taking so much flak, but your posts have been consistent and respectful. Keep up the good work.

Not all of them, go back and reread them.

This thread has turned into an Akka/Bhruic flame fest. Guys, this community has been a very respectful one. Could we please keep it that way in this thread?

And one comment directed right at Akka..

You shouldn't speak for 'everyone' when you say 'everyone wants games that are immersive'.

If by immersive you mean.. 'I should feel like I am fulfilling some role', so in Medieval TW I should feel like the king, or something like that.

That is not why I play games. I play them for the mental challenge.. of figuring out the system, of being placed into situations with incredible odds, but it has nothing to do with 'I want to feel like a king, or a dog, or whatever' (well, maybe a dog!!! ;) )

I skip over all the videos in all my games unless they are humorous.. I generally turn off the music. I just don't care about that stuff.. I did all my 'imagine games' as a kid and it is where it stopped. Call me a realist, but you certainly don't speak for me when you say 'everyone'.

I think many folks are into 'immersive', but that isn't all, not by a long shot.

And on this thread's nominal subject (which was hijacked SO long ago).. I don't care about the diplomacy options in MTW or RTW. I'm there to conquer the world, and generally I turn down any and all offers at peace. I just couldn't care less what the computer wants to do. I keep troops on the border, manage my economy and troop creation, and attack when it is to my advantage. This feature could be utterly broken and I wouldn't even know.

I suppose I'll never shake my initial experience of gaming.. which is chess. Checkmate is the ultimate goal, and the variations in tactics are what make it interesting. And it never ever involves negotiated peace.

Bhruic
10-22-2004, 04:01
I never said that the existence of challenge wasn't important. But I always said that immersion was of a higher priority. If you try to plagiarize, at least do it well :P

Well, gee, your comment was "Well, you just admitted that immersion was what made a game great.", when I never said anything about immersion not being part of a great game... So it would seem to be equally important.


But weak factions should start to seek allies, to not be the prey of bigger ones.

Sure they should. When have I ever said different?


Ok, now learn to read :
"If there is no big ones, nor a powerful enough stack of little ones, left, then it means that I pretty much HAVE winned the game, somehow, isn't it ?"

So you are actually suggesting your point was "When I control over 50% of the board, I've pretty much won"? That just seemed way too obvious a statement to need to be said. Sorry for assuming you were more advanced than that. :rolleyes:


I prefer an interesting game to a hard game, and as such it's much more preferable to have factions acting in a believable, realistic way ("gosh, we're losing the war, better let it be peace before we take too much of a beating"), than like some Risk-player.

You know, I can't stand Risk. So if your version of a personal attack is to go with the high-and-mighty "you like Risk, you suck" approach, could you at least pick a game I enjoy?


And again : if you're ready to destroy majorly immersion just in order to add an extremely minor degree of challenge, then it must be that you consider challenge so much more important than immersion.
Or you're contradiction yourself.

It's not destroying major immersion, so your premise is incorrect, which makes your conclusion completely unsupported.

I guess in your world, Thermopylae just shouldn't have taken place. What were those idiotic Spartans thinking, going 300 against 310,000. How dare they actually fight to defend their homeland against vastly superior numbers? I mean, they all just died anyway, they should have known when to give up.


Ok, the reasoning "you are giving them a beating with your army rampaging on their territory, so they won't accept a ceasefire because you might attack them", is so bogus, nonsensical and absurd I don't even need to counter it. Just take a nanosecond to think about it and see the problem.

("no, we won't accept a ceasefire, because they are fighting us !" :dizzy2: )

Uh, if you can't actually counter-argue the point, just say so. Stop pretending otherwise.


If they are really 10x stronger than you, yes that's a suicide. Something you actually don't do, BTW.

Right. So now you actually believe you can tell me what I have and have not done. Good job, that just lost you any remaining credibility you might have had.


Well, aren't we talking about the REASON of AI attacking us, and the absurdity of them refusing to sign a ceasefire while they have urgent reasons to do it ?

No, we are talking about your assumption that they have urgent reasons to accept a ceasefire.


No. The problem is exactly the same : illogical behaviour, that can only be explained if you take a purely "that's a game so the AI should do that to the player" point of view, and which make no sense in a realistic, immersive point of view.

No, it's not the same at all. In Morrowind, you could completely remove the animals from the game, and the game would not be impacted in the slightest. That is proof positive that they have no impact on the gameplay. In RTW, if you remove the factions from the game, there is no game. That is proof that the factions have a significant impact on gameplay. Therefore, any comparison needs to take that into consideration, which you completely failed to do.


He doesn't "take flak". He's having absurd reasoning, and people point that, that's all.

Funny how I've multiple times offered to just let it go and stop arguing about it, but you insist on continually picking it up. If the reasoning were as "absurd" as you claim, then everyone would agree, and there would be no point in continuing to discuss it, would there?

In fact, that would be the best way for you to prove your point, just stop arguing.

Bh

andrewt
10-22-2004, 04:48
My problem with the AI in this game is it doesn't play to win. It acts like a brigand just marauding around, not trying to survive and grow an empire. I still like it better than MTW's "let's all be allies and gang on the player later on" diplomacy, but RTW's AI factions should be more methodical in grabbing land, not attacking everyone and grabbing land without reason. I have a few examples in my current Parthian game:

1. Thrace is at war with Scythia. I'm at war with Scythia. Now, an alliance with me, or at least trade rights, would be in their advantage. They asked me for trade rights, I said yes, and they attacked me the same turn. Scythia is our mutual enemy. Now that they declared war on me, it would make sense for them to have an alliance with Scythia considering I'm also at war with Scythia. At the least, they should ask for a ceasefire since they now have a common enemy. They didn't. It's a three way war with both of them having no chance to win, especially since they're also fighting each other in the mean time.

2. The Greeks are at war with the Brutii. I don't have any spies in their location but they look like they're losing. While that war is going on, they attack me. Brutii and I (not allied) proceed to kick their butts separately. While the Greeks are still alive, the Brutii declare war on me. I don't know where the Greeks still have land but they probably only have so few cities, maybe even one left. The Romans will most likely eliminate them if they don't either sign a ceasefire with them or an get an alliance with me. They don't sign a ceasefire with them. They instead keep annoying me with ceasefire offers if I pay them more than 100,000 denarii. Yeah, right. The Brutii are losing the war with me and they asked for 4 of the cities I conquered and a lot of denarii or they will attack me.

Bob the Insane
10-22-2004, 09:53
Yeah, the other factions deplomacy often seems a bit optimistic, but they will often accept a lot less if you negotiate...

I remember Master of Orion 3, which sucked in a lot of ways, did have great deplomacy... Other races would consider things like lose of trade income if they when to war with you and stuff.. And would alliances would often form power blocks based on global areas and such... Add that some races simply has an instinctive dislike of each other... That game could have been sooooooooo good... sigh...

Brutal DLX
10-22-2004, 10:43
Yeah, the other factions deplomacy often seems a bit optimistic, but they will often accept a lot less if you negotiate...

I remember Master of Orion 3, which sucked in a lot of ways, did have great deplomacy... Other races would consider things like lose of trade income if they when to war with you and stuff.. And would alliances would often form power blocks based on global areas and such... Add that some races simply has an instinctive dislike of each other... That game could have been sooooooooo good... sigh...

It still is if you install the best fan mods. But diplomacy is still bad in comparison to what was planned, but at least it works, which is something one cannot really say about RTW's diplomacy.

Without wanting to go into too much detail about this issue, of course there is a percentage of players who play RTW for challenge only, to conquer the world and to do that against all possible odds. But there is also a percentage, like me, who preferred to not only conquer but to shape a realm of a size and (possibly historical) layout according to their visions, and to do that with all available means, which not only includes warfare but also diplomatic and economic considerations. Some take this approach even further and get really immersed in playing a game, playing it as if they were the ruler of the realm, managing family and VnV with much greater attention etc...
Thus, as in MTW GA mode campaigns, one could be perfectly challenged and entertained by having to defend what's yours already, or achieving certain goals. I, for my part, hoped that CA would enlarge on and add to that aspect in RTW in order to satisfy this part of the community, and while the diplomatic system has been improved in theory, it is practically worthless because the AI hasn't been told how to effectively use it because it cannot assess the strategic situation properly.
This is the main flaw of RTW, and while it isn't so obvious in the "Conquer 50 provinces" mode, it would have been in any kind of GA mode, and I venture the guess that this is exactly why such a mode has been left out. It is sad, but perhaps we will see an improvement in the expansion or by our great modding teams...

Akka
10-22-2004, 12:21
Well, gee, your comment was "Well, you just admitted that immersion was what made a game great.", when I never said anything about immersion not being part of a great game... So it would seem to be equally important.
There is a difference between saying "this is part of a great game" and "this is what make a great game".

Sure they should. When have I ever said different?
Nowhere. But what I point is that weak AI should NOT launch attacks (which are suicidal) before being part of a larger alliance (and that doesn't mean they should necessarily attack when they are part of such alliance. But then, at least, it would make more sense).

So you are actually suggesting your point was "When I control over 50% of the board, I've pretty much won"? That just seemed way too obvious a statement to need to be said. Sorry for assuming you were more advanced than that. :rolleyes:
You were arguing that there was no challenge left if some already-beaten AI gave up in war.
I was pointing that the challenge was still lying on other big empires, or alliances/stack of smaller ones.
And that if there was none of them left, then it was not a big problem in the challenge area, because it meant you had already won the game.

You know, I can't stand Risk. So if your version of a personal attack is to go with the high-and-mighty "you like Risk, you suck" approach, could you at least pick a game I enjoy?
Why do you automatically assume it's a personnal attack ?
If I constantly refers to it, it's simply because Risk is the best example I can think of, of a game that is strictly about game mechanics. Risk is nearly ONLY about game mechanics, in fact, with few to nothing about immersion, details, or anything else. It's abstraction at the highest, bare-boned game mechanics.
When someone plays Risk, he plays the game mechanics, pure and only.
So I find the comparison very relevant, as what you support for the AI, is exactly the point of view of a Risk player.

I find it negative only in that I consider such a point of view is out of place in RTW. But in itself, it's not derogatory...

It's not destroying major immersion, so your premise is incorrect, which makes your conclusion completely unsupported.
Yes it does. Having AI acting like a Risk player (see above), make them NOT look like the kings they are supposed to impersonify => decreasing immersion.

Pretty obvious and logical.

I guess in your world, Thermopylae just shouldn't have taken place. What were those idiotic Spartans thinking, going 300 against 310,000. How dare they actually fight to defend their homeland against vastly superior numbers? I mean, they all just died anyway, they should have known when to give up.
On the contrary. It's exactly the opposite.
On a purely "player" point of view, this make no sense.
It only does on a "role-playing" point of view, or on a "all AI should act as a team against the player" point of view.

If a general has a character V'n'V "never surrender", or "indomitable will", or if a faction is described as being culturally proud in fight and scorning cowardice, then it would make sense that they would do such a thing.
But then, there would be a particular reason to do that. Not all factions suiciding themselves only because they have to do with the game mechanics.

Uh, if you can't actually counter-argue the point, just say so. Stop pretending otherwise.
I don't have to counter it. It makes no sense. It's like if I say "gravity makes things goes up to the sky". Well, it's wrong. Just look at a thing you let fall. It will goes to the ground and not the sky.
Same here. Just look at why nations surrenders or make peace.
Hint : it's not because the invader has packed back to home.

Right. So now you actually believe you can tell me what I have and have not done. Good job, that just lost you any remaining credibility you might have had.
Yeah, because there IS factions in the game that are ten times stronger than another one :rolleyes:

No, we are talking about your assumption that they have urgent reasons to accept a ceasefire.
Taking a beating in a war seems quite an obvious reason to wish to sign a ceasefire.

This thread has turned into an Akka/Bhruic flame fest. Guys, this community has been a very respectful one. Could we please keep it that way in this thread?
Well, I would say that it's just a "heated debate". Though there is tension, it has not degenerated into insults or things like that.

And one comment directed right at Akka..

You shouldn't speak for 'everyone' when you say 'everyone wants games that are immersive'.
Well, I was talking generally. Like in the sentence "people like challenge". Well, no, some people like a game that is so easy they don't have to do anything right to win. Still, overall, people like something which is at least a bit challenging.

Same here. Generally, people prefer immersion over challenge. I have experienced this on a personnal basis, and I've also seen how, rather constitently (even if, of course, there is numerous exceptions), the "classics" are games that drawn more their status from their immersion than from their challenge.

Now, I know there is large minorities that do play, like you, on a more "game mechanics" level. I do think you're missing the most interesting part of the game (a bit like someone who cheats to win, skip the challenging part in the game), but then I understand that perhaps this part simply does not interest you.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty convinced that if CA made the diplomacy more realistic and more about what the roles the AI are supposed to play, and less about the game mechanics of pure conquest, it would make the game, overall, much deeper and more interesting.

The_Emperor
10-22-2004, 12:37
My problem with the AI in this game is it doesn't play to win. It acts like a brigand just marauding around, not trying to survive and grow an empire. I still like it better than MTW's "let's all be allies and gang on the player later on" diplomacy

Actually there doesn't seem to be much difference between the MTW backstabbing and the RTW backstabbing... I have been screwed over by allies many times in this game and it is the same as MTW.

The moment you do a little too well all agreements go out of the window.

Apart from Trade Rights, selling map info and Bribery, diplomacy is very lacking in this game, and you cannot get the AI to agree to any treaties higher than "Alliance". (I have yet to get Military access, or a protectorate)

Sleepy
10-22-2004, 17:00
Apart from Trade Rights, selling map info and Bribery, diplomacy is very lacking in this game, and you cannot get the AI to agree to any treaties higher than "Alliance". (I have yet to get Military access, or a protectorate)I've negotiated Military Access with an ally when playing the Julii. I've had Egypt other to become a protectorate for a price when playing the Brutii. Small differences in approach can make a big difference in how the game reacts to your plays IMNSHO.

andrewt
10-22-2004, 19:02
Actually there doesn't seem to be much difference between the MTW backstabbing and the RTW backstabbing... I have been screwed over by allies many times in this game and it is the same as MTW.

The moment you do a little too well all agreements go out of the window.

Apart from Trade Rights, selling map info and Bribery, diplomacy is very lacking in this game, and you cannot get the AI to agree to any treaties higher than "Alliance". (I have yet to get Military access, or a protectorate)

The difference for me is that the RTW factions are also at war with each other. In MTW, most of them are allied with each other and at war with you. The AI factions in RTW are just as likely to be at war with each other than to be at war with you. In MTW, there are a few wars that occur most of the time but apart from that, the AI hardly fights each other.

TheDuck
10-25-2004, 19:26
Well, I was talking generally. Like in the sentence "people like challenge". Well, no, some people like a game that is so easy they don't have to do anything right to win. Still, overall, people like something which is at least a bit challenging.

Same here. Generally, people prefer immersion over challenge. I have experienced this on a personnal basis, and I've also seen how, rather constitently (even if, of course, there is numerous exceptions), the "classics" are games that drawn more their status from their immersion than from their challenge.

Now, I know there is large minorities that do play, like you, on a more "game mechanics" level. I do think you're missing the most interesting part of the game (a bit like someone who cheats to win, skip the challenging part in the game), but then I understand that perhaps this part simply does not interest you.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty convinced that if CA made the diplomacy more realistic and more about what the roles the AI are supposed to play, and less about the game mechanics of pure conquest, it would make the game, overall, much deeper and more interesting.

I agree. Immersion in the general audience trumps challenge. And challenge is preferred (at least from my perspective) by a minority of players (me included).

Colovion
10-25-2004, 20:23
Yeah the Diplomacy hasn't changed at all - just the filter we look at it through.


New campaign as Germans. Alliances with Gaul and Britannia. I give gifts, they like me a lot. Two turns later they both backstab me - no they aren't allies yet 30 years later though they're still fighting me.

wheee - predicability sets in

Midnj
10-31-2004, 12:50
I had the opposite problem... Roman AI wouldn't declare on anyone else (the Scipii and Julii at least) and kept coming at me (Carthage).

I eventually killed off the Scipii. I wanted to let the Julii expand into Gaul so I'd have somemajor battles later, unfortunately I could only get them to fight anyone else after buying them out with a protectorate (and losing hundreds of thousands of denari to the bug). At that point, they started to go to war with the Gauls..

Then of course, as luck would have it, the Julii AI killed most of its family tree during our past transgressions and only had 1 family member left... who is evidently unmarried (or maybe his wife died) and no longer fertile (he's 81). I've been reloading turns when the Julii faction is destroyed due to his death and am seeing how long I can keep the old fart alive in perhaps futile hopes that there's a youngin up and coming (or that they'll bribe some AI named character to get the old family going again). But it looks like the Julii are going to be wiped out despite all my efforts to save them.

Wish there was a cheat or something I could use to give them some fresh bodies.

VividYoshee
10-31-2004, 16:32
You can't build a reactionary AI that satisfies both types of players. Really, if you add a rule that weak empires try to scramble for their lives, it will just create a new boring AI move of giving in too easily. It will annoy the challenge group, and the roleplay group will also not have as interesting a game in the long run (it just becomes a new status quo).

I like to play around with AI ideas, and I think the best AI for this type of game would need to break completely out of using scripted rules.