-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Could a dev post an opinion about this?
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osbot
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
So how about we stop this rather pointless bickering and agree to disagree?
It passes the time :P
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osbot
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
- 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.
Quote:
- 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.
Quote:
It passes the time :P
I suppose so.
Bh
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisruptorX
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 ?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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: .
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
If challenge is more important than immersion, then the "Great Battles" series is far much classic and better games than the Total War series.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
Now, the existence of "challenge" is, of course, necessary.
Well you just admitted challenge is necessary. First step.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
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.
Quote:
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
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
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
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 ?"
Quote:
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.
Quote:
*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.
Quote:
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: )
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arakasi
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.
-
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arakasi
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.
