Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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...
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
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...
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
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".
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDuck
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.
Quote:
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.
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
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)
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Emperor
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.
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Emperor
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.
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
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).
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
Re: Roman AI..too agressive
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.
