When the player gets powerful

[dognheat]

I am not sure if this has been brought up before, but one thing that has been getting on my nerves lately is what happens in games when your empire gets too powerful. The way I play, is I begin very aggressive in clearing out my starting island, or a sizeable space for my needs. Then play rather passively until someone pisses me off and then I invade. My reputation is usualy spotless, and yet at a certain point in the game everybody else declares war on me whether or not I have done anything wrong. This is a trend I have noticed in 4x games (Space Empires 4, SMAC, all civ games, warlords, etc.). I understand that the computer players must band together to offset my superpower status, but when that happens I usually stop playing because the fun factor drops significantly. What is really the most fustrating thing about it is that there is no valid pretext to all out war between my empire and the all the others. It is not even really dificult to fight off the other civs, but it just becomes a constant battle between sinking everthing in sight and sneaking trade caravans through. Not that I want peace with everybody forever, but having to build 32 SDI defences in 1 turn becuase everybody and their mom is going to nuke me next turn is kinda lame.

I would love to hear everybodies thoughts on this because I am not really sure as to a solution to this problem, but I know I what they in place currently doesn't work.

------------------
*PLOP*

[SerapisIV]

Yeah, being top-dog really seems to piss off the AI, I think though that a possible solution to this is increasing the difficulty, that is make a better AI, that way there is going to be some other AI faction out there that is as strong as you are and then the remaining AI are able to align themselves based on who would benefit them or has similar type goals aka the Cold War. But as it stands, being enormously ahead of the AI makes it tough for any to like you because there is no counter threat to your supremacy. Most of my CivII games ended that way. SMAC was better though because I've played it less and haven't fully moved into the highest difficulty so I still end up being in a real contest till the very end

[drake]

Whats wrong? Your empire gets too powerful and you don't like the results?
How bout you just don't get so powerful
Then everyone will be nice to you

[airdrik]

Actually, this should be fixed, since just being big is not a threat to the AI unless they decide they don't like you any more . The way the AI thinks in current games is that big empire=bad, even if you are giving everyone else all your techs, and money, and units, and anything else, and just trying to be nice, the computer only looks at the number of cities that your civ has and the number of techs you have, and the more cities and cities you have, the higher the rate at which they dislike you. Even in a recent OCC game I played, I had an alliance with the greeks (the most powerful civ in the game with a little of my help), and nearing the end of the game they broke off the alliance.

I have a very good feeling that this will be fixed in civ 3, though, and that how much people like you be more based on how many times you have committed acts against them and their friends, and inversly the number of acts against their enemies.

Being smarter than another doesn't make you enemies unless you are always talking about how smart you are.

[raingoon]

Actually, there is plenty of reason to expect good things. First of all, has there ever been a computer AI so widely played against, for so long, as Civ 2 (let alone Civ 1 before it, and SMAC)?

What really has my expectations up is the fact that the designers have almost certainly all played Civ for years and years, and that they are being led by Sid Meier, who by definition as the designer has played the game longer than anybody.

So I trust that they know this problem with the AI, and while no AI will ever be perfect, I count on seeing the next evolution in Civ 3 representing a fix for the most glaring things in Civ 2 and SMAC.

[King Richard]

I must say I agree! There is nothing more irritating than to be drawn into war with everything that can move! I've always had the same problem. I build a lot of cities, improvements, almost every wonder and have a lot more techs than the enemy. At a certain point, they all ally against me, switching techs like they where drunk in Las Vegas. Before I now it, I'm not so powerful anymore! When this has gone on for a while, I'll just have to go to war! I thought there should be possible to play, and win Civilization without killing everybody!? Well, it is possible, but not always very fun...

[dognheat]

So the general consensus is that this will be taken care of in civ III. That is good news, EXCEPT I am curious as to how they will deal with the later portion of the game. Without what now seems to be a standard AI activity in 4x gmaes, how would they keep the latter portion engaging. I for one would like to see the UN have a more active involvement in the game. Also idealogical conflicts are a must (cold war is a great example). More internal conflicts buying politicians and the like, and how it effects your standing in the world. I am just babbling at this point...

------------------
*PLOP*

[Ilkuul]

I've had the same problem that big=bad, and everyone gangs up against you in the endgame. Interestingly, the opposite has occurred a couple of times for me in OCC games: 'cos I was only 1 city, they paid no attention to the fact that I was far and away the most advanced civ, and would soon be winning the space race!

If I've understood correctly what's been said about Civ3, tho' (e.g. in the CGW article), diplomatic and economic victories will also be possible - so a large economically weak empire won't necessarily be a threat. There'll be other factors besides military might and technological advancement, and that gives me hope that (1) sheer size won't provoke an automatic 'gang-up' reaction; and (2), even if it does, there will be diplomatic and economic ways to counteract such AI alliances.

And of course with the possibility of revolts, secessions, etc. (see other threads), it'll be a lot harder to maintain a very large empire anyway!

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-13-2001 06:03 PM I've had the same problem that big=bad, and everyone gangs up against you in the endgame. Interestingly, the opposite has occurred a couple of times for me in OCC games: 'cos I was only 1 city, they paid no attention to the fact that I was far and away the most advanced civ, and would soon be winning the space race! If I've understood correctly what's been said about Civ3, tho' (e.g. in the CGW article), diplomatic and economic victories will also be possible - so a large economically weak empire won't necessarily be a threat. There'll be other factors besides military might and technological advancement, and that gives me hope that (1) sheer size won't provoke an automatic 'gang-up' reaction; and (2), even if it does, there will be diplomatic and economic ways to counteract such AI alliances. And of course with the possibility of revolts, secessions, etc. (see other threads), it'll be a lot harder to maintain a very large empire anyway!

I hope it will be possible to maintain large empires in civ3! But since they are probably going to allow economic victories, and a new trade system, I think that there is going to be even more wars in civ3, if you monopolize certain commodities. Sounds reasonable?

[airdrik]

The frequency is likely to increase, but the magnitude of such wars won't be nearly to the scale of those in civ 2. There might be little skirmishes allong the borders to try and take small portions of land to try and weaken their economy, but there isn't likely to be nearly as many conquest wars exept by agressive militeristic civs.

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-13-2001 06:33 PM The frequency is likely to increase, but the magnitude of such wars won't be nearly to the scale of those in civ 2. There might be little skirmishes allong the borders to try and take small portions of land to try and weaken their economy, but there isn't likely to be nearly as many conquest wars exept by agressive militeristic civs.

I'm not sure what to think! Let's say that you build a great empire (20-30) cities, monopolize certain goods and lead the research-race. I'll bet every other civ ally against you, and all hell breaks loose!

[airdrik]

Or they might not because you would cut off their only supply of those goods and they would never be able to sustain themselves. Either after a few turns of them throwing their stingy armies at you, they would give up and come knocking at your door for mercy and their commodities back.

Besides, if you are so powerful, they are more likely to ally with you (or at least should be) so they can leech off your science/money/armies/etc. and hopefully surpass you (on the harder levels), so you don't get that Economic victory that you were aiming for.

IMO it would be easier (if I was the AI in your example) to leech off your civ and try and surpass them economically than to try and beat my brains out at your doorstep trying to weaken you.

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-13-2001 06:47 PM Or they might not because you would cut off their only supply of those goods and they would never be able to sustain themselves. Either after a few turns of them throwing their stingy armies at you, they would give up and come knocking at your door for mercy and their commodities back. Besides, if you are so powerful, they are more likely to ally with you (or at least should be) so they can leech off your science/money/armies/etc. and hopefully surpass you (on the harder levels), so you don't get that Economic victory that you were aiming for. IMO it would be easier (if I was the AI in your example) to leech off your civ and try and surpass them economically than to try and beat my brains out at your doorstep trying to weaken you.

I think that you're much smarter than the AI, so I can't hope for such a strategic AI in civ 3. But, as long as there is hope! Civ 3 is probably going to be the best game ever anyway! I'm just happy about the fact that there will be borders in the game (I hate when the AI builds cities in my territories!)

[kolpo]

minor civilization can partialy solve this. Because minor civilizations can't most likely win themself with economic, diplomatic or space race won't they see your growing power as much as a treath as the major ones, they may even try to ally you or even form a federation with you so that they can share in your victory and wealth.

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 04-13-2001 07:21 PM minor civilization can partialy solve this. Because minor civilizations can't most likely win themself with economic, diplomatic or space race won't they see your growing power as much as a treath as the major ones, they may even try to ally you or even form a federation with you so that they can share in your victory and wealth.

I can't say I like to ally with anyone! They usually wants to much from me, and I get nothing in return! But if there are minor tribes, they'll probably don't have the balls to demand techs & cash all the time.

quote: Originally posted by dognheat on 04-13-2001 01:54 PM I am not sure if this has been brought up before, but one thing that has been getting on my nerves lately is what happens in games when your empire gets too powerful.

try ctp2. it's AIs has been accused of doing the exact opposite of what you describe

[dognheat]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-14-2001 03:21 PM try ctp2. it's AIs has been accused of doing the exact opposite of what you describe

See that is kinda what I am afraid of. While having war declared upon you by everybody for no reason sucks ass, it is the primary method movement in the latter part of the game. I am at least glad that the developers of ctp2 recognized the problem, but not filling the void with anything isnt going to be any better. I mean take a look at real life, everybody hates America/Americans, but there is no all out war. Skirmishes, limited conflicts, and clandestine behind the scenes espionage are the order of the day. This is what I hope we will see a greater emphasis on in civ III.

------------------
*PLOP*

[This message has been edited by dognheat (edited April 14, 2001).]

[Akron]

I never really minded having everyone ally against me in civ2. It was tons of fun in one game where I was the spanish and went on fundy and battled all the other civs who surrounded me on the same continent. It just doesn't get any better than guarding your territory from 6 very angry AIs. Also, I got behind in tech that game and it was even more fun stealing tech and trying to prevent a nuclear war by sabotaging their missle production.

In other games, though, I got too powerful for even the AIs combined efforts to stop and the game just got really boring since I knew I was gonna win easily, even though I gave all the comps all the tech I had and lots of money. After playing for 10-20 hours (I can't keep track of time spent on civ games ), its a loss if the game becomes an assured win. The most fun part of the game is the modern age and to miss the heat of that because you become too powerful takes all the fun away.

The AI really needs to be improved and then this will be solved. Also, there should be a new difficulty level that becomes extremely hard if you are doing well but much easier if you are doing poorly. This could really help take away the frustration of trying to find a competitive end-game.