Civ 5 Designer Bemoans His Mistakes

[Huw the Poo]

I don't think this is something pioneered by Arcen at all. This kind of an attitude break down was in distant worlds long before the last federation was released. In distant worlds, you can see exactly why a race likes or dislikes another race, as well as a numerical representation showing how significant each factor is.

It really doesn't matter.  The point is, the problem is solved.

[Jarhead0331]

I don't think this is something pioneered by Arcen at all. This kind of an attitude break down was in distant worlds long before the last federation was released. In distant worlds, you can see exactly why a race likes or dislikes another race, as well as a numerical representation showing how significant each factor is.

It really doesn't matter.  The point is, the problem is solved.

Sorry. Not trying to be a nudge, but some people may still be interested in accuracy.  O:-)

I think its important, anyway, because through these examples, there is always room for improvement and innovation.

[Jarhead0331]

No way! Then people will think diplomacy is broken.
The EU-type diplomacy with transparent numerical ratings seems to be the way most games (incliding Civ) do it these days.  For a game, players need clear feedback that their diplomatic actions are working.  If not, there's not point in doing diplomacy in the first place.

Arcen Games seem to have solved this problem in The Last Federation.  You can, at any time, see a detailed breakdown of races' attitudes toward each other; general disposition along with past actions that have influenced said disposition and by how much.  For instance, I can select Acutians and Thoraxians, and see that the Acutians hate the Thoraxians because of recent attacks, for helping the Acutians' sworn enemies, for doing environmental harm etc.  Each of these has weight and feeds into the general disposition.  Or there might be a variety of recent actions, in addition, that the Acutians appreciate so much that the disposition is net positive.

I'm not sure what else you can do as a game designer to make it any more realistic.

I don't think this is something pioneered by Arcen at all. This kind of an attitude break down was in distant worlds long before the last federation was released. In distant worlds, you can see exactly why a race likes or dislikes another race, as well as a numerical representation showing how significant each factor is.

This transparency is actually what makes it gamey.  It's a game of numbers and all the player has to do is play the numbers trusting that the AI will follow it.  These stats should be hidden from the player to add suspense and unpredictability as the article states. But as I said, then players won't bother working on diplomacy because they're not sure it's working anyway.

I see your point, but I'm not entirely sure I agree 100%.  Its important to know, for instance, that a player's dealings with a particular race is irritating relations with a third race. Its also important to know how significant of a factor this is to the third-party race. That way the player can make a decision to modify its dealings so as to either improve relations or risk worsening them further.  In real diplomacy, nations would have this feedback. 

[FlickJax]

Bring on Civ 6 im ready already.

[jomni]

No way! Then people will think diplomacy is broken.
The EU-type diplomacy with transparent numerical ratings seems to be the way most games (incliding Civ) do it these days.  For a game, players need clear feedback that their diplomatic actions are working.  If not, there's not point in doing diplomacy in the first place.

Arcen Games seem to have solved this problem in The Last Federation.  You can, at any time, see a detailed breakdown of races' attitudes toward each other; general disposition along with past actions that have influenced said disposition and by how much.  For instance, I can select Acutians and Thoraxians, and see that the Acutians hate the Thoraxians because of recent attacks, for helping the Acutians' sworn enemies, for doing environmental harm etc.  Each of these has weight and feeds into the general disposition.  Or there might be a variety of recent actions, in addition, that the Acutians appreciate so much that the disposition is net positive.

I'm not sure what else you can do as a game designer to make it any more realistic.

I don't think this is something pioneered by Arcen at all. This kind of an attitude break down was in distant worlds long before the last federation was released. In distant worlds, you can see exactly why a race likes or dislikes another race, as well as a numerical representation showing how significant each factor is.

This transparency is actually what makes it gamey.  It's a game of numbers and all the player has to do is play the numbers trusting that the AI will follow it.  These stats should be hidden from the player to add suspense and unpredictability as the article states. But as I said, then players won't bother working on diplomacy because they're not sure it's working anyway.

I see your point, but I'm not entirely sure I agree 100%.  Its important to know, for instance, that a player's dealings with a particular race is irritating relations with a third race. Its also important to know how significant of a factor this is to the third-party race. That way the player can make a decision to modify its dealings so as to either improve relations or risk worsening them further.  In real diplomacy, nations would have this feedback.

Yup.  The key is balance.

[Huw the Poo]

I see your point, but I'm not entirely sure I agree 100%.  Its important to know, for instance, that a player's dealings with a particular race is irritating relations with a third race. Its also important to know how significant of a factor this is to the third-party race. That way the player can make a decision to modify its dealings so as to either improve relations or risk worsening them further.  In real diplomacy, nations would have this feedback. 

Precisely this.  It's the lack of this kind of feedback that leads to players asking "why did that stupid empire do this when I gave them a pile of gold a few turns ago" etc.  It's reassuring to know that an AI player is weighting its decisions based on actual actions from Human and AI players alike, and not just acting more or less randomly.  It's also good to know that an AI player will still be pissed off with you for conquering part of its territory just because you gave it a palty sum of cash a turn later to avoid hostilities.  I'm all for it.

[OJsDad]

I'm still waiting for the love child of Call of Power and EU, with some influences of Victoria II and (even though I've never played it) CKII

I wonder if this guys new game will have larger maps.  The whole lack of stacking issue seemed that the designers didn't really understand the importance of combined arms warfare.  I'll have to read up on it and see where he plans on going.

[MengJiao]

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JonShafer/20130218/186843/Revisiting_the_Design_of_Civ_5.php

much more at the link

   It's odd how people who make games about the development of entire "civilizations" (whatever that fictional entity might be) seem to
have less than no idea how things like urbanization, long-distance trade, ideologies (for example with temples and gods or not), weapons
and militarization actually happened.  Or rather the theories and evidence of how such things happened since in most cases the exact
mechanisms are not entirely clear.  Anyway, apparently the game-builders theory is that whatever they think about markets (not particularly evident in early long-distance trade) and economic rationality (not necessarily what people were doing in the Bronze Age) is just the way it was and they have to sort of simulate this lameness in their own minds without recognizing it or analyzing it.

[Nefaro]

I would think that an attempt to emulate human behavior at the simplest level would require some preset personality AI packages.  Starting with typical Expansionist/Defensive/Diplomatic/Peaceful/Etc basics that are weighted more towards one side of the behavioral "pie".  Add in some specific racial or behavioral bias plug-ins when interacting with another specific racial type or gov't/diplo type for a little variety, and it should seem much less random.

It's been done plenty before but creating multiple AI types with extra bias plug-ins, fixing all the extra bugs that may cause, and tweaking them so that they're less random than some generic human-like AI probably takes a lot more time and testing to get right.

[MengJiao]

I would think that an attempt to emulate human behavior at the simplest level would require some preset personality AI packages.  Starting with typical Expansionist/Defensive/Diplomatic/Peaceful/Etc basics that are weighted more towards one side of the behavioral "pie".  Add in some specific racial or behavioral bias plug-ins when interacting with another specific racial type or gov't/diplo type for a little variety, and it should seem much less random.

It's been done plenty before but creating multiple AI types with extra bias plug-ins, fixing all the extra bugs that may cause, and tweaking them so that they're less random than some generic human-like AI probably takes a lot more time and testing to get right.

  It's odd, but the kind of information one gets about the early development of things like trade networks in say the late Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, is very local and precise.  For example, lists of goods stored and work expected in Linear B.  Could any existing game use the actual information that we have on such things?  It appears not.  You would have to start on a very local scale and very short time frames.  Would this sort of game be interesting?  Well, people are happy to play survival games and think how much happier they would be to survive as say a Bronze Age War Lord?  It's true, most days you'd have plenty of wine, women and song, but what about your prestige?  If you can't mobilize a few hundred men and a dozen ships you are going to fall off the trade network (which is mostly about prestige and redistribution, not accumulating profits) and they your followers will leave you and you will end up a sad old man in an poem no one remembers in a few decades.  No fame after 1200 BC for the average slacker-warlord, I always say.
  In many ways, that sort of prestige-based networking and mobilization for more prestige would be a lot easier for AI routines to manage than grinding out whole civilizations for thousands of years.