Was going to buy the game and then!

PDF · #1 August 1st, 2005, 05:04 AM

Lack of AI diplo can look like a big gap at first, but I can't remember of any game that has better than a ridiculous diplo AI (maybe except GalCiv, and even). In the end it does not detract much from the game, you should reconsider this as a minor point in fact ...

Oversway · #2 August 1st, 2005, 09:18 AM

I completely agree with PDF, I can't think of a game good diplomacy AI.

Ballbarian · #3 August 1st, 2005, 09:48 AM

It wasn't perfect, but Civilization - Call To Power had pretty good diplomacy, and you could edit the ai. No, it wasn't as good as human diplomacy, but still made for a entertaining game. A later version (Call to Power II) added some more interesting features, but broke the diplomacy in my opinion.

magnate · #4 August 1st, 2005, 10:00 AM

To say that AI is only important for SP is to miss a lot of gaming potential. The most interesting games I have played were a mix of players and AI nations.

I totally agree that a simple diplomacy interface is necessary. It's my number one wish for Dom3. It doesn't have to be complex - I agree that games which try for "realistic" diplomacy models usually come unstuck (eg. MoO series) - but a simple interface for buying peace would be a start. Almost any race will leave you alone if you give them enough gold and/or gems (or blood slaves, items, provinces, etc.). That would make playing the harder SP games much much more satisfying. Instead of having to beat all the AI nations at once from early on(which is really not realistic, until you have become a significant global threat), you can buy them off for a while.

Add to that other functionality like persuading an AI nation to declare war on another nation, entering into research-sharing treaties etc. etc. and you have some great enhancement to the game for fairly minor effort (once you have coded the basic interface for transactions).

Ultimately it would be good to allow allied armies to fight together and move through each other's provinces, but I'd understand if that was a little beyond what Illwinter saw fit to program. Being able to sue for peace with the AI is a must though.

CC

Ballbarian · #5 August 1st, 2005, 10:24 AM

The way CTP handled most diplomacy was with treaties. "No Trespassing" being one of my favorites. Would stop the enemy from exploring in your territory. Breaking treaties affected your standing with other ai nations in the world as well, but that wouldn't always stop the ai from doing like a human and breaking the treaty if he saw you as weak. I guess a dominions twist on that would be to sign a no trespassing treaty then scout cautiously, because then if your scout is revealed/caught you've just broken your treaty and will find future diplomacy more difficult potentially making your nation the target of all the others.

That's just one example.

Cainehill · #6 August 1st, 2005, 10:59 AM

Not to mention that the ... insanity of the current AI mechanism essentially completely ruins the SP game for many of us. The way AI nations declare war on the human player, for no reason, while they're on the opposite side of the map with no contact, is ludicrous, especially when it happens even when the human player has the smallest, most backwards of nations (it'd be a little different if the human was in the lead and could possibly be perceived as a threat by the AI nation).

Add to this the way the AI gets to cheat by lobbing remote spells when they should have _no_ idea where the human player is, and you have a situation where it's way too frustrating to consider even a test game involving Caelum, Abyssia, Man, or other nations with easy access to seeking arrow, fires from afar, etc because even on a 300+ province map, you're getting mages killed remotely by turn 10 or 15.

magnate · #7 August 1st, 2005, 11:08 AM

I think strategy game AIs have to cheat to be at all competitive. I'm not saying I like it, but it's part of the price of a decent SP strategy game. Even GalCiv's much vaunted humanlike AI (where designer Brad Wardell said "you're effectively playing against me") has to start with a fully-explored starmap to be competitive. I think Cainehill's point is a good one though - the AI abuses of artillery spells could be toned down a bit on larger maps.

The point about ridiculous declarations of war is a better one though. The AI ought to grade the threat of the human player pretty much the same as those of the other AIs, with a little added on for ingenuity. But a human player who is ranked 16th in terms of army strength, income, research and provinces should not be the one whom the AI chooses to attack (unless I directly threaten its capital or something). Similarly, it is not sensible for a relatively weak AI nation to declare war on a strong human player.

The diplomacy interface should also allow you to find out who is at war with whom. This is something you can sometimes infer from the score graphs, but it would be good to be able to find out by scouting (so you can then influence it!).

CC

Gargoyle · #8 August 1st, 2005, 11:50 AM

There is no purpose to worrying about Declarations of War! Who cares. The objective is to eliminate ALL other pretenders anyway. You are effectively at war with all of them on turn one. Do you declare war on them? No. You just go about taking there land!

As for artillery spells, do you know for sure the AI isn't sending hiding units out to your domain to fire them? And if it can be explained in this manor it could be looked at a an exceptable AI cheat.