I was just thinking about various difficulty settings in games like GalCiv2, and how they are usually scaled against some nebulous "average" gamer out there.
Wouldn't it be cool to tailor the difficulty settings to each player? Keep a profile of each human playing the game (on the local computer) so when you ask for an "normal" difficulty game the AI would adjust the AI to give YOU fairly challenging but beatable opponents? Maybe even advance YOU in rank over multiple games as your skill improved. So when you ask for a "difficult" game after playing and winning the last 20 games in a row the AI would adjust to give you a true difficult challenge.
Of course, even without profiles there is always the option to just choose a higher difficulty setting. I just think the ability to increase in rank over multiple games would be a nice plus. It would give more of a feel of customization to the game.
I think difficulty should work as follows.
Beginner - you win. Barring that you surrender you are going to beat these pathetic opponenets silly. This setting is for learning the game, and for people with very fragile egos. Winning at this setting would give NO rank advancement to your profile.
Easy - still an almost certain win. The Ai should put up enough of a fight to give new players a sense of accomplishment by winning. Winning gives minimal advancement.
Normal - A game that requires some knowledge and skill of the game to win. Even a well played game should have some possibility of being lost, although the player should be favored as long as they play well. Winning gives "100%" advancement. (i.e. 5 wins at this level increases a rank)
Difficult - You are going to have to know what yoyu are doing and make few mistakes to win. Even with a well played game, the computer players have a good chance of winning. Winning gives 150% rank advancement
Painfully difficult - Advanced players are going to have a rough time. Most players are going to get beaten at this level, sometimes humiliatingly. Winning gives 200% rank advancement
Impossible - Even advanced players wet themselves against these opponents. Victory even for the elite player is going to be the exception rather than the rule. Winning gives 500% rank advancement (i.e. 1 win = 1 rank advance)
As far as ranks you could start out as a "sorceror's apprentice" and move up thru various ranks (top rank being Master of magic, of COURSE!)
not on the easy difficulties, but on the harder difficulties the AI needs to be aggressive when they can. Or they will allways be pushovers. Good human players know how to play it hard and rough. They know the only real worth of an economy is to make and support a huge army when it is time for war. Because in most games there are siege weapons that will cripple a defending player. And if you just take 1 opponent out, it will speed up your research, economy and army by alot.
Therefore you cannot develop fast enough peacefully compared to a warmongerer. Just look at civ 4 and it's exspansions and play online vs random people.
You should hit an ally hard under these circumstances:
1) they are barely defended and highly developed.(and thus will eventually become a threat to you)
2) your ally is busy fighting someone else off.
3) you can hold your own.
Result, you cripple that ally and strenghten your own empire by alot. A huge empire helps keep off enemies as you can easily crush em as they try to retaliate.
On the higher difficulties the AI should be programmed to play by the way that will make it easiest to win!
What's with you and sociopathic AI's, KnutAreMykland?
Unless it's highly advantageous to me in a beyond-arbitrary way, I'd never dream of attacking an ally, depending on a multitude of circumstances. Even in a game like Civilization 4/FfH2, it's not uncommon for me to form permanent alliances with the computer, if at all possible.
As for "if you just take 1 opponent out, it will speed up your research, economy and army by alot"; How'd you figure that? Taking an enemy out has no bearing on your research or economy, except the additional, detrimental, cost of fielding an army capable of taking out that enemy. With an ally, you have the opportunity of having two seperate fields of research at the same time, mutually beneficial.
Unless my opponent is violently psychotic, I rarely field more than what's absolutely necessary, ensuring that if (or rather when) war comes, I'll have a strong economy and research, able to almost instantly field a larger army than my enemy.
I think I can understand where that idea is coming from: a devious player can be allied with an AI, then suddenly backstab it and take it down. On the other hand, a player can use diplomacy to befriend a superior AI and in a lot of games not worry about that ally anymore.
However KnutAreMykland if that ally you're talking about is highly developed, it should have no difficulty to quickly increase its forces and put up a decent defense against your attack. Assuming of course that the AI is quite capable.
Taking out an opponent might yield you his cities, but this comes at a cost: you spent a lot building your army, wealth you could otherwise have spent building & researching. It's definitely not guaranteed that you come out stronger thanks to attacking an ally.
And if your ally is fighting someone else, I would rather side with my ally and attack this common enemy... Speaking of which, I'd like to see the AI take more advantage of alliances with other AI's or the player and asking for military support during a war in return for technology or wealth. Or why not have the AI gift some of its cities under siege to a far stronger ally in return for cash?
I would say that your arguments are exactly what the AI should do to non-allied civilizations.
Yeah I've gotta go with Luckmann on this. I would get so bored of playing a game if its AI acted like you're proposing KnutAreMykland...
For one, it would make alliances absolutely worthless. The point of an of being allies with someone is so that you each know that if something happens and you need help or support, there is someone there to provide it. It's a safety-net of sorts. But with your AI, when one of those things happens and you need the help or support of your ally, instead of getting help your ally will run you over with his car and then steal your wallet and burn down your home. Every time, no exceptions. Terrible.
And, if multiplayer matches have proved that sociopathic warmongering is the pinnacle of strategies in games like Civ IV then it proves that the issue here isn't AI, but the games themselves. If there is one single strategy that is unequivocally the best in a game that purports to offer a wide variety of 'equal' playstyles, then something is broken in the game and it ain't AI.
It would actually be funny if the AI reacted like humans, and learned. After a while playing (several games) like a dickweed, everyone would band against you and slap you silly, and refuse to ally with you. Just like real people would!
Elemental should be able to offer us advances on the realtively primitive diplo functionality in GC2. If all AIs are fixated, maximizing warmongers, there is little point to having richer diplo features because no AI will maintain relationships for longer than it takes to find that soft spot in another player's back.
More to the point, this is supposed to be a TBS-RPG fusion. If the AIs can't do some role-playing of their own, I'll consider that at least a minor failure of the project. Instead of AIs that will be guaranteed to break our alliance just to take one of my outlying settlements, I want 'loyal' AIs that will stand by their alliances firmly unless, say, I make the mistake of summoning a creature that they consider to be an Abomination. Then they should make all haste to tear down my heretical realm. I also want AIs that can never be counted on to stand by their word, unless perhaps their channeler has a come-to-the-Dragon moment and learns the error of her ways.
Speaking about allies and diplomacy, I'd want more diplomatic options to request a safe passage through my ally's territory in order to attack another AI. And an AI or player that's under attack should be able to invite allies to send some troops to the invaded territory.
GW Swicord: very well put, though it would have to be very clear from the beginning that your ally will consider that creature to be an abomination (e.g. by having your ally tell you as soon as you start casting it and they notice). I've seen too many games where something relatively small unexpectedly flips relations with the other civilizations.
For me, it's okay, if a AI begins to cheat as the difficulty increases. But I like to know, what the AI is able to do. I don't like to be forced to change the strategy, depending on different rules on different difficulties.
Bad Example:
On the high difficulty, the AI knows every position of every troop within my territory. I don't like this. That would mean, that I am not able to hide troops anymore. Disabling all secrets is an enormous change and would remove an important strategic element. Even worse: Most often, such cheat would not be mentioned within the game.
Good Example:
The AI is able to see much deeper within my territory than with normal rules. In that case, for me as player, it would be more difficult to hide my armies. It would take longer to get the armies from the hiding place to the enemy. It would be more difficult, but I would be able to hide my army. The strategic element is not gone, but cannot used easyly anymore.
Edit:
Idea: why are always the goods increased for the AI? Why not adding some small problems to the player on a higher difficulty? Like: "A legion has a 1%-chance of dying each round, based on ageing or illness." This example would not change the strategie, but the player has to build more troops. There are many small options which can be added like this: "Your charakter has a weakness ti fire", "Your race is feared by mice", "Your cities has to be build mirrorlike.". The difficulty can be chosen by the amount of difficulty options you take. Maybe then, the difficulty can be combined within charaktercreation. AI diffculty is only one part. The other could be, how many point of character creation are left over. Or how many disadvantages you have to choose.
I definitely agree. Rather than completely removing or adding aspects of the game, cheating AIs should merely get bonuses to various things like production, military strength, economy, etc.
Well speaking from personal preference, I'd rather face an opponent with bonuses than be handicapped myself - it feels less limiting. Also, penalties to the player can actually force major strategic changes. A good example is your idea of military forces having a chance to die of age or illness - it would actually make it even more efficient not to have a large standing army, and to produce whatever forces you need on the spot.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
