Greetings!Today I would like to ask you guys some questions about strategy games.
1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most?
2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted.
3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good fand another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?
Thanks!
Today I would like to ask you guys some questions about strategy games.
What parts do you remember long after playing the most?
I remember on random event from Civ 1 or two where a city on the other side of the world decided to join my empire.
I usually have periods where I don't play for a week or two. Because of this If a game goes longer than 400 to 500 turns I won't finish it and will start fresh with a new game
3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good and another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most
One where the end game still challenges me
1) I never cared about diplomacy. I find that it is either easily abused and exploited, or it is so protected from abuse that it gives all initiative to AI. I mean that often in games it is AI that offers alliance, trade etc. and player can accept, but whenever players offer something the cost is always prohibitive. It becomes like one-way diplomacy. And I hate when AI makes totally unrealistic decisions in diplomacy - it breaks totally my immersion: those demands when AI just lost a war, or every turn proposals, or wars declared and peace made like within 2 turn etc. Thus, I usually ignore it as much as I can.
2) Usually 150-300. By then it is won or lost in almost all games I have played ...
3) I love those ones that give you an epic war and when when the challenge is real. I like if there is an element of tactical battles (Civ, EF). I love looking forward to more and more powerful units etc. And I love exploring.
1. The more contextually specific, the more gratifying. Anyone can code a "Trade / Go to War With / Surrender" option for their humdrum diplomacy slider. In a few 4X games they manage to go above and beyond with diplomacy options that tailor themselves specifically to what's actually happening. That's incredibly valuable to me. For example, player could request / respond to: "We've noticed your intake of Elerium has gone up pretty high and you're getting your shipments from the Yor. We can undercut them by 2bc a week to make it worth your while... that is, if you'd like a chance to trade with a people who aren't inherently evil." That would be way past cool to see, and it's one of those hallmark moments that draws attention away from normally vacuous open-world games and injects it with a narrative. One stroke and a paradigm shift.
2. A ridiculous number of turns. GalCiv2 gave us a lot of nuance with the tech tree, which also helped disguise how long it took to refine weapon research (for example). That was pretty well done, though I think in GalCiv 3 my expectations have risen. One thing I can't abide is a 4X game that is either narrow or, above all else, short. If I'm in the mood for a game to kill an afternoon, it won't be a 4X title (nor one of my favorites, incidentally).
3. A good 4X game rejects immediate gratification, but disguises its epic pace. A good strategy game gives us the opportunity to focus our efforts, but doesn't demand it. A bad 4X game rewards spamming one fundamental function faster or more recklessly above others. Build more troops faster should not be the concept by which "strategy" is associated. And truly the best 4X games feature "Things can go bad fast" in their titles.
My favorite save of GalCiv2 was when the Jagged Knife event spawned and the Allied Systems Chairman had to abort an already-extraneous invasion on the Yor Collective and Drengin (who had formed a sort of Axis dynamic up there). Alluva sudden my certain victory over these insidious foes was yanked away - my allies (an admittedly weak but advanced Torian) were devastated within a few weeks by the Knife, my traditional enemies had begun to launch their own counter-invasions, and my budget required a 100% withdrawal from all clandestine services. Systems were privately designated as "collateral" before they knew it, and my fleets begrudgingly circled their wagons to put up a defense.
For years this conflict exchanged blows, and we struggled up every last step against the Jagged Knife, throwing off our Axis villains where applicable. In the end, I'd spent ten times my starting fleet's cost simply reclaiming what was once mine, and I would never get the chance to liberate my Torian friends... but I did get some revenge. Embittered and not at all content with fighting with a higher purpose anymore, the Chairman ordered construction of a Death Star, and aimed it at the Drengin homeworlds.
Basically, I want you to (re)make that game.
Diplomacy; Trading, Alliances, and most of all the ability to secure a surrender from a beaten foe, to negate the need to take out every nook and cranny of their empire.
I have never kept track of the turns but it would be a lot, probably average at least 40-50 turns an hour for minimum average 4 hours up to 20 hours max. So, from 200-1000 turns depending on the size of the map.
My all time favorite games, not counting GalCiv, are/were Age of Empires, the early SM Civ games (I don't care for the later Gandi versions) , SMAC!! and the recent Making History Games. I only play AI and to be totally honest, I enjoy finding ways to exploit the AI. I remember how I loved finding the enemy camp early in AOE and building a couple of towers to prevent them from ever getting a foothold. I don't mind the exploits being fixed but I like to look for them. Otherwise, I have loved the GalCiv series and I particularly love to conquer by influence. I know I am in a minority but I get bored with invading planet after planet in large map games and I have had few conquest victories in the past.
I recall how aggravating it was to hunt down the last AOE AI hidden and quivering in some remote corner of the map. In SMAC I usually won by ascension, but conquest was also fun because a beaten AI would agree to a submissive pact without conquering every single base.
I enjoy winning and I like to move up in difficulty but I am not one of the many who are always looking for way to handicap the AI. I am all for making the AI smarter but I am not one who wants to give the AI unreasonable statistical advantage that makes it nearly impossible to win in spite of incompetence. I find the difficulty level that allows me to win with my best effort and I am happy to win every game I start. I do feel compelled to win at least one game at the highest level, but I do not feel compelled to play all future games at that level.
After reading other replies, I will add a couple of things:
I enjoy the combat but I am not an early combat guy, in diplomacy I want to be able find ways to keep the enemy at bay until I get enough tech to hopefully put up a superior force. I play better with high tech vs shootouts with the basic weapons. As much as I like the game, the alpha and beta war, at the get go is no fun with all three opponents and a small map.
No game ending events or at least let me turn them off. I played some forgotten game once that just declared the game over because my economy had supposedly crashed. I never played again.
I also love the wit that you guys have added to the game. Some voice overs would be great. I absolutely loved the quotes/voice overs in SMAC. I have them on my HD and have used them for years. IE, quoting Machiavelli and others, along with some original stuff. Obviously Sid was not responsible for those, nothing similar has been in any newer games. Must have been one of the designers that worked with Brian whatshisname on SMAC.
Bottom line, you guys do a great job and I am confident that the game will be as great as your previous products. If I didn't think so I wouldn't have jumped on board for the Alpha.
1. I hate when the AI gangs up on the human. They should have reasons for who they ally with and who they hate... Even irrational ones such as xenophobia or conflicting playstyles (2 expanders go to war, two turtlers might ally and share resources)
I dislike trading. Almost never reach a good agreement with AI.
2. Newer games are more like 75-150 turns, MoM and MOO2 were probably 300-600, maybe 1000 tops. I basically just conquer all neutral monsters, level up units, get good or best gear and then go and crush AI opponents. Sometims i just rush and finish game early too.
3. I like that in MoM there are tough battles even when you are maxed out, 4+ sky drakes is no joke. In both MoM and MOO2 there arr many ways to play based on faction, tech focus, and play style. Variety and customization are king. AoW and newer games get stale because of limited customization and there being only one efficient way to play (aggressive conquerer usually).
Tactical battles are paramount to enjoyment. Kings Bounty games are great because the units are well designed and balanced. I really liked how in MoM some battles were super one sided due to immunities lifesteal and other strong abilities. Players get all the same tools monsters and ai do!!!!
1. I like the AI's to have personalities (IE some races/cultures more instinctively aggressive) but has that be tempered by the current game conditions. IE in CivV I'll be kicking the AI's butt but they are still trying to rip me off with 3:1 resource trades. Resource, Tech, and City/Planet trading are key features I think. Various degrees of agreements (Peace Treaty vs Alliance, etc) are also nice. AI offering missions/questions in exchange for rewards/improved relations is good.
2. On average I would say 400-800 turns. I prefer huge maps with sprawling empires. I'm not against a game going longer as long as it stays interesting. But if it's me playing 500 turns of find the last settler, I'm not going to keep playing.
3. A GOOD AI is one of the biggest factors for me. The rest of the game can be perfect but if the AI can't give me a challenge without massive cheating, or simply doesn't give me a challenge at all, I'm not going to keep playing. Mod Support is also big in keeping me coming back. Every time I start getting bored with Civ V, there's some mod that spices things up again.
All the hate directed at civ 5 is wrong. You just cannot be the village bicycle, aka friends with everyone. You have to learn how to get along with people, and know who is the local schemers. And who is just pretty down chill. If you start murdering people, you are a warmonger. Just stay in ur lands and suck it up until the AI somehow realize it's impotency. Or make inroads into its territory to make it wake up quick.
In my own experience, AI will be generally your friends until the end of the game if you get along very great. End of game as in you're about to win the game in few turns unless you get stopped somehow. And even then, its basically pretty much up to how much the AI really likes you overrides it's desire to win the game as well. I've seen last minute backstabs and I've seen friendly AIs just sit down and let me win the game.
And best part of diplomacy.. that declare war button which forces AI to walk the talk or fail.
I have to say diplomacy in civ 5 is the best out of all TBS games i've played.
I better list so u know what I'm talking about.
Civ3,4,5.
Aow 3.
FE:LH.
Endless Legend.
Endless Space.
Pandora First Contact
Warlock
Out of all games listed above, Civ 5 is pretty well done, a lot of actions have influence on diplomacy. And even when your ideals align on everything, the AI won't just roll over and fall in love with you. That reflects the reality decently. And sometimes, the AI will be feeling that plain old Lebensraum which you can do nothing but discourage it in a refreshing battle or two.
Most epic lebensraum attempt i've ever seen from the AI happened in Gods n Kings from Hiawatha civ. I set population unhappiness from 1 to 0. Hiawatha flourished. Fielded biggest naval fleet I have ever seen in my whole life of playing tbs games. It made three attempts on me. All was blocked but holy. Third attempt was it's most powerful. It tried to just take over netherlands so it could finally have close borders with me at last to make war easier for him. I stopped that. But not without the cost of my 100-200ish warships being sunk. Hiawatha tried to conquer the entire world. It smartly decided on me as it's biggest target. I was the second toughest dude on the block after hiawatha.
I like the ability to call the AI out on it's sins by denouncing them. Its satisfying. Especially when you know they're a huge hypocrite. I'm looking at u Siam.
Another great thing about diplomacy is having meaningful trades. I noticed in Galciv2 that only thing you really trade is techs and that was it.. nothing interesting. Civ 5 could have you set up trade routes with them, and force u to keep it safe from pirates. And then civ series in general have luxury trades. Research pacts. Something that makes you feel like you're getting along with that particular AI. Strategics.
Uh if I really like a map, i generally play it to completion even when it takes me a month but generally 300-500 turns in civ 5.
AoW3 is very different game, its very fast paced. 100 turns in aow3 is considered a very long game. And it is that! Even on extra large maps, it will be finished by about turn 200 unless fortunes didn't go your way. Out of all games, I lose fights against the AI the most in AOW3. The ai in there just kicks my butt due to it's fast paced nature I'm no good with speedy games.
I generally play up to 50-200 turns to determine if a map is fun to play on or not, if it is fun, I keep playing on, if not, i abandon and restart. Reasons could be because I think my starting zone looks ugly. and uh thats basically it.
A strategy game is good if it can suck you in and make you forget about the sense of time passing. Even now, I still remember Sengoku Rance very well. Spent a good two years playing that one before I realized two years has passed. Its Nsfw so don't blame me.
Interesting units, armies, and characters can greatly add to a strategy game's flavour and make you want to play everything instead of just one favorite. Not very many games succeed at this one particular thing.
Very poor diplomacy can make playing strategy game very painful to dull experience, this is quite the case in warlock game. I pretty much ignored diplomacy and killed everyone. What, all you can do is, trade mana, gold, and something? And dow/peace. Its too boring to play for me.
Developers need to understand that diplomacy is the only way the players can talk to other AIs. Neglect that and the game becomes more of a war game. There is no way around that. That is why I like diplomacy in civ 5, it has most stuff out of all games I've played.
All I remember of civ3/4 is that terrain was pretty much inconsequential and annoying SODs that determined victory by numbers alone. I had so many accidental cultural victories while I was attempting domination back then.. pretty much of the 3/4 of the ais would have bruised portraits but in love with me even when i beat them up <.<
Civ 5 managed to strike that decent number of units/terrain difficulty for traveling/ zoc. Best of all, no sods.
FE:LH has that SoD but managed to stop it somewhat through powerful spells and time to amass units. I find myself spreading my armies out to avoid getting nuked by falling stars.
Endless Space is stupid, create glass ships ?? Profit. Just put 100 missles on ur ship and ur done and call it a day. It pissed me off that defense modules were pretty much worthless and waste of time. Is bad. Disappointing.
Endless Legend.. not sure, still in early access, will determine what I feel as it goes live in like two days?
Pandora first contact is kinda alike to Civ 5 surprisingly even with sods. AI still needs work but is brand new game.
Best part of Pandora is it's tanks. And Colonial troopers. They look awesome. I think it's ships look horrible and ugly except for the destroyers version. Thats the barracuda watercraft. You want to spread out your units because of nuclear missles and mini blackholes.
I guess this is it
1) Here's a list:
The AI in Civ 5 can be deceptive, and will pretend to be your friend up until it declares war on you. THIS is a good thing. Unfortunately, something that Civ 5 is missing is the ability to call them out on their deception, nor is there a way to get them to remove their units from your borders if they suddenly throw an army at you. The AI can ask you to move your units, you can say you're just passing through, and then if war breaks out at any point, you get a penalty with all civs in the game, but you cannot do this to the AI, so diplomacy seems stacked against you sometimes. Additionally, the World Congress in Brave New World is actually quite a fun mechanic, but it seems like you get blamed for everything when the AI's terrible proposals don't succeed, even if they voted against their own proposal. Ideally, diplomacy can have all these elements without making the player feel singled out, even if they aren't actually being singled out, and it just feels that way because the player can't see how the other AIs feel about each other.
Still, when diplomacy goes right, the most memorable moments are seeing rivalries slowly form, and how a valuable resource can strain the relationships of even long-time friends, even when it's the AI that has the resource, and YOU are the one who feels sour towards them for having it. Something that Civ 5 encouraged through the Autocracy ideology was the ability to influence culture through wars against common enemies, which made the already-valuable tactic of bribing the AI to go to war even more effective. If you were devious enough to Palpatine your way to victory, playing every side until the world declared you king, victory was blissful.
Changing games for a second, one of the things I liked A LOT about Endless Space's diplomacy was the fact that your default setting with every AI is "Cold War", which allowed you to block the progress of enemies and attack them on the borders between your civilizations, but didn't allow conquests or conflicts INSIDE anyone's borders without escalation to full war. The fact that the game made that distinction at all was a big step forward, because sometimes you don't hate someone enough to bomb each others' cities, but you do hate them enough that you wanna stop their colonization efforts and keep their expansion in check. Having that buffer between war and peace allowed cease fires to really feel like cease fires and not like peace treaties. In Civ 5, once you sign a peace treaty, that's it. You can immediately start trading again, and the AI usually does so right before denouncing you and making a favorable trade that was your idea impossible. Still, it's peace unless you decide to declare war again and take a diplomatic hit. In Endless Space, a cease fire is NOT peace -- relations haven't really mended, and you both know it, so you're not trading. Screw that! You're still mad that you lost all those battleships trying to take a world they ended up holding anyway! You take potshots whenever you can get away with it, and if these potshots are damaging enough, war can break right out again. That was BRILLIANT, and it felt so much more lifelike than Civ 5, even though Endless Space's leader dialogs are little more than a forum avatar with a tweet attached to it. It was even used to make a race that literally could not declare peace, only cold war and full war, and you could make that a trait of any custom race you designed. The distinction was important there, because if that faction was "always full war", they would have just been Barbarians (Pirates) that had a capital city, which these aliens were certainly not (they were bugs who plagued the universe like a swarm of space-locusts). Cold War prevented them from screwing around in your territory early in the game, and also made their declaration of full war that much more intimidating, because they're taking off the gloves. You're next. It's go time.
2) In Civilization 5, my games usually last about ~350 turns. I do play that game on the highest difficulty, and on Quick. That feels about right to me.
3) I have NEVER played a bad 4X, but there have been elements of those games that I might have found annoying at one point.
Don't take this personally, but one of the most annoying things I hated about GalCiv2 was the way conquests were handled. The fact that you needed to research the ability to invade planets before you could start conquering anything, the fact that your only ships capable of conquering anything were colony ships going by a different name, the fact that it was your only option for changing ownership, and the fact that this option depleted the populations of planets owned by both you AND your enemy significantly whether you were successful or not... All of it, terrible. Worse, it was locked behind a tech wall that was extremely expensive and time-consuming to break through. Going for it at the wrong time could cripple you. Going for it during a war in response to a looming threat so you could be on even ground with your foe was frustratingly slow, and might not even be done before the war was over. It also prevented you from researching things like better weapons, so your ability to FIGHT the war was an opportunity cost of being able to WIN the war. It was just not fun in any way, which was a crying shame because the combat itself was fun. Most of the time, on my conqueror races, I would take the faction trait that had a 15% chance of researching a new tech immediately so that I could get through the tech wall ASAP. Most egregiously of all, though, you had to reduce a planet's population to ZERO to conquer it, which was horribly tedious, and the remaining number of troops you had after all the shooting stopped is what determined the population of the planet once you conquered it. If that planet was not conducive to re-growing populations, or if your custom faction was not good at re-population, war was a really fast way to make your empire unhappy and broke. Additionally, this meant that, essentially, genocide and conquest were one and the same, which was bad for flavor reasons. Whether a race was Good or Evil, it didn't matter, if you wanted to hold new ground, you needed to cleanse entire planets. If you ever lost a planet to a conquering army, the only way to take it back was to start from 0 again and genocide it to nothingness. That was painful.
Conversely, in the original Endless Space, you could conquer planets with any ship, even in Cold War (but only planets that weren't in enemy borders), it just took longer if you didn't have Siege upgrades (which you had to research separately). The Disharmony DLC did change this so you HAD to have siege upgrades to have ANY chance of conquering a planet, but the technology itself was cheap, required no special resources, and was easy to access low in the tech tree. It was balanced by the fact that these siege upgrades took up valuable space on a fighting ship and had no combat value in space. Should you so choose, you could even devote whole unarmed ships to siege upgrades. Siege upgrades were small enough that you could safely fit one of these on even a frigate-class ship (the smallest) without sacrificing combat capability too much, but with the caveat that if you did this, you would need a huge swarm of them to conquer a system in any reasonable amount of time. Additionally, TROOP modules were separate from Siege modules, and while troop modules gave you the OPTION of converting a portion of your system's population into soldiers, which could then accelerate a conquest or even conquer a system immediately, this was not the only way you were forced to do business. Killing the population of a system and destroying its infrastructure was optional - it would accelerate the conquest of a system and reduce its defenses, but it wasn't necessary, and you never needed to commit total genocide just to conduct a proper conquest. In the aftermath of a conquest, you had to deal with massive unhappiness, but this would ease over time and gradually make that system just as productive for you as it had once been for your enemy. This felt so much better than the way GalCiv2 handled conquests that it ruined GalCiv2 for me. In fact, the realization that GalCiv3 seems to be doubling down on GalCiv2's conquest system is very troubling to me, as it locks the ability to conduct conquests behind an entire Age wall, in addition to all the problems it had in GC2. I implore you to rethink this.
I seriously doubt that I can answer any of your questions; at least not as they were posed.
1. "Traditionally", I have yet to find a Diplomatic AI that I liked; as I have yet to be able to truly converse with any of them.
2. I have yet to actually keep track of the exact number of turns. I tend to get so far and then start over; as things become over whelming. Which turn that happens on depends on which strategy I attempted and how things proceeded. I believe Axis & Allies (both versions, although the original was far better than the newer one) and Strategic Command are the only turn based games I've actually finished (over and over again).
I take that back. Now that I think about it; I did finish M2TW: Americas (at least once) as the Apaches (maybe even as the Spaniards).
The thing is though, I don't really want a game that I finish! But, it seems that games have to end (unless they are MMORPG's that you keep paying to play). I guess there has to be a victory; but I just want to build a thriving civilization (or whatever) that stands the test of time. If the Universe is truly endless, then there should be plenty of room for all the less aggressive civilizations to live in harmony.
3. I really have no idea what differentiates a "4X" game from any other. If that has to do with graphics... ..well then "whatever!" If it has to do with the AI; well, from what I've seen, they're still stupid (and still cheat)!
4. So, as I said: I can't really answer your questions.
I think alot of these have already been suggested in one form form or another but here are my thoughts.
Clear Feedback-
- The game StarDrive despite allot of the issues this game had, one thing i liked about it was the clear feedback it gave with its diplomacy.
When you speak to any race you could see their Trust, Anger and Fear towards you as meters. I wouldn't copy this exact visual feedback but it was really helpful to see exactly how my trades and conversations were affecting them. Another thing I liked, which is in a lot of other games such as Civ. Was the ability to ask races what their thoughts of other races were. Its helpful for better judging potential future alliances or wars with other races.
-When a civilization asks for help in a war, I normally don't want to give them techs to help so I just buy off the enemies. However it would be great if i could get some feedback from the race I just helped, I don't think they noticed that I even did that for them. Even a simple thank you would suffice
Realistic Treaties-
-Just like in real life, or in shows like star trek. You might have a research treaty with a nation or in this case race but under the rule that you wouldn't help with techs that make weapons or help conquest. So besides to normal research treaties it might be cool to have options like.
-No aggressive research treaty- gives bonus research to each other but only towards techs that aren’t weapons, for invading or similar.
-Weapon defense treaty- gives bonus research specifically to weapons and invading tech to each race.
United Planets –
-Buying Votes - Similar to how Civ 5 works, would be great buy Votes for upcoming UP, or being able to pre talk to similar aligned AI about it
EG: Talk to your AI Ally and say "hey, im voting to give you my vote next UP so dont vote for me or anyone else, you should vote for yourself" Or "vote for me and ill give you this"
- Would be great to have the ability to propose things that will be voted on. Evil races can propose evil things; good can propose good things, etc. I don’t so much like how it’s done in civ 5 as it basically just gave one person complete control over the whole system, but I’m guessing it could be balanced somehow in gal civ 3
-On the topic of the UP, one thing I found annoying when I was Role-playing a race in gal civ 2 was if I was truly evil race, aka if i was role playing the Borg, they wouldn't follow "rules"
It would be nice if there was a way to say "im not following the UP rules" but then it gives you some penalty/bonus for doing so. Following it gives you certain bonuses for being in the UP or you get other different set of bonuses for not being in it. The UP bonuses could even be voted on in game.
It also didn’t help that there seemed to be a lack of any evil things to vote on in the UP in gal civ 2(maybe I didn’t play it enough to notice). If you choose to be evil you would expect them to try and pass laws that make mayhem, that benefit there race over others. eg: the Drengin might propose to pass a evil tax (Planets with no slaves tax) or something actually funny.. That means all non-slave nations need to pay them 5bc a turn. These things could even create good or evil ideology points for everyone. Which means it gives a diplomatic way to try and coerce everyone to go to evil/good as they start to get extra points in one ideology that they might not have been initially following.
Open and closed Borders-
-I have read alot of people wanting an option to ask for open and closed borders. Like with Civ 5 and many others we need to option to give or revoke border travel to other races.
One slight problem i can see arising from this is that due to the nature of gal civ maps, where unlike civ 5 where your border never fully blocks off other races due to the ocean and because the map can scroll around on itself. You could get situations in gal civ where a race is completely blocked off from another race or the rest of the map due to not having border rights by the surrounding them with influence. This could be exploited by purposely blocking of a race at the start of the game preventing them from expanding. One fix I can think of is having a neutral zone.
-Neutral Zone - one hex on the edge of all borders that isn't owned by anyone (see pic) , all ships have free travel within these zones and it doesn’t count as an act of war. Would also give some interesting play styles with influence strong races. Likewise it would make the strategic map more interesting and dynamic for each play though, creating potential artificial bottle necks or strategic points on the map, similar how to black holes and nebulas could function.
Surrender-
-In Gal Civ 2 all you could do was surrender to them or wait around for them to decide to surrender to you or someone else. It would be nice to have the option to ask them to surrender to you as well. I can’t see them accepting it often but would be a nice option. Especially for a close ally that is nearly defeated by an enemy and you say "surrender to me and I’ll keep your people safe"
Tech Trade-
In some games I have played you can’t see all their tech at once when you first meet and trade with them, you have to get a really close relationship, make them fear you or have high enough espionage before you start seeing their stronger or unique techs for trade.
Looking at all my old saves i found that between turn 300-400 was when i sort of gave up as i felt i was to strong that the challenge was all gone. This was on a medium size map with normal tech.
It’s kind of an arbitrary question as it’s based on both map size and tech speed, i think the question should be at what point of a game do you feel like stop playing, and why. Ideally you would want us to keep having fun and have longer games.
Which to answer that I would say I stopped when,
-I felt to strong and I was just in the cleanup stage.
-Once i had researched nearly everything of importance to my strategy and it gets stale as there was nothing new or worthwhile to aim for.
-In my opinion, there needs to be some major late game changes that both speed up the game and keep it fun, the wormholes around the galaxy would be one thing to cut down on the cleanup, which is going to be in a DLC hopefully.
I found it really frustrating near end game when it was basically a constant troop rush to clear up the galaxy of my enemies, what should normally be a progressively fast ending started to slow down and down as you kept getting more planets from your enemies, most of which had no buildings on it so were a major drain on the economy. So it ended up being take a few planets, wait X turns for them to build up so they don’t drain my economy, grab a few more, wait again, grab a few more planets, wait again. Meanwhile as I’m waiting around the Ai is taking random crappy planets I didn’t really want anyway but now I have to re-retake them just to remove them from the galaxy and end the game.
Basically we need some almost super tech that even know has its weaknesses and can be defended against, when you get to that point if you are super strong it lets you clear the map and finish the game faster. Random ideas could be:
Good - shield the planets in a system to keep nature as it was intended and no one can colonize it
Neutral – System defense system that prevents anything from being colonized in that system anymore.
Evil – Terror Star - destroy the System
3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good and another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?
Good:
-Opponents with personality
- Races all play different and arnt just copy/pastes of each other with new skins.
-A race that might play completely different then any other race. A good example of this is in Stardrive the Opteris are a machine race that don’t eat food so farming is irrelevant, they eat production. It completely changes how you play the game. Also I LOVE the idea of powerful yet unique tech for each race that is distinctive. In this case the Opteris could use assimilation, they could invade a planet and gain the racial bonuses the other races had.
-Being able to play the same race in different ways each time. So not being locked into one play style with a race
- Being able to change my chosen victory path if I find its not working for me, without having to restart the whole game.
-Ai that doesn’t seem to be just making random unpredictable choices or feeling as if they are cheating.
-The game feeling and playing different each time you play.
-Games that give you the option to get and feel uber powerful. Not necessarily making you over powered, just things that make you feel powerful.
-the game continues to feel challenging but not impossible to beat.
-A game that keeps giving you interesting goals all the way though it besides your own made goals
Bad:
-Battles seem repetitive and act the same no matter how much new tech you have.
-having strong abilities that feel almost useless because they may be slow to use, have boring conditions, ect
-Gal civ 2 specific- Losing your Troop ship when you take over a planet, it’s understandable when you colonize but it’s really annoying and time consuming to have to build tones of troop transports over and over. Wish you could keep their ships unless you fail the invasion.
-When you play a game and can’t properly judge how upgrades affect you overall. Either on a city by city bases or empire wide.
-When there is a lot of what feel like crap tech that you almost feel forced to research before you get to the good stuff.
-When good tech is arbitrarily placed in locations that make no sense, extreme example, but like if you have to research a weapon tech 4 times before a farm is unlocked or something random like that.
-A lot of games start out fun at the start and then by mid game start feeling repetitive, as if you have no goal, you colonize at the start. Then its like a waiting game to get tech for a 100 turns while you get yourself in a position to get into late game where you can win.
1. Diplomacy has to have more than one screen on interaction with the AI. Just accepting or not, is not an option that I like. Being able to ask or type something other than select from a list of which doesn't always have what you want for making some point in negotiating. In CG2 these were good, much better and lots more fun than most others including Civ1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. As I have played them all. The best I like is form GC2. But then it has limited interaction with negotiating with the AI. Another point, that I think would be fun is an Alien race translating into English and it does not always mean what it shows - where the translation is not so good. This could make the player then think what does the AI mean exactly. This could be fun.
2. In CG2 and Civ4, which are the best. My games last for hundreds of turns spanning months. With hundreds of units in combat In various locations. Civ 5 cant do this and Civ 4 was a pain due to global warming. Spoiled a really good game they did. I think in Civ 4 my turns were over 600 in a good lone game. Normally they would be around 350 to 400.
3. A good game is. Stacked units, and ability to move groups of units at the same time. Creating a diverse military using hundreds or even thousands of units (that would be so nice). Being able to build and expand economies with a good auto function for ease of use. Being able to give orders to units that can be changed as and when the demand needs. Detailed info on everything. Very high level AI. Being able to trade and control certain trade items and fix prices when you have captured certain types and numbers and quantities of resources. Capturing resources and preventing others form getting them other than to buy form you. (Cool). High detailed graphics. Good back ground sounds and music. High quality sound effects and explosions.
A bad game is having less. Less of control over game play. Less ability to move grouped units. Less control over units. Less game play details - info. Less detailed graphics. Less AI players. Less maximum units. Bleeps and bangs for sound effects. Poor explosions.
I think that about says it for my games.
Conversely, in the original Endless Space ... in the aftermath of a conquest, you had to deal with massive unhappiness, but this would ease over time and gradually make that system just as productive for you as it had once been for your enemy. This felt so much better than the way GalCiv2 handled conquests that it ruined GalCiv2 for me.
SE* has multiple races, six atmospheres, and 3 planet types (rock, ice, gas). Ground troops are buildable units, disjoint from pop. Troops (and some two-way units like fighters) fight for planets. Hence, conquering inflicts 0 casualties by itself (except that the ground bombardment to take out the weapon platforms first will inflict ~5-10% damage on facilities and population, and oh-by-the-way wipe out most of his exposed ground troops, so it's basically pointless to build troops for defense). Post-conquest, you own non-native breathers of same or different atmospheres, with happiness score that affects production.
Fascinating idea that just occurred to me:
I loved the mini-game of optimizing my backfields' planets by importing native breathers. That's a bunch of traveling salesperson and amazon delivery sub-problems, co-existing with the combat/invasion game (and intersecting in the frontier systems). No AI does that like I do it. We could write an AI to optimize that solution for that one gamespace -- but no meta-AI could scour the published rules of a 4X and compute: yes, the Diaspora uber-pattern is possible in this game, i.e. this game is a member of the Diaspora-subclass (subset) of games ... ergo it is a member of my buy-it-now subset
What I like the most: Trading for specific Tech and resources is always good. Making sanctions against opponents. Mutual aggression and non aggression pacts. What I would like to see is,, POPULATION TRADING?!? Weather for resources or money, they could be pilgrims or slaves perhaps depending on what type of races are doing the trading. My biggest complaint is simply the BI-polar attitude the AI can get as far as all of a sudden he don't like you anymore because your power ranking is so much higher or lower than hers/his with the exception of domination being the only winning peramiter set for victory conditions. With that being said, the above been beaten to death by strategy/4x games.
My favorite diplomacy in a game hands down would have to be how Romance of the Three kingdoms worked, speaking specifically of ROTK 8 and 11. It work just like any other game diplomacy but In ROTK there was one piece of realism that most game diplomacy lacked which is interpersonal interests. Different generals or officers of your faction had ties with others of apposing faction. Weather it be my blood relation or just simple friendship. You could even bribe other governors of an apposing faction to "open the gates for your army" or hand over his governed province. Sending a general with a low loyalty toward you could be a game changing mistake. A good real life example could be like Benjerman Franklin schmoozing it up with the French. Maybe adding random diplomats or something like MOO2 style could accommodate the possibility of adding that dynamic into diplomacy. Maybe governors can fill that role.
I cannot be specific because most of my old saves from my other computer are long gone, also there really hasn't been any turn based games that have come out in the past 10 years worth allot of turns with the exception of , Gal civ2 and romance of the three kingdoms 11. You guys make a great 4x game,"the closest to Moo2 addiction" and I wish you got that Moo2 copyright because war gaming having it makes me want to .
On a side note I did play a MOO3 game that lasted almost a whole year but the old acer PC died on me and I lost everything. Four hours average a day.
Well my favorite games would have to be Moo2 and X-com apocalypse. I have played thousands of turns when I had the time and played those ones allot since 1999 till the current day.
I cant put my finger on it but MOO2 just never looses its addictive attraction. You can destroy planets , rebuild em, take a subterranean race and double a planets capacity with a surface dwelling race. Create a custom race. Random leaders and officers. Some games in MOO2 you can never even see some techs because no race thought of em per-say. Some games you never see a certain leader, maybe he was assassinated or died defending a planet from the Antarans. It seems very sand boxy and never the same grind twice. X-com apocalypse is another gem I can grind till it crashes but thats not really a 4x game but has the good open endlessness that lets a player play how he wants to if he tries hard enough. "aliens were not the problem in the latter days, I was "
Moo3 was an OK game, the learning curve was not really steep per-say but awkward. The feeling of not having control over everything really made that game disliked among most Moo fans. It was the game you had to acquire a taste for but lacked any real player ingenuity capabilities. With 4x games I believe the key is keep it simple but make it deep and open ended.
On a closing I think you guys have a really great game, I came across Gal Civ 2 at target one day for like $5 in the old game bin, I read the back of the cd sized package and thought to myself, "hey this looks like Moo2 2.0" Ship design was a big selling point for me and I'm happy I found your game. The only thing that I wish you game had was planet creation and destruction capability's. Enslaving races and using their unique ability's to complement your empire. To me that adds a whole new dimension to the master plan and possibilities causing my turn rate to double. The 100 opponent excessive map is really getting me anxious to have a nice long game to remember that has its own history.
1) The most important thing to me is the ability to keep good relations with another civ if you put in the work. In many 4X strategy games there comes a point that no matter how carefully you tended to your friends, they turn against you. Beyond that, I really like the ability to goad or bribe other Civs into war with each other. I also like the ideology system in Civ V BNW in terms of how it played into diplomacy. I found the idea of forming a bloc with countries who share the same fundamental philosophy very appealing.
2) I don’t really keep track of this, but I tend to play turned-based 4x strategy games on the slowest pacing. I’m guessing this results in 400-600 turn games, but I’ve never been one to race to win as fast as possible, so I usually don’t even look at the turn number during a game.
3) 4X strategy is my favorite genre, but I think that I am more of a role-player than a strategy gamer. For me, a 4X isn’t so much about the thrill of out-thinking and out-maneuvering my opponents as it is building an epic empire from humble beginnings. Because of this I tend to enjoy games with distinct factions that play in different and interesting ways. I very much enjoy Venice in Civ V and the undead in Legendary Heroes. I also enjoy games with robust non-military strategy options, especially culture and espionage. The Civ V Brave New World cultural victory has its limitations, but it was a giant improvement over the cultural victory in any other game I have encountered. It both gave the cultural player something active to do rather than simply accumulating points, which is what most games do, and gave a gameplay-based grounding to the production of culture and tourism. Good AI that plays in clever ways without cheating is another big plus. I don’t have a ton of specific memories from 4X strategy games, but the first time I played GalCiv II, I was in the middle of a war with my closest neighbor. I had won a few victories and had a clear advantage, but there was a lot of mop-up yet to do. To my surprise, my enemy surrendered their entire Civ to the second most powerful civ, causing it to leapfrog me and I suddenly had a much more formidable opponent to deal with. That was the moment when I knew GalCiv II was a special game. As for what makes a game good or bad, I think balance is the key. There should be a number of viable strategies, the AI should provide an interesting and challenging opposition, and each game should feel like a new experience. Replay value is the lynchpin of this genre, and if there is a simple optimal path that can be easily followed under any circumstances the game will get stale fast.
Wow, here are pages of essays on what makes a good 4X strategy game. Good job everyone! I won't write an essay, but I will try to answer the questions briefly.
1) I prefer diplomacy that is as interactive as possible. I like it when other leaders come to me with good ideas or challenge something I am doing (especially if it is not obvious, like amassing troops on a border). Having pages which give players some idea of other races' relationships is also helpful. Preferably, espionage should be required to learn more detailed information. I also appreciate it when opportunities for manipulation arise (X asks Y to help or harm another civilization, or possibly break off a mutual aid treaty with a race friendly to Y).
2) I usually like 4X games to last 100 turns or so, but my preference varies considerably from game to game. Having multiple victory conditions which may enable me to aggressively pursue a victory is very important to me. The design of the end-game tech tree substantially affects enjoyment of the last game turns in my opinion. If the end-game techs are nothing but improved lasers and shields that gets boring quickly. If there are new toys, wonders, and social buildings that require a lot of research points to unlock, that makes the end game more interesting. An end game super-weapon is also a great goal to build towards.
3) I usually rate 4X games based on their strategic depth and replayability. Gal Civ II and its expansions were remarkably deep. In all the hours I spent on them, I felt like I never stopped discovering new features and ways to modify or improve my strategy. One factor that harmed replayability in the expansions particularly was the difficulty of balancing the game's many features (particularly race, improvement, and resource bonuses/penalties). Improvements in AI intelligence greatly increase replayability in games oriented towards single players.
One particularly memorable aspect of the Sid Meyer's Civilization series and Gal Civ II was the lore and technology descriptions. I understand Stardock is working to streamline the 4X experience, so these things may become less prominent. However, I think that lore and clever writing should remain an important part of any 4x gaming experience.
The post above is 375 words . . . It looks like I could not get away without writing a short essay, either.
1. I dont like diplomacy much. I dont want complicated bargaining. I like simple trade agreements and a tech exchange now and again. I also like consistency. If a race is supposed to be "stable/good" then it should not turn on a dime against you without explanation. I dont mind if a friendly nation turn on me late game if all other foes are gone. Why should I always be the one to backstab
2. I like the opening of games the most. The first third, and therefore I will often quit if I feel I have won. I dont mind long games, but endgame is as we all know often problematic (becomes a chore, repetitive).
3. I like games that throws up surprises and are flexible. I like to play a game where there is aways new strategies to try and discover. I loved the spell in Fallen Enchantress that opened the gate with monster coming out (it broke my heart when I saw that the monsters didnt really bother my opponents and just roamed the area). I loved the space monsters in Master of Orion II.
I want living worlds where mercenaries can be hired to bother my opponents without me controlling them. I want huge random events that tells a story. A rising among the orcs will spread orc armies across the map, and the players will have to adapt or there will be a new orc empire that will dominate all.
I do NOT care about balance, I want to overcome the odds. I want the world stacked against me. I will NEVER reload. I want a victory that feels earned after 20 failings.
On a side note. I am playing XCOM Enemy Within atm on Classic with no reloading. The first council mission (rescue a vip) is beating me every time. Its either on a brigde (this one I should be able to beat I think) or its through some houses (this one I am not even close to handle - thin men dropping everywhere and its month one or two). I have restarted maybe 20 times from the beginning of the game
<<
3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good fand another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?>>
1. In all honesty I've not been that great of a fan of diplomacy because the AI seemed to always fall into the following patterns:
-I get a technology, and suddenly all the AI's want to trade for that piece of tech, often with the same tech in return
-AI will often turn on you for lack of military (I for one sometimes prefer to keep an opponent in place as a buffer against another enemy on the other side of them)
-AI will be friends with me but then turn on me for no discernible reason
The one part I remember most was on GC1 when I smashed one opponent, sued for peace, smashed them again, sued for peace, and the AI caught on to this, even saying they they won't accept peace only to be immediately attacked. Brought a smile to my face.
2. I never kept in track of turn counts although I would note that it feels like the first 50 turns of a game can drag because you send out your first colony ship, then next turn next turn next turn, followed by select next technology, next turn next turn next turn next turn. That next turn button gets bashed way too many time in the early going. I know that for the larger galaxy sizes, I just don't have the time for them since I could probably blow a good 30 to 40 gaming hours easily on such large maps.
3. A good strategy game is one that is fair (no AI cheating). The game has to have character and atmosphere. The first two MOO games had that character to them that gave MOO its own unmistakable identity. GC also had that character and atmosphere to it that helped give it its identity. One fond memory was on MOO1, when I encountered Orion and that guardian. Frustrated the heck out of me until I rallied a fleet to take it out. My other fond memory was playing Moo2, where there was that tension in the background where you're hoping that your number doesn't come up and the Antaran forces come storming for someone's blood. My great memory was finally rallying a force that was strong enough to take the fight back to the Antarans and was so awesome laying the beat down on the Antarans. A good strategy game doesn't allow for stupidly cheap victories. I think Lucky Jack posted something a while back about games ending too quickly. I had that happen before on MOO2 on the impossible level where the game ended *FAST* with a victory for my side. The only reason I won at all was I happened to establish an alliance with the right groups and somehow won the election early. My first thought when that occurred was "that's it? That's what impossible was all about?"
But most 4x games I played have a hard time sticking the landing, and by that I mean the mop up phase. It's must like the game of Monopoly. We know you're supposed to play that game until everyone else is bankrupt, but there comes a point where you know the opponents are beaten. Usually people just resign and call it good. Unfortunately, you have to go scorched earth most of the time with the 4x games until you hit a victory condition, or until the game time boxes you.
One idea would be to allow surrenders to "save face" (which GC to some degree does). If you fight and get wiped out, your score might be 1000, but if you surrender you might get 1250 whereas a victory would give you like 3000, but you get the idea, at least have it to where if you know you're beaten or if the AI knows they are beaten with no hope of winning, allow them to surrender to end the game.
1) Buying techs or something else highly useful from an AI is fun. The diplomacy in Civ 5 is also fun because of the superb character visuals and voice recordings.
2) In general a few hundred turns is fine. I'll usually quit a turn based game if I'm obviously going to win but the game is dragging out. More fun to start a new one.
3) What defines a good strategy game? A game that causes me to get worried I won't win which causes extra focus on my part. This usually causes me to lose track of time. Interesting combat mechanics, good interface, things happen differently each start. Good randomized map generation. Graphics in the game have to be up to a certain level.
What defines a bad strategy game? A game with bad AI. I'm not interested in playing an AI that is given unfair bonuses. Multiplayer capability doesn't make up for having a bad AI. A clunky interface. Very bad graphics. Scripted campaigns usually turn me off as they usually have you trying to figure out what narrowly defined solutions the developer setup.
Hmmm.... I love when the AI are real powergamers for their own good. Quick shifting Alliances, backstabbing but also calling traitors out and a sense for reputation. Among all turnbasedgames out there so far EU4 did it the best.
In EU4 you had a full range of nice tools, marriages (some kind of sign of friendship), Alliances, Coalitions against a specific nation, Vassalization etc. Also there is a reputation system and backing out off treaties is punished by becoming quickly infamous.
2. Looking back, how many turns do your favourite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I don't know in Civ4 I only play marathon and that is often still too quick for my taste. So maybee 4000+ turns with mods? Never tracked that.
And yeah, I want the games to be epic
Unfortunately I often abort much earlier because I'm so far ahead that I've basically won but I don't want to tidy up.
In general, good strategy games on pc should have:
- a good AI (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), nothing kills the single player experience faster than an inept AI unable to keep up with the human player on even the basics of the game.
- not overly decisive, it's win / lose should not be decided by just one thing. A win should result from a chain of good decisions.
- rich amount of worthwhile choices, with that of course comes the need of balance. If certain approaches / strategies universal stronger than the rest it basically sucks the life out of the game.
- fluid gameplay: a good interface and not too much busy work
Bad strategy games:
- the opposite of that what makes a good strategy game
- overly sacrificing depth for accessibility
- giving seemingly a lot of options but either they have no influence on the game outcome (lack of impact) or one options is vastly superior than it's alternative (lack of balance)
- lack of vision: just slapping together a lot of features that barely fit together, with low interaction, just to have something to write for the PR-page of the game
Examples of good games:
- Alpha Centauri, my all-time favourite. Why? Overall lot's of interesting decisions: which faction to choose? On what basis shall put my economy (industrial, green economy, or going native?); which technologies to research, going wide in a lot of areas or rather beelining a specific scientific path?
- Master of Orion 2: great detailed unit builder and intense tactical combat.
- Civ4 Mod: Dune; I'm quite a big f quite similar in its aspects like Alpha Centauri: which faction to choose? Which kind of economy to pursue, how aggressive shall I expand? Honorable Mentions: Civ4 itself, other excellent Civ4 Mods like Fall from Heaven or History of the three Kingdoms. Oh and Civ4 is the best moddable 4X game that so far ever existed. Another big plus.
- Heroes of Might and Magic (3 and 5): more of a light-strategy game. But rich in content and the game was all about deciding on the most efficient farm route. Tactical combat in HoMM5 is a blast. Lots of different abilities that impact the game. Honorable Mention: HoMM6 (had partly an atrocious mission design), King's Bounty (love it and have every sequel).
- Jagged Alliance 2 & XCom:EnemyWithin: very intense tactical games. Very fluid gameplay without sacrificing the need of good decision making to prevail
- GalCiv2: Although over it life cycle it suffered from a bit of feature creep that didn't tied too well in with each other and especially the AI struggled a lot after GalCiv2s second expension, but what makes GalCiv2 stand is that at it's core it's a very focused war game that plays very fluid yet also offers an intense arms race. It ties both Micro- (Planet-) and Macromanagement (Fleet movement) well together and stays even after so many years fresh.
- Battle for Wesnoth: very focused game design but motivates with a very good game balance. Evetry unit is quite useful and you want to have a very wide range of different units to be flexible. Another plus point is the awesome unit leveling system in the game. Also it's absolute FREE and open-source
Examples of mediocre games:
- TotalWar: Rome 2: nice eyecandy, but greedy DLC bullshit, defunct AI and insane waiting times makes this game just unappealing
- Age Of Wonders 3: i think some people will call me out for that, but what kills AoW3 for me is the crazy strength spiralling, very quickly it's only about who can produce most tier4 units, totally destroys any strategy
- Warlords Series: very focused gameplay, which is ok, but suffered a lot from a very stupid AI and balance problems.
- Elemental:FallenEnchantress: the importance of cities and also the lack of settling spots leads very quickly to situation that after conquering 2 or 3 cities from the AI, the game is basically over. They will never match the production and science output the human player amassed already. I think I never finished one fallen echantress game because basically I won pretty fast but tiding up would last forever. Also overall the tactical combat was halfassed. Not much opportunity of combined arms. It was just: get the biggest weapons and the biggest armor and go stomping. Also the AI is pretty bad.
Let's not talk about the bad strategy games. Their names shall never be called and may they be forgotten forever.
This is what I am talkin a bout, the end game of most 4x games is too tedious. The only game I recall that handled that well was SMAC which gave you the option of accepting a submissive pact when offered by a beaten opponent. If you wished to grind it out you could always refuse. It also allowed the submissive to rebel in the future if you allowed that option.
I may have forgotten, but I never recall a surrender in Galciv. All I remember is when a weak faction decides to throw in with another. This was always decided by a coin toss that I never won. Again, my memory may be faulty. I haven't played GCII in a while.
Bare with me as I'm going to ramble just a bit here.
My two all-time favorite diplomacy setups were in GalCiv 2 and in Alpha Centauri. GalCiv 2 had a nice combination of entertaining banter (almost too silly for its own good at times though haha) and a nice overlay screen clearly showing what everyone had available. Things could be flip-flopped around until a trade seemed satisfactory for both sides. The lists could start getting pretty clunky though, especially with piles of technologies, planets and starships at different points during the game.
I also enjoy being able to see positive/negative impacts on a relationship, mainly so players can see clearer results of diplomacy and will know where they did well or screwed up. If I remember correctly, Civilization V removed that at launch and there was a backlash from people thinking the AI wasn't noting these things. They were still factoring all of that in, but it was hidden from the player in a attempt to make diplomacy feel more "natural" and in the end it made it too difficult to judge why an AI was happy or unhappy with the player.
While mechanically I enjoyed GalCiv 2's a lot, I remember have the fondest memories of the Alpha Centauri approach. While there was too much stock conversation bits, diplomacy felt a lot more dynamic since it was presented as more of a conversation (discussing, actual diplomacy!) rather than simply a bunch of charts. Conversations were fun, but at the same time you couldn't really make complex offers or counter-offers. Presentation is what I want to emphasis though - they could have added much more/better conversation variation, but the way they presented it felt immersive.
The best of both worlds for me would probably be somewhere in the middle of that. I would enjoy more dynamic conversations so it feels more like both sides talking, rather than just the AI getting all of the clever lines. Say an AI sends a trade offer that's skewed 20% in their favor. Here's some random examples of a list of responses that could show up for me:
Player: "That's a terrible offer, I would never accept that!" AI: (AI then responds with something clever, such as saying it's a mistake or maybe even being polite and thanking them for their consideration)
Player: "I'm tempted, but it's a tough decision." AI: (AI can then offer more, double down on what it is by "convincing" the player it's fine or can threaten to drop the offer - continued rejection might cause them to close out the offer)
Player: "That offer is good, but it would be great if you could one more thing in..." (player modifies trade offer)AI: (AI then responds to the modification. If it's reasonable, they will accept. If it's close enough to be worthwhile, but favors the player, the AI might remember how stingy the player is if it happens too much).
Player: "This seems fair to me, I can accept those terms" (player accepts offer)
This leads into some more thoughts. Diplomatic relations could have an impact on these conversations. Of course to avoid extreme complexity, there can be only so many variables, but there might be "good", "neutral", "bad" and "threatened" (risk of getting attacked by the player) in terms of how they view their relationship with the player. If they're on good relations, they might offer more leeway on the player's response, but may also note it as a negative if a player tries to take advantage too many times. If relations are bad, there'll be less leeway on negotiations and they may end a trade entirely. If relations are bad but they feel threatened, then they're more likely to do what the player wants.
And choices during the conversation may impact diplomacy, much like real world diplomacy. If you say something rude in response to their trade offer, they will remember that. If you act nicely to them if they're rude to you first, they'll also remember that and may ease up on it. Or they may lose respect for you being a "softy" in talks. I'll re-iterate that the conversations wouldn't need to be complex in how they branch out (unless you really wanted to devote extra time to it). The main variability would be in lines to say in response to different things, while keeping the conversations quick so it doesn't drag out. It's basically a flavor thing. Alpha Centauri handled it well, keeping it simple while still making it feel more interactive. Keep in the spreadsheets, but allow the player to engage in the conversation a bit better by having some options of how to respond.
Adding an alternative direction for this, it would be interesting to just have a separate conversation option entirely that isn't directly connected to the complex trading system. Even if we can't get a more dynamic talk in connection with our spreadsheet trade exchanges, being able to call up someone and just chat a bit would be fun. Usually "talking" to the AI in games results in getting a boxed "I hate x person" kind of thing, which doesn't seem natural at all. And that same information is usually shown elsewhere anyways so the conversation is redundant. Conversations could be a way to present some back-story on races (maybe they'll ramble about their past) or they might offer up a special trade offer, give a gift, ask for a favor, etc. Or vice versa, if you bug them too much maybe they'll get angry and declare war if you're not careful. These little conversations can help or hurt a relationship to some degree, based on what you say. If you listen to their sad backstory and say something supportive, they'll respect you a bit more. Or if you say something rude, they'll get upset. The fun is in the ability to have a little personal choice within the conversation.
One last note: since this is an open discussion involving more than GalCiv games, the upcoming Civilization: Beyond Earth is adding something along the line of "favors" as a trade option, so you can help out someone else early on if they don't have anything to give, and eventually you can fall back on that favor when you need something later (and vice versa if you need an early favor). I think it's a cool idea and I wouldn't be against something like that being added.
Game lengths are really variable in terms of what I enjoy. Sometimes I just want a shorter session I can sit down and finish if I have a free evening to play. A couple hundred turns or 4-5 hours can still be satisfying. Other times I enjoy gigantic endless matches, that I may or may not complete, and don't mind working on the same game for a few weeks. I can't really give super specific turn quantities since I've never really noted it down, but I enjoy having flexibility in game lengths and the ability to disable certain victory conditions to ensure the game wont end too easily. When in comes to GalCiv, usually I use map size to control the length of the game. This is why I'm excited it's 64-bit only, because I'm going to use ridiculous map sizes occasionally to play multi-week games. Long rounds of any 4x game are usually most fun with AI and short games are most fun with players. The option for both is important.
Tricky question. A good 4x game is one that's able to be immersive first and foremost. If I feel like I'm watching a game, and not really "in" the game, then it's much harder to enjoy. Clunky mechanics or an ugly UI can be distracting. Complexity in games is a good thing, because it allows you to feel more in control. There's an extreme to either spectrum. Too "streamlined" makes for a game with little flexibility where you feel you're just watching the game. Games with hundreds of different sliders to adjust can get a little ridiculous. All of the games I've played from Stardock have always done good balancing those factors, and GalCiv 3 is already looking great.
"Hero" type units are always pretty fun to use and are also more engaging. Same with units that are upgradable and such. You become a lot more attached to your units and the game when you actually care about some of them. There of course needs to be plenty of cannon fodder for a good fight (one doesn't want to get upset over every unit loss!), but this is why "hero" type units are fun: there's very few of them, but they are valuable to sustain and you grow attached to them because of that. Basically, the 4x games that suck me in the most are those that make me care about the units, the cities, the planets, etc in some way. It comes down to: if I don't care about this empire I've created, then there's no much incentive for me to keep playing the game.
Another factor is replay-ability with 4x games. Eventually you'll figure out certain AI habits (GalCiv 3 may at least partially solve that issue it sounds like though), so variability within the game itself are the main way to keep things interesting and changing. This is why GalCiv's event system is a lot of fun. It adds some flavor and variation regardless of if you use the same starting strategy. It's these dynamic decisions (much like my rambling about diplomacy) that makes other factors of the game fun too. Map variables help a lot with that too: if there's a lot of different things that may or may not be there, in different forms, then it's less predictable on how you should react to your environment. Pirates/barbarians/etc that attack anyone they want help with that also. Some of the more stale 4x games are one where there's simply not much difference in what's going to happen.
This is why "competitive" RTS games (different genre, but point is held) are less fun for me than "casual" ones because competitive ones have very strict limitations to ensure everything is fair and consistent with everyone. Even maps may be a perfect mirror, which is fair but not fun...unless you're playing competitively. For a competition that's fine, but it becomes repetitive since what you can do and what your opponent can do is much more limited. Starcraft II, even being an RTS, is a newer example of what I don't want to see in 4x games. It was built entirely around being competitive, to the point where there's just not a lot of variation in what happens - the most fun I get out of that game is from the modding community.
Lastly, and this is something I noted in my diplomacy ramble also, is flavor in general. Not everything needs a raw mechanical purpose. I remember the throne room from older civilization games. Mechanically they didn't matter at all, but it was fun to customize and such. It added a personal touch to your empire in the making and progressed as you did. An idea would be to add a special satellite structure that can be seen orbiting only the capital planet, which changes in look and can be grown as your empire grows. Maybe on the diplomacy section, a throne room area will show up behind the player/AI, which is the area that they've customized. It would be fun to see something like that in a expansion or DLC, but it comes down to whether it's worth the resources and time to add it versus other features. Flavor-wise it would add to the immersion of the experience though.
And a last note on variability, I like it when the AI surprises me. Whether it's diplomacy, combat or otherwise, it's fun when they do something clever, self-profitable or maybe even something nice I didn't anticipate they would do. AI that do too many stupid things is not very fun though - I've had my moments with Civilization V AI where they do something that's clearly suicidal and it doesn't seem fun to get an edge on them that way.
I like the witty or sarcastic comments. I really dislike being friends with a species for a small while then getting pulled into a war almost straight away. I want to see more options with diplomacy, like teasing the speaker to wind them up and for them to make rash decisions, a "what will you give me for this?" would be helpful, haggling would be good...just thinking ferengi...lots of you're wounding me etc, I'd like to see dependability of character with some...you know what you're getting and that they respect you, I would really like to see gossip...occasional knocks on the door and someone pops round and bitches about someone. Diplomacy isn't a give/take all the time, it's the conversational side which breaks up the conquering side of things.
No idea
I loved the look of Civ V but it felt very limited as one of my favourite bits in strategy is technology and to have Anon Tech Advance 25 achieved felt like I reached the end with no real advancement. I loved Alpha Centuri as it introduces lots of new ideas and made me think about technological concepts...I'd like GalCiv3 to have very different technologies in it such as organic ships, lego block type ships that reconfigure themselves into a different ship, holographic ships etc. Slightly side tracking, the best sci-fi shows makes you think and have that awe inspiring WOW when you see it...Babylon 5 had that and I LOVED stuff like the First Ones and the mythology. Sins of Solar Empire...it was nice...hated the space lanes and lack of subtitles so I didn't know what was going on. Subtitles in games is a must.
A smart AI with a distinct personality, motivated self-interest, and a long memory.
While I’m not completely satisfied with the diplomacy in my current favorite 4x game—Civilization V with the Brace New World DLC—I do like that some leaders are just not going to like you or work with you no matter what you do. Bribes help a little and for a short time, but are not a long term solution. I also like knowing whom I can trust in an alliance, provided we are both benefiting from it (However, it wouldn’t be betrayal if you didn’t trust them, right?). The fact that relationships between Civs can change throughout the game based on who a player is friendly or allied with or at war with is also a good, though not fully explored, aspect of Civ 5 diplomacy. I like the ability to hover over a Civ in the UI and see what factors are benefiting or hurting our relationship. Finally, tying in the espionage system to diplomacy so I can get a hint how they’re going to vote or if they’ve sent an invasion force my way while they’re smiling at me on the diplomacy screen adds real value to espionage.
In GC 2, I could eventually convince every civilization to like me, to have a research and economic treaty with me, to trade tech (if I had that option selected), and to ally with me (if I wanted). It makes diplomacy too easy, and frankly, forgettable. Worse, one way to conquer another civilization was to ally with them and then use influence star bases to convert their planets. All the benefits of invasion without the mess. An AI should be smart enough to realize when a relationship isn’t in its best interest and sever that relationship. Using an alliance like I just described should not only cause the civ to end the alliance, it might even be a reason to declare war.
1000+ (I like big maps, lots of civs, and a slow research pace.)
One of the best diplomacy systems I’ve seen is not from a 4x game. Have you ever played the game “Rise of Venice”? Talk about a diplomacy system that is hard to master! As you gain in power, the AIs become increasingly hostile, sabotaging your businesses, trying to ruin your reputation, convincing port authorities to temporarily revoke trading privileges, etc. To make it more interesting, you need their support in order to progress through the political ranks, so simple retaliation is not always the best option. It is very challenging and keeps the game interesting well into late game.
Bad leader AI is one of the biggest turn-offs (for me) in a 4x game. There comes a point—well before the game is finished—that I just know I’m going to win. Once I hit that point, a game becomes boring and I often will just start a new game. Almost every 4x game is like this, even my favorites: Civilization (from 1 to 5—Yes, I’m that old), Galactic Civilizations, and the newcomer Horizon.
Civ V with the Brave New World DLC comes closest to a good leader AI in a 4x game for me. Horizon tried, giving leaders the ability to break alliances and treaties, and change attitudes as alliances and treaties changed throughout the game. However, in both games, I can generally isolate a hostile AI through diplomacy and take it down while keeping others happy, afraid, or at least bribed. This is too easy in Horizon, a little harder in Civ V. I already talked about diplomacy in GC 2 in answer to Question 1.
One thing that seems to be missing from 4x games is the idea of AI motivated self-interest (“Rise of Venice” captures this very well in diplomacy but fails in overall strategy, which is not the topic you wanted us to discuss). If one civilization (including the human controlled one) begins to gain a dominant position, other civilizations should recognize that and either ally with it for protection or to dominate weaker powers, or should join an alliance against it to “bring balance to galaxy again.” (Sabotage, pirates, and the like could be good proxy tools for waging an undeclared war against a rising power). One reason I can reach the point of I’m-going-to-win is that I know the AIs won’t gang up on me. Once I am powerful enough to take on the single most powerful AI, then I’ve effectively won.
To keep the game interesting well into late game, AI leaders should always act in their own self-interest. They should want to win, no matter what situation they find themselves in. They should follow the strategy they believe—consistent with their philosophy—will eventually lead THEM to victory.
As always, my opinion.
My perspective as one who has NOT bought Galciv3 yet, but played the tar out I and II:
CONGRESS. Hands down. Lots of potential resolutions that can be passed, ways to garner votes.
300 turns. However, I want quick games. That is not necessarily tied to real clock time, nor is it necessarily what my favorite games in the past have been.
Lots of intriguing strategic options, coupled with a good AI that can navigate those options well. I don't care about multiplayer--turn-based games have historically been too long for that. I'm looking for ways to outsmart the AI: complicated ways, hidden gems (but not hiding the rules of the game).
1) I like feeling like diplomatic interlocutors are characters that exist in the world and have a coherent personality. An example I remember long after player would be interactions with other races in Starflight. Starting from first contact the way you interact with them can make other aspects of the game go more smoothly or create obstacles (and sometimes both).2) The question doesn't make much sense, but I'll try (a single number from plural sources is well...). JA2, one of my favorite games, usually lasts about 140 game days for a complete play through. For something like Civ V it is usually between turn 270 and 310. Really though, most stategy games are over long before that. Civ V or Eador are won well before turn 100 (or 30 game days for JA2), the rest is just shaving turns off of time to win or score inflation (or having fun playing or wasting the player's time, depending on perspective).3) A good strategy game to me is one that has variety, asymmetry and balance and where the AI is capable of playing. There are lots of ways for a strategy game to be bad, but the two most common seem to be incompetent AI and deterministic outcomes. HOMM3 or Titans of Steel would be good strategy games according to that definition, while Eador or Civ V are bad strategy games.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
