posted October 29, 2000 21:30

I like the idea of A.I. civ's having a personality. I guess my wish is that a particular trait didn't always go to same civ. When I see Mongols, Zulus and Greeks all in one game -- I know there will be trouble. I'll still bust them up, however!

A little bit more surpise by unlinking the trait from the civ and not revealing a country/leaders tendencies. This allows you to form an opinion of the other civs through your own play and experience.

You can tell too much about how the game will go when Herodutus the Historian tells you who the happiest civs are. There in front of you, whether you wanted it or not, is a listing of the civs and their strategy.

	posted October 29, 2000 21:36

------------------
JRH

	posted October 30, 2000 00:18

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

	posted October 30, 2000 04:58

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

	posted October 30, 2000 06:24

It must be - and with all that rain falling lately, we'll be able to get more of it!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

	posted October 30, 2000 15:15

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove on 10-29-2000 11:26 PM I think gameplay could be improved by programming civs to change personalities under certain circumstances. Historically even civilizations that we think of as typically pacifist have had their periods of militaristic expansion, and even warrior nations have their periods of peace. Through much of its history Egypt was content to remain within its domain along the Nile, but there were also a few Pharohs who mounted expeditions of expansion. Certainly China could not have been forged into a single empire without military escapades. On the other hand the Aztecs, before they won their empire, had once been a weak tribe, literally kicked around the mid-Mexican plateau. Each "peaceful" nation should have a small chance each turn of converting to a militant nation. Peaceful nations placed under sufficient duress (by falling behind or loss of territory) should have an increased chance of "going rogue". Militant nations should have a small chance of converting to peaceful nations every turn, and if continually successful, this chance should gradually increase (sort of a "rise and fall" thing).

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 10-29-2000 03:53 PM I've said this in a few topics but never gotten any response, so I am trying again.. P.S. This is also in the Tribes 0.1 and An AI Question threads. There should be sub-personalities as I mentioned in another thread. It may take me a while to dig it up but hopefully I will find it. Here it is: (It was in my Tribes 0.1 Post) 10. Civ Personalities [Dark Cloud] There should be 5 basic personality types- -Warlike -Expansionist -Neutral -Perfectionist -Pacifist And there should be 2 sub-personalities for each- -Warlike has 1. Fight to the Death (Never gives up after being attacked, almost never gives up when losing a war.) 2. Backstabber (Attacks when least expecting- attacks allies, etc) -Expansionist has 1. Settler Type (Builds many cities) 2. War Type (Attacks others cities) -Neutral has 1. Warlike (If insulted will attack - will only pay tribute sometimes) 2. Passifist (If attacked will attack- will pay tribute always) -Perfectionist has 1. City Developer (Builds up cities) 2. Unit Developer (Builds up armies) -Pacifist has 1. Researcher (Only builds the newest units and buildings) 2. Developer (Only builds the cheapest units and buildings)

To expand on what you are saying, Dr Strangelove, I think every AI should start out in a neutral state (that DarkCloud has described) and go from there, but with each nation having a small chance of making some kind of aggression (declaration of war, espionage, demanding tribute, etc.), and a small chance of making some kind of move towards peace (signing cease-fire, peace treaty, strategic alliance, forming a federation, exchanging and/or giving techs, giving/exchanging units, etc.) each turn.

------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 30, 2000).]

	posted October 30, 2000 22:18

I don't think we need to adhere to "realism" as it pertains to Zulus or anyone else in human history. The idea is this is a simulation and everything and anything might be different from true history.

	posted October 31, 2000 06:49

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

	posted October 31, 2000 23:28

What I'm saying is that Civ3 could offer a selection of leaders for each nation, each having his or her own historical personality. For the US the expansionist would be Teddy Rooseveldt, the pacifist would be Thomas Jefferson. I also think that it would help gameplay if the personality of each nation had the capacity to change periodically over the course of the game. An even crazier idea would be to give each nation a dynasty, in which the name of the leader changes every 20 years (or 5 to 10 years in a Republic or a Democracy).

	posted November 06, 2000 18:29

This is the most simple solution to the problem, and I hope Firaxis implements at least this.

	posted November 06, 2000 18:32

JRH, what a great idea! By allowing each civ to begin neutral in its temperament, it could allow the AI to react to its environment, both related to terrain and other civs. This would make a truly revolutionary diplomatic model if it could be implemented.