The real solution to critical mass

from Stardock Forums
One of the problems in most strategy games is the later stages where you KNOW you've won but you have to mop up.

We try to avoid that sort of thing in GalCiv through a variety of mechanisms. But no mechanism is as straight forward as common sense.

In most strategy games, the AI opponents tend to gang up on whoever is winning. Hence, if you're winning the game, even your closest friends will slowly move away from you.

Nothing causes critical mass problems more than that. And it is, IMO, a very very BAD game mechanic. In the real world, it works the opposite. The more powerful you are, the more other governments will tend to want to get along with you. Sure, they may snipe at you or whatever but they're not likely to go to war with you.

GalCiv works along those lines. If you are winning the game, your friends remain your friends. In fact, they may want to move beyond friends and become your allies.

As a result, mop up usually is a minor thing in the game because AI civilizations who are hopelessly outgunned will beg for mercy and want to eventually become your ally even. Failing that, they'll surrender outright.

But as we were playing this week, it really became apparent just how much of a problem it is when AI designers decide to have relations based on inverse power -- i.e. everyone wanting to gang up on who is most powerful. If game designers would just not do this, much of the issues with critical mass would go away.
338 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
This came up in my game today. The Arceans were fighting off me and the Drengin on a gigantic galaxy. Me and my Drengin allies had almost the entire map. The Arceans had about 9 star systems left with a good 600 billion people. But they surrendered instead of dragging the game out another hour or two. Makes the game much more rewarding.

On the same thought, I wish GalCiv had a retire option. The aliens get to retire. Why not us? I want to see the end screen stats without having to be conquered or win.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Your AI is just better Brad. That is crystal clear from playing this game. (Just wish I could get rid of CTD's and bugs..sigh)

back to the point - in reality player behaviour is a bit of both actually and if an AI designer like yourself could 'mimmic' this in my view it would make quite a difference and would frankly be a breath of fresh air.

In reality not everyone is a mercenary - but some races are. Some will always side with whom they think will be the eventual winners right from the start, some will stick with these to the end (AND possibly die) others will prostitute themselves and keep switching sides on this basis.

However some will be theologically or culturally ethical and stick with the culture and ethics closest to themselves 'loyally' till the end. However even these types will vary in resolve and some will colapse sooner than others.

A final complication is that circumstances change and particularly in times of stress (warfare, hardship. commercial conflict- and downright 'influence'etc) some will migrate - but only the cultural and ethical gypsies and the culturally bereft.

fascinating point.

steve
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
"The aliens get to retire. Why not us?"
Hey, that would be an awesome little thing to add! Games never have this realistic option and people are just letting go instead. Guess it should be put as an option only in certain situations, our civ at least getting the advantage of having less damage...

Besides, the inverse of your system may have a little effect also. Let's look at Louis XIV tht got so strong by absolutism. What happened? Even if the weakest and nearest were going ally, others were trying to compet with him and ultimately go against him seriously.

Look also at Charles Quint and the Habsbourg dynasty. Others tryed to counter it because it was a menace to their power. Here again, those who had the choice and were not too weak to sustain attacks got to organize against him.

You can also look at Spain when French, English and Holland powers were getting into colonization. Were they attacking Spain? No, they were attacking Portugal. But from the moment the got the opportunity to hit Spain, they did.


I think there's a patern here that can be taken out from Europe's balance of power and USA's actual situation, like any historical concept has its inner working. It seems like a power is or:
- going on the same side (trying to get higher)
- cannot go on the same side so with subtility tries to go against (alliances, underground support, etc.)

The factors here deciding of which side is taken are numerous but I'll try to take out the major ones I see:
- Compatibility (moral, economic orientation, casus belli (like in MOO3)...) between dominant side and other (Japan/Middle East and USA are not very compatible, thus in competition)
- Capacity of resisting (like Holland could flood its territory against French while actual countries are not in position of countering USA more than a certain degree)
- Capacity to stay neutral: sometimes possible, sometimes not (Sweden, in the Alps, was able to. With W.Bush, it's hardly done...)

NB: In both sides we must not consider the dominant civ only, but the civ and its allies as ONE side (more or less, depending on the allies' reliability).


So I guess that (if it's possible) all AI shouldn't get exactly the same reaction, based on their compatibility with you and their capacity of resisting (they're on the other side of the map, etc.). And neutrality is a concept to be seen (again, if it's possible).
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
erm... I wrote Sweden but I meant Switzerland of course :p

And I guess that to try to stay neutral is a third possibility after going on same side or against.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
And as much as Switzerland _claimed_ to be neutral, in WWII, they really were not. So there is also an example of playing both sides against each other with the hopes of coming out on top in the end. ("Here, let me keep all of that money of yours safe for you so you have it available when you need it." the Swiss told the Nazis _and_ the Jews.)
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Of course the three path are the official ones, no more... I would just like to notice also that the more the opponent is oppressive on others (economically, morally, etc.), the more the others WISH (and do if they can) to go against him. It's a VITAL variable of the diplomatic formula.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Indeed. In Galciv, brutal civilizations, even when powerful, will be hard pressed to get good civilizations to go along with them.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Nice :)
Are such things as economical/PR interests also considered?