The AI SURPRISE!

This idea is good. Random events, that may change the balance of the game are good thing. Some people hate it, but I think it is good in general. They shall be both good and bad.  Such events shall happen either randomly or trigered by some action (a defeat of a faction, declaration of war, a hero falls, generated magic exceeds some critical level in some city etc...)

wow... you have the right idea but that is perhaps the absolute worst way of going about it. plus, you don't have to win through war, so should the AI flip out and send an uber-stack your way if you look like your about to cast the endgame spell?

However your point is valid. The best way to stop the player once hes too big would be to make him pay for his size. There is an interesting mod for civ4 that causes large empires to have serius internal problem, often leading to civil war. If your ultra powerful, perhaps the best way to stop you is with the beast youve created? Not a perfect solution, but my 2 cents

CIV IV has this well covered. Instead of giving AI random goodies it gives start advantages on higher difficulty levels. An extra worker, warrior or settler. There is also differences in research and other stuff.

If you for some reason have a perfect game where you have done everything right and dominate, then the AI should not suddenly get goodies to counteract. That is just weird.

Random events in CIV IV are well executed. Some are totally random and some have dependencies like it will only happen after you have researched a certain tech.

CIV IV also have a good solution on the limitation of growth. The way that maintenance goes up with more cities means that you have to develop cities to pay for new ones. It is not possible to spread without thinking about consequences.

Yep, I like CIV IV - Steal from the best when you develop new games!

endofdayz: Agreed! The user shall not think he is punished, because he plays the game well. If he dominates the game, he will probably win, but it is good if there is a chance the things become complicated.

I don't like this idea- let the AI stand on its own.  If it's not good enough, it needs to be worked on.

Indeed. I rarely take Psychoravin seriously, but in this case I think he's at least not intentionally trying to troll, so I feel safe in saying that while the steamroller effect is a problem, cheaty "luck" is not a very good solution. Plus (s)he describes the stack using terms we aren't even sure will be in the game.

I know I for one can't wait for video games that mimic the casino going experience of being completely random.

If the idea is that if you win enough, the AI get's random giant bonuses/advantages to level the playing field, the idea is bad.  If the idea is 'copy the 'kill all players AI' from a Total War game', the idea is bad.  If the idea is to punish players for winning, the idea is bad.

GalCiv doesn't have this problem.  Only a game with poor victory conditions (or stupid 'kill all players' diplomacy) could suffer from it.  Whoops, that means CA games!

It bothers me that people think 'let the AI cheat on higher diffs' is some kind of magic new solution.  Do people really think Civ4 invented that?  Punishing the player for having many cities/wide empire is another awful idea that should have died with Civ1 along with Sid Meier's broken understanding of politics.  Most games incorporate this in various ways without having absurdly clumsy 'balancing' mechanisms like 'roffle penalised for being on top'.

Yeah that's why Sid Meiers games are top selling strategy games of all time because he doesn't know what he's doing. Lmao same with CA and Total War games. Outselling all your crappy games that are sooooooo balanced the ai can't win. hahaha baw haw haw haw haw. Come back when you growup kid and realize the way to make great games is to allow their to be difficulty levels an cheats for players who have a higher IQ than you do. Everyone that plays these games don't have 80 IQ's like you.lmao Even your precious Galcivs has cheating ai and more difficulty levels than most other games. Stardock and Brad realize you have to have cheating ai's with handicaps as well to make GREAT GAMES.

Top selling != is good, sorry.  And if you think CA games have good diplomacy or AI, you're living on the moon.  They're FAMOUS for their horrible AI.  

I'm not seeing how 'more difficulty levels' is relevant.  Finer graduation of difficulty is a good thing, surely?

The statement that you need to have cheating AI with handicaps to 'make GREAT GAMES' is extraordinary.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Got any, or just more totally unsupported statements of fact?  Or are you going to get angry because I pointed out Sid Meier saying 'democracy = no corruption' is laughably absurd?

No I will just point out once again that you are an idiot with now a below 80IQ. I've played them all since 1982 I know what is good I know what sells and I know what is a great game. You don't you're living in a delusional world that AI programming should be Expert level and every game should have Big Blue programmed into it. lmao what a moron you are.

Yes, and they've sucked for 20 years.  This is not relevant to your outrageous claim that you need absurd 'AI get giant invincible army when player is winning' to make a 'GREAT GAME'.  Hell, CA games do that already with magical materialising rebel armies (that would take the player many turns to recruit) teleporting down from the Freedom Star.  How FUN that is!

But I guess since you're apparently a recognised troll and haven't addressed even a single point, this is par for the course. 

The statement 'I know what is good I know what sells and I know what is a great game' is utterly hilarious.  Why bother explaining anything when you can just baselessly claim authority?    

Good news:  GalCiv's AI's ain't no pushovers.

Better news:  the man who did GC's AI's is the man who will do Elemental's.

Best news:  the man in question is well known for his 'opinions' with regards to AI -- we already know the AI will be good.  Maybe not human player good, but good.

Exactly so why don't you just stfu and move on like a good lil boy.

And if you had read my post you would have seen I metioned that little fact about Medieval Total War. Obviously you just like to rant and rave and don't read a thing. And yes it is great funa and why MTW is the best one they've made thus far. Both ai wise and challenge wise and fun wise.

Best go back to mommy now and say the big bad man hurt yer itty bitty wittle feelwings.

I would prefer that the game end when the point of no return is reached. Although for games like Civ, I still think there is some fun in winning even when it's obvious that nobody else will. I play Civ to beat Civ, not Ghengis Kahn or Queen Elisabeth. I just wanna see my spaceship take off, even if I know that the rest of world is still in the industrial era.

I've played many games that try to punish the player for playing well, and it just makes you realize that you are wasting time that would be better spent with a different activity. This kinda thing usually manifests itself in fairly rediculuous ways. Anyone remember the peasant revolts from MTW? Massive armies of the most advanced units the world has seen, bigger than any faction on the map could support. Gimme a break!

Here's the easiest solution: two sliders. The first slider adjusts the AI's intelligence. The second adjusts how much of a bonus it gets. Want to fight against an idiot with a crap-ton of resources at his disposal? Go ahead. And even though you won't have an AI as smart as a human, AIs have other advantages. Namely, they're far better at number crunching than humans, and can plan out things like economy to run optimally in a way that only the most obsessive players with calculators out and far too much time on their hands can come close to.

The main concern is end game though. In most of these games, you reach a point where you've essentially won and no enemy can put up a resistance against you. This is the point at which the game gets boring and if you're anything like me, you often quit and start a new campaign. Happens in Civ, Galciv, Sins, Total War, etc.

A good way to counter this is have strong penalties for holding lots of land and cities. Rebellions become more likely, your economy becomes less efficient, and your politics become more corrupted. Holding together a massive empire, after all, is no walk in the park.

Raiding, as well as an AI that can handle the concept, would be a large help as well. A larger empire means the armies will be spead out. It should be relatively easy for an enemy to bring in some cavalry, wipe out some farms and trade caravans and vanish before you have time to respond. Crippling an already strained economy (and an economy under the weight of a massive empire with huge armies should ALWAYS be strained) could knock the supports out from under a player, send him into the red, make his armies disband (because there's no money to pay them with) and allow the AI to seize his outer cities, sending the player back into a reasonably sized nation, and relieving the strain.

Essentially, the end game should be about struggling to hold together your empire.

The primary issues on these points are twofold

1: The AI will never seriusly threaten a human player on its own. Its just a script, not a complex organism like we are.

2: The more the AI cheats, the less fair the game becomes. Many people play hard so that they get to a point where the AI IS pitifully weak. Its the reward for the past few hours of good play. To suddenly have the AI get an army twice the size of yours is patently absurd.

Any solution has to address both those issues. I still think a "destabilizing" effect on huge empire (thats less annoying that Civs corruption number) is a good way too go. Also, having SMALL & nuetral raiding parties begin to bother you when you get large could help. The AI could rightly recognize you are going to win and form a massive alliance, though it might be too late.

Part of the problem is that once your about to win, your about to win. Theres something to be said for just calling it a victory and starting a new game...

Money quote.

Good AI != "OMG the human is winning, going into GOD-MODE!" I don't mind giving the AI advantages, in most cases it needs them to have a chance against human players. But I think this granting mystical powerz and invincible armies because you are doing well is exactly the wrong and stupid thing to do. If anything to speed up the steam roller process the AI should concede the game, surrender their forces to you (or to someone whoever they are most closely allied with). People bitch about clean up taking too long and then they propose as a solution to make it longer, or better yet as soon as you start to win you lose?

I got no problem with the AI being able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, done right that would be a great way to spice up the late game, but this idea of the AI gaining a stack of doom is one of the worst ideas posted here.

<IMHO>

Guess you guys didn't see Lord of the Rings when the undead come in to save the day vs the then WINNING side. The humans had no chance of victory, but, all of a sudden and how about that JUST LUCKY IN THE NICK OF TIME they appear on these black boats and kill everything in sight. lmao. I bet yall loved that part didn't you? Then at helms deep or was it Minas Tirith when it is about to fall and they ride out to glorious death oh my how about that JUST LUCKY IN THE NICK OF TIME here comes Gandalf with some Lightning Sword of White Light Destruction to destory the then WINNING side along with a horde of horsemen gathered from out of nowhere (did you see him gather them to arms? no you didn't).

If you notice just about every fantasy novel ever written and every movie ever produced where the WINNER is about to WIN here comes the CAVALRY JUST IN THE LUCKY NICK OF TIME to save the damn day happens. lol There's really nothing new about what I want to add, but, what it does add is SURPRISE and CHALLENGE and a NEW ENDING when the game becomes stale and you all feel like quitting and starting over just like some of you said.

See and I have no problem with this - a large kingdom fighting a small one and thinking it has it beaten, but then surprise! small kingdom has been building a smaller army but of incredibly tough heroic creatures and the tide turns. AWESOME and definitely something I think SD is steering towards. A small army may still have some deadly surprises.

However, from your [deleted] all over last minute victories in fantasy it seems that you think every tactical game should end that way to make it like LOTR - or maybe if you played it poorly suddenly a squadron of dragons is going to come to your aid and turn the tide - sorry that may make a great movie or book, but it sucks in strategy games.

I honestly don;t mind if there is the possibility for a miracle comeback, in fact yes the POSSIBILITY should exist - and that should go for both the player as well as the AI - but to expect taht is how a typical game will play out? That would make for an incredibly stupid and boring game imo.

   Well as long as the victory point system is added as a victory condition then the gamers won't have to go thru finishing a game to the very end.  This has allowed massive size maps to end with conquest victories in a timely fashion.   I explain the victory point system in the Victory Condition thread:  https://forums.elementalgame.com/361897

Actually the "Best News" is the AI will be moddable...  every game where I've seen the AI as moddable has produced better AI strategies then what the developers have provided.  I believe this is mainly due to some individuals with lots of free time which take the existing AI patterns and improve on its weaknesses.   The other benefit is that anytime someone complains about the AI.... the community can respond with "use the modding to make it better".

I see psychoraven is back to his trollish self.

What people actually want is an AI that plays the game well and tries to win. Not some AI that when it's losing can randomly conjure up super troops. You're not playing a game of skill at that point, you're playing against the RNG and hoping that the gods of chance won't come down against you.

It's bad game design.

I love RNG based features. I know, it makes me a bad person, but I can't help it. However this ISN'T RNG, whats being proposed is just a method by which a losing AI can suddenly annihilate a far more powerful human. As soon as anyone figured out the mechanics behind it, you would simply have players conquer the map up until a certain percent, then stop and prepare in force for the uber-stack.

The best way to really deal with it is to give the player some anti-steam roller problems. Have internal issues as you get bigger, a larger sedentary defensive force should be required. Basically, if they player doubles in size, realistically thier expenses and internal fragmentation should double as well.

Actually, I didn't like this.

In the books, the battle at Minas Tirith isn't saved by the undead army. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas ask for help from the undead (which where mountain people that once swore allegiance to Isildur, but broke their Oath) to help protect the cities in Lebennin (which is an area of Gondor) from the Corsairs of Umbar. Afterwards, the armies of Lebennin where able to use the ships of those Corsairs to travel to Minas Tirith and helped to change the tide of the battle. In the books, the undead never came to Minas Tirith but were relieved from their oath after helping with the Corsairs.

It was Helm's Deep... In the books this is explained much better compared to the films. If I remember correctly (and it's been awhile so...) when Éomer fell into disfavour with king Théoden, he left Edoras for the East-mark (which he was in charge off) together with his riders. Because he wasn't in Edoras at the time off Théodens recovery, he didn't ride out to battle with them. After the battle of the Crossing of Isen, when Théoden left for Helm's Deep, Gandalf rode out to find Éomer and his army. So it was with that army they saved the battle at Helm's Deep. That army didn't just materialise out of nowhere...

So, in both these cases there actually isn't a magic army out of nowhere to turn the tide. It might not be explained that well in the movies (which would be hard to do without adding another 15 - 30 minutes to each movie), but it is in the books.

And yes, I AM a bit of a Tolkien fan...

And Psychoravin, some of your posts really are rather insulting, could you please be a little bit more respectfull to the others here?