TO MAKERS: What's the point!?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

TO MAKERS: What's the point!?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> TO MAKERS: What's the point!?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/8/2006 4:04:28 AM

Wellesley

Posts: 21
Joined: 3/12/2006
Status: offline

OK,

So I've been playing and playing this game, and now its getting annoying.

Honestly, what's the point of creating 20 diplomats all charming their wits off at other empires and creating 600+ lovepoints for your country (France in this case) per empire if everybody declares war on you the moment that "Europe is alarmed by the rise of France"?

Seriously - all I'm doing is moving armies around, plugging holes all the time. THAT'S A VERY BIG *YAAAAAAAAAAAWN*, Y'ALL!!!

It is simply ridiculous and you've made a mockery of the diplomacy system. For instance: I've gotten both Britain and Russia to really really like me (800+ lovepoints with France, both of 'em) and yet they suddenly break off alliances and declare war on me.

So there I go again, moving armies about, building divisions. Been at it for some time now and it's getting to be a bore. Sure, in the end I'll beat Spain (which was my fave friend, with 900+ lovepoints, until I surpassed Turkey in glory points and BOOM, Spain didn't just abolish the alliance but declared war on me!) and I'll have peace with that country, and then Prussia - another best friend - will declare war until I beat them, and when I do, England (also a friend) will abolish its alliance with me and declare war, and - oh, ffs

Listen, folks, it's simple: please allow a gamer to enjoy the other parts of the game! Even Napoleon was granted almost 2.5 years of peace between 1800 and 1804!

"Well you can offer a 'limited surrender', you know?"
Uh-uh, but then I lose territory and other stuff, but that's beside the point cuz the empire I surrendered to will once again declare war on me 2 or 3 turns later anyway.
And the other major problem is that the only way to have peace is to beat your enemy, and if you do, his surrender will give you a lot of glory points, which in turn will trigger another empire to declare war on you, and so forth.

So why am I putting in all the effort? Just to put in more effort against another enemy cuz I've past some sort of treshold? Not exactly a rewarding system, y'all!

(Version. 1.2.18 beta)

< Message edited by Wellesley -- 4/8/2006 4:06:20 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/8/2006 5:13:30 AM

Malagant

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline

Yes, because historically no country EVER broke an alliance or treaty to declare war on a country they thought was getting too powerful...

Perhaps you should consider playing the game with the default victory conditions. Playing a very long game that requires tons of Glory to win will of course get tedious...the same could be said of ANY game.

You've said in other posts that you're playing on easier difficulty level...which means it's easier for you to get Glory Points, and now you're complaining because of the effects of gaining Glory Points too fast. Perhaps it's time for you play on a harder level

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to Wellesley)

Post #: 2

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/8/2006 12:35:17 PM

Grand_Armee

Posts: 809
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

Or...try playing a human opponent or two. The AI can only be programmed to do so much. It see's it's going to lose, it's programmed to keep you from winning. What do you think will happen if you were to play 7 humans? They see you with a big lead...then it's time to go after you.

(in reply to Malagant)

Post #: 3

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/8/2006 5:49:20 PM

Wellesley

Posts: 21
Joined: 3/12/2006
Status: offline

True, there's only so much an AI can do, but it would be worth a lot if some of the so-called 'bad boy'-system from Paradox's "Europa Universalis" is put into the game.

That way, nations won't declare war on you simply because you've passed a certain level of glory points, but because you are misbehaving (such as invading small neutral nations without a casus belli).

Europa Universalis is flawed in many ways - it's waaaay too superficial, for one thing - but that part of the game, the 'triggers' so to speak, is simply fantastic.

(in reply to Grand_Armee)

Post #: 4

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/11/2006 5:46:20 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

The point was to try to make the nations act a bit like human players playing the game would act when faced with another human player who was on a path toward winning the game: to drop everything else they were doing and go after him.

I haven't really seen a clear consensus of player opinion on the question of whether the parameters for this should be made more or less aggressive.

(in reply to Wellesley)

Post #: 5

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/11/2006 8:15:55 PM

Malagant

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline

Eric, I think your reasoning is sound, but I have some feedback about the AI's behavior:

it seems it does not consider it's own situation before declaring war. A country ravaged and weakened by wars, with no real army or means to make one, is too quick to declare war on 'the big boy'. This leads to the weaker nation losing more, and the stronger having an easier time getting stronger.

Perhaps the AI could try to be a little more conservative when deciding to declare war on 'the big boy'. Perhaps have a minimum standing army requirement before a nation will declare war on another?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The point was to try to make the nations act a bit like human players playing the game would act when faced with another human player who was on a path toward winning the game: to drop everything else they were doing and go after him.

I haven't really seen a clear consensus of player opinion on the question of whether the parameters for this should be made more or less aggressive.

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 6

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/12/2006 8:51:28 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Also certain Nations when attempting to "hurt" the nation in front should contribute by sending aid to their Allies instead of declaring war alone. Britain should finance more and send fewer troops. Solo games against the Ai do not "feel" like a war against republican France. They feel like free for alls. Austria should never delcare war on Prussia unless Prussia has been forced into an Alliance with France and then Austria would be "liberating" Prussia not exploiting it's weakness. Certain Nations should never be at war with one another (Britian/Austria/Prussia) except to liberate them from forced Alliances with France. Russia is a major problem for me because I don't think it should ever act to the benifit of France. (The Czar certaintly does not want Republican ideas exported from France into Russia) Because Britian/Prussia/Austria and Prussia are basicly aligned Turkey and Sweden should be unlikely to provoke any of these. *They might exploit a favorable situation if france is winning)

However I am able to restore a little of the flavor I want simply by controling Austria and Prussia in active partnership and controling Sweden and Turkey and keeping them at home. (with the abilty to activate them into the AustrianPrussian Alliance if russia or Britian crosses over to the dark side. (Turn 1 takes a while but after that turns go just as fast as if I was controling Russia or france)

My biggest concern is the AI does things that make no sense. (oddles of Frigates built to no purpose)

I think the basic land unit might be a tad too large as well. The Armies produced are equal to WWI mobliazation. Perhaps instead of divisions we should switch to Regt and then create New HQ Brigade and Division. If the same basic costs were retained it would cost 3x times as much in money material and time to create the Armies we now have. (to produce a unit of 1000 trained and equiped men requires more then 1000 untrained men at start since a great number will be lost simply by organizing and training recruits.)

Besides it's more fun to track a regt then it is to track a division.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/12/2006 8:55:24 AM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Malagant)

Post #: 7

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/15/2006 7:52:46 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malagant

Perhaps the AI could try to be a little more conservative when deciding to declare war on 'the big boy'. Perhaps have a minimum standing army requirement before a nation will declare war on another?

There is a minimum requirement, but it's much lower for the 'big boy' DOW... and it may include garrisons in the calculation, which is something that could be fixed.

(in reply to Malagant)

Post #: 8

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/17/2006 1:38:31 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The point was to try to make the nations act a bit like human players playing the game would act when faced with another human player who was on a path toward winning the game: to drop everything else they were doing and go after him.

I haven't really seen a clear consensus of player opinion on the question of whether the parameters for this should be made more or less aggressive.

Personally, I have always believed that items like this are one of the elements that should be controlled by the difficulty selection. If you are playing on an easy setting, they should blissfully allow themselves to be duped and let you systematically conquer the world one empire at a time. If you are playing on a difficult setting, then they should be much more merciless and come after the player at almost any provocation. The moderate settings should likely be on a slightly parabolic curve, weighted towards being docile. AI intelligence should increase first with increased difficulty, followed by general aggressiveness that can be dissuaded and with aggressiveness that overcomes dissuassion being one of the last factors to be ratcheted up. That's my opinion anyway.

[Edited to correct bad proofreading]

< Message edited by jchastain -- 4/17/2006 4:16:43 AM >

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 9

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/17/2006 1:53:17 AM

Malagant

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline

I agree with jchastain completely!

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 10

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/17/2006 4:55:39 AM

Grand_Armee

Posts: 809
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

The point is, Herr JChastain, that you CANNOT make the AI smarter. It can only select from a list of available options. It does not think. It has no INTELLIGENCE. It is has the same abilities as a slot machine at a casino. The only way to make a game harder or easier is to give the AI more ability to compensate for damages while making your efforts cause less damage.

(in reply to Malagant)

Post #: 11

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/18/2006 2:00:16 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grand_Armee

The point is, Herr JChastain, that you CANNOT make the AI smarter. It can only select from a list of available options. It does not think. It has no INTELLIGENCE. It is has the same abilities as a slot machine at a casino. The only way to make a game harder or easier is to give the AI more ability to compensate for damages while making your efforts cause less damage.

To be more specific then, what I meant is that ratcheting up the lowest level difficulty settings makes it less dumb. In most schemes, the AI will have various high level strategies that it might employ and then it makes tactical moves consistent with its chosen strategy. At the very lowest level of difficulty, that is likely too advanced. And so, it is not uncommon to introduce possibilities that the AI will do something that makes no sense - a "dumb move" if you will. As you begin to ratchet up the difficulty curve, the first step is to eliminate those dumb moves so that a player is going up against the best logic of the AI. As you stated, that still does not impose enough of a challenge and therefore as you go further up in difficulty level, the AI then becomes progressively more aggressive towards the player. And finally, at the highest levels of difficulty, the developer is left no option except to "cheat" and give the AI capabilities and exemptions unavailable to a human player - as indicated in your sliding effects comment. But make no mistake, this is absolutely not the ONLY way to compensate - at least not until you are already a good ways up the difficulty curve.

So I said the first step is to make it smarter. If you prefer, you could instead say that the first step is to make it less intentionally dumb.

(in reply to Grand_Armee)

Post #: 12

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/18/2006 8:15:00 AM

Grand_Armee

Posts: 809
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

I agree, JC, that would be nice. But the problem is that any AI ,at best, is entertaining for about 3 months. There's just a limit to the amount of options that can be placed on a CD, and so much ram in any PC. The only time a computer game is ever a challenge is when the human player is limited to just a few options like computer chess or something like that. Your mind is just too good for any game.

The true beauty of this game is that you can play other people with it even if you can't get them to meet in your game room. I've been doing it for months, and playing one real person and 6AI countries is 100 times better than playing 7 predictable AI's.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 13

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 4/20/2006 12:13:09 AM

Ivan58

Posts: 11
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Belgium
Status: offline

I do agree that the game loses all of his historical flavour the way it works now. It leads to the most absurd situations like the Turks entering Paris through Prussia.
And exactly for that reason I do NOT think the Europa Universalis was superficial nor flawed. Because these things simply wouldn't happen there. And in EU you can win through diplomacy without ever waging wars continuously. This is out of the question here.
Furthermore the limitations in the detailed combat (limiting the numbers, the awkward handling of leaders and leadership) twists the realism further. No, I think I'll like EiA better. That is : if I live to see it finished.

Ivan

_____________________________

Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of our Province.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 14

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 5/24/2006 2:28:55 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The point was to try to make the nations act a bit like human players playing the game would act when faced with another human player who was on a path toward winning the game: to drop everything else they were doing and go after him.

I haven't really seen a clear consensus of player opinion on the question of whether the parameters for this should be made more or less aggressive.

MORE MORE MORE aggressive. I enjoy an aggressive challenging AI and I could care less about playing mr. nice guy diplomacy in games anyways. Don't muck up a good thing if this is working, lord knows there's too many games out there now with PASSIVE ai's.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 15

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 5/28/2006 3:22:22 PM

alaric318

Posts: 366
Joined: 10/7/2003
Status: offline

for multiplayer, a nice system, can be implemented maybe or maybe as a house rule, can be just play with "highest glory" and add up score of all allieds nations at end of game, just a idea about give some relevance to diplomacy and alliance system.

with best regards,

Murat30.

_____________________________

There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 16

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 5/29/2006 10:41:14 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Here are a few ideas. Award points to Nations for their Alliances. (If your Allied with the top Glory nation you get points as well. This will help keep up with them and avoid the need to break a good alliance. In reverse nations not in the Alliance will need to join one of their own to offset the diplomatic conditions.

In historical scenarios simply hard code certain alliance questions. (France can never be Allied with Britian or Russia. Turkey can never Ally with Austria or Russia. Austria and Prussia must be Allied unless they are force to break this Alliance by losing a war.

Give points to France and Britian for being at war with one another and subtract points if they are at peace. (add or subtract points for their Allies as well)

End the game if France surrenders.

Province emergancy milita. If enemy forces equal to or less then a provinces population level are present they are retreated back into friendly province without destroying supply depots or pillage. (a single cossack division would not cut a supply line) Or simply cancel any such movement orders (you cannot move into enemy province with fewer divisions then province population )

Under the above a player could still protect his own supply line and block retreats after combat by using a single division in his OWN PROVINCES but it would take an organzied force to do this in enemy areas. Also no army can move more then 1 province from a frendly province or supply depot.
(no more Hail Mary attacks on enemy captiol by unsupplied herds)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to alaric318)

Post #: 17

RE: TO MAKERS: What's the point!? - 5/30/2006 2:20:16 PM

alaric318

Posts: 366
Joined: 10/7/2003
Status: offline

greetings, also can fix the alliance system from the begining but this radically decreased the available possible alliance combinations, but maybe stablished balanced game,
in example, you can give before starting the game a value to each nation, say as follow...
France... 4 points
Sweden... 1 point
Spain... 1 point
Turkey... 1 point
England... 2 points
Russia... 2 points
Austria... 2 Points
Prussia... 2 Points
then, randomize trough dice or card dice system three teams of exactly 5 points, it can be easily do, in highest glory can play to win with the nation with highest glory at the end of game, or the result of add up the fixed alliance nations and declare highest glory, this can be agreed at start of the game, of course.

with best regards,

Murat30.

_____________________________

There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 18