[Discussion] on Early/Mid/Late Game - Chris don't read this

[ptarth]

[Abstract Races are harder to define]...Skylaxians... Zenith...Spire...[...]

If the issue is that we need more ideas for what other race's goals are, then that's not to bad. Some more examples:

• Skylaxians want balance and peace. So they specialize in stoppping warfare. If they don't like you enough, they attack and destroy your offensive military buildings. With their helipad focused it actually works fairly well.
• Spire don't really care about the other races? They want to harvest all of these francium on the planet. They don't care about you unless you interfere with the process collecting all of the tasting francium.
• Neirzul want to increase their lifespans, so they are collecting, stealing, borrowing, taking anything that does so.

Normally I'd agree with you, but here's the thing: SBR is about a fledgling nation establishing itself. [...] reaching an equilibrium with your environment and neighbors. [...] The exception is the alternate special victories. [...] Those are about upsetting the status quo.

But they haven't. When we start the game the others races are in almost as bad place as we are. They are tiny little outposts of up to 7 hexs. They then start developing and growing just as the player does (except differently). So I'm not seeing a stable situation, but rather the restarting of some sort of simulation (e.g., Dark City: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_City_%281998_film%29). They also don't have functional economies, developed pre-existing market items, or anything. They start with 300 people and then expand. Playing from the player's perspective its hard to notice this, especially since AI growth was glitched since the start of the alpha. But watching them grow in the last few versions really points this out. In my current test game I'm seeing dozens if not hundreds of battles between the AIs each turn. They Fenyn have developed 500+ tiles of territory, etc. It is not a stable situation. There is no status quo. It is flux.

[Captain Jack]

Oh sure, gameplay-wise that's true. But it's not supposed to be in the scenario and probably won't be the case at release. You're the newcomer, the others have been here for years, have better tech and don't have existential crises in the short term.

And of course things are in flux, even stable societies undergo dramatic change at the drop of a hat. But the Felyn can continue terraforming, and the AI civs can keep trading hundreds of attacks per turn. I imagine if the AI focused those hundreds of attacks at you, you'd be squished. AI Civs are stable in the sense that it takes a concerted effort from you or other AI players to really make those behaviors and situations change.

[ptarth]

Oh sure, gameplay-wise that's true. But it's not supposed to be in the scenario and probably won't be the case at release. ...

But that's the problem isn't it? In a stable society, won't they have expanded to fill the space? You don't see a lot of terrain that is unclaimed on Earth right now. Sure, it might not be developed entirely, but there are certainly claims there. And the threat of military force to backup those claims.  Unless there is some limitation to growth, populations will attempt to grow to fill the space and expand, and then suffer when they can't expand. How is a relatively unpowered newcoming supposed to squeeze into that situation? They would be squashed rather casually because otherwise they would eventually become an issue. Its the same idea as pulling up a dandelion in your lawn before it spreads. Preventive maintenance.

[Captain Jack]

Oh sure, gameplay-wise that's true. But it's not supposed to be in the scenario and probably won't be the case at release. ...

But that's the problem isn't it? In a stable society, won't they have expanded to fill the space? You don't see a lot of terrain that is unclaimed on Earth right now. Sure, it might not be developed entirely, but there are certainly claims there. And the threat of military force to backup those claims.  Unless there is some limitation to growth, populations will attempt to grow to fill the space and expand, and then suffer when they can't expand. How is a relatively unpowered newcoming supposed to squeeze into that situation? They would be squashed rather casually because otherwise they would eventually become an issue. Its the same idea as pulling up a dandelion in your lawn before it spreads. Preventive maintenance.

In all likelihood it's purely gameplay and story segregation. As you say, if you landed on a planet with fully developed and functioning AI cities, you would die in five turns. Someone would fire a missile at your lander and the game would end. Much more realistic, not much of a game. At this point you need the MST 3K Mantra. "Don't think about it too hard, it's just a show".

The AI is not playing our game. Its civilizations do not face the same challenges as ours and do not have the same objectives. This is to simulate that they are much further advanced (and yes, stable) than our civilizations, without ending the game out of hand. So yes, the simulation is compromised in favor of allowing the central conceit of the young race ascendant. Perhaps this will be justified in game. Perhaps it won't be.

Either way, the core of your original complaint seems to be that the AI can't force you to lose without a failstate without wiping you out.

[Draco18s]

Just as a cautionary tale:

If certain races are as predisposed towards certain kinds of victory, it lacks replay value.  "Oh, its the Acutians again.  No thanks, don't want your Thermonuclear Microwaves" and "Gotta build this bugspray tower; keep the Thoraxians at bay, ho hum."

Its fine for races to have biases and dispositions that influence their moves in the same way, but AIs that repeat the same patterns are exploitable (that said, the idea of a superomnitient player that is capable of seeing the future and concoct plans that span decades is an intriguing one.  The problem is that being that player is boring.  It's a lot more fun to be working along side, or even against, such a player trying to figure out what it is that they know and aren't telling).

[ptarth]

[...]AI can't force you to lose without a failstate without wiping you out.[...]

Actually, Chris is the one that says he hated games with fail states without being wiped out.
I don't like games without fail states. And currently the game doesn't have a fail state, and doesn't have a convincing enough narrative to suggest that it is reasonable to not have one. (Disease/Crime/Whatever rings don't cause death, you can still come back and win, it is just tedious to rebuild sometimes. The only real fail state is if you are militarily dominated, which hasn't happened to anyone due to the AI being lobotomized by accident during the beta versions. That has changed now, but we'll see). Effectively it makes the game a sandbox, and I get bored in sandboxes relatively quickly, without something to challenge. To summarize, I agree with most of your conclusion, but differ in the specifics.

My other complaints were about how the mechanics flow and how they lack face validity (while still being a completely functional system).

If certain races are as predisposed towards certain kinds of victory, it lacks replay value.  "Oh, its the Acutians again.  No thanks, don't want your Thermonuclear Microwaves" and "Gotta build this bugspray tower; keep the Thoraxians at bay, ho hum."
Its fine for races to have biases and dispositions that influence their moves in the same way, but AIs that repeat the same patterns are
exploitable.

If you are arguing with a devil's advocate's position, then sure to an extent. On the other hand, predisposed characters IS what gives events their flavors. It would be like Star Trek, but without knowing if the Klingons will be Klingons or money grubbing Ferengi.  Or playing Civ and Ghandi not threatening you with nuclear annihilation. Or Star Control 2 without the Ur-Quan trying to kill you every day. By creating limitations in behaviors (even soft ones), we make things interesting. One of the biggest problems with RTS is that they can become too generic, wherein every race is the same. SC & WC became so popular because of the character in their races. Because of the enforced and distinct behaviors.

[crazyroosterman]

well I'm mostly undecided personally though I think some of the races should get special characteristics the andors for instance at the moment feel like a more mediocre version of the other races making the warzone shoot at first sight thing not apply to the andors would help distinct them personally.(maybe put them in warzone mode with the isolationist leader maybe not)