Beta 0.804-5 now out (opportunities for content suggestions in this post!).

[ptarth]

[...]one-off resource trades are more about long-term attitude or trust adjustments, etc.  They are, in essence, bribes, heh.[...]

I've been wondering, is the AI going to come after the player with an attempt at economic domination just like the player might attempt on the AI? I know it is asymmetrical, but I was pondering how the AI will "win" last night in my tragic idleness.

[x4000]

There actually aren't any victory conditions for the AIs, and they aren't trying to "win."  They're already basically in a sort of stability, mostly at least.  It's kind of like feudal Europe, anyhow, in that they each have their kingdoms which are established and they are trying to maintain what they have while also grabbing bits and pieces as they go.  They aren't Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan.

This game is really focused on YOU.  You're either going to reach that sort of stability in a variety of ways, or you're going to do something more extreme.  This game is all about you finding your place in the world, not taking it over (a few side victories notwithstanding).  For instance, just because you've diplomatically or economically dominated some other race doesn't mean that that will stay the case in 100 years, for instance.  It's like the Saxons and the Franks coming to some sort of mutual agreement/truce for an extended period of time, so that both of their holdings are seemingly secure.  But eventually that's going to be disrupted in some way, it's certain.

This game is more about building yourself up from being a powerless nobody -- relatively speaking -- to being an equal player at the very least on the world stage.  Possibly you may be what we'd consider a superpower by the time you win, but possibly not.

Odd for a strategy game, no?

[TheVampire100]

Not really that odd. They "win" when you loose, easy as that. When you die you have lost. That they are not working towards the victory condition does not mean that it's unlikely to loose. We have the Thoraxian onslaught on Transendence. We have aggressive races in general.
The more basic victory conditions will be diificult because of military power or missing linguistics.
Also, this is more rleaxing for most players.
Civilization forces you to hinder the other nations on building their stuff or they will become unstoppable. In SBR yoz can take a step back and just enjoy the game for itself instead of forcing yourself everytime against the other races.

[x4000]

Yep, exactly.  And yeah, honestly with most RTS games that's also the case in sandbox type modes: you don't lose while you're still alive, you lose solely by dying.  The fact that you can be alive and kicking and doing well and still lose in Civ really bugs me.  I love having to struggle to win, but I don't like being on a timer with it.

[TheVampire100]

What me disappointed mor is that Civilization still after 5 games has not a team victory condition enabled. Their games work solely on the "There can be only one!" gameplay. Even the united states victory condition allows only one nation to win.
This implies that in the world only one nation can dominate the rest instead of a peaceful together.

[Captain Jack]

What me disappointed mor is that Civilization still after 5 games has not a team victory condition enabled. Their games work solely on the "There can be only one!" gameplay. Even the united states victory condition allows only one nation to win.
This implies that in the world only one nation can dominate the rest instead of a peaceful together.

This always cracks me up then makes me sad. One of Civilization's recurring themes is that humanity is capable of great things, both good and bad, and that the wonder outweighs the bad (excuse the pun). And yet, history (the game) ends when one civ wins by stamping a boot on the other civ's face forever.

[ptarth]

Civ AI has always been poor. But these are tougher questions entirely. How would you balance Cooperative AI? How would you balance a backstabbing AI? How would an AI react knowing about the trustworthiness of another race? How would the AI react to the player? Operating on a purely dominance or submission policy is much simpler.

[x4000]

A lot of times the AI has to follow from the gameplay design, in my opinion.  When you're trying to have an AI as an equal player stand-in, it's going to be next to impossible if you want it to factor things like believable emotion.  If the game has any complexity, anyway.  When you're setting up the AI using mechanics that differ from the player, then suddenly a world of possibilities opens up.  It's a big part of why I like asymmetrical games, aside from the fact that I just enjoy the asymmetry in general.