Strategy&Law / AI is Game Design
Author
This is about single player strategy games.
I play Total Annihilations these days, and, as I go forth attacking and destroying everything on the map that isn''t painted in the same color as my commander, it makes me wonder, is it the way it has to be?
Must there only be as few factions as to allow the player to win through raw force? Must the only goal be total domination? Must the only law be that there is no law?
If the player''s strength is limited, so that he cannot ever destroy everything on the map (I''m thinking something along the lines of a maximum limit of 1% of the worlds total force - or less), is it possible to create a game where the player still has the same chances to win, to dominate, to be king of the hill etc.?
The solution I think is proper design of the AI. Usually the AI in a strategy game is not thought of as a part of the game design process - the AI only comes after the game is designed - and its purpose is to play as well as possible - to win. But what if the AI isn''t written to behave as if it were a player, but is instead thought of as a means to entertain the player, as a part of the game design?
What if there are many factions controlled by the AI, but many of them are cowardly, and unwilling to fight? What if the AI controlled factions obey certain laws - laws of allegiance and alliance, allowing or forbidding violence - laws which are in no way different from the other game design laws?
Obviously a game is played differently depending on what the AI does. Can a whole new game be created based on interactions between AI players?
It is certainly possible through diplomacy (team up with other AI). The old (but good) board game Diplomacy has you controlling a European country (1 of 7) in 1900 Europe. You need to capture the whole board but only start with three pieces (same as the other 6 players). Only by teaming up can you defeat enemies before betraying your allies and taking over the map.
Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant
Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant
I like games that involve some diplomacy with the coalition.
Another thing to consider in domination games is that a large empire can have civil wars erupt within. Some internal diplomacy is important.
Another thing to consider in domination games is that a large empire can have civil wars erupt within. Some internal diplomacy is important.
quote:Must there only be as few factions as to allow the player to win through raw force? Must the only goal be total domination? Must the only law be that there is no law?
play final fantasy tactics for this part of the post
each battle has to follow one or many law decide by divine instance according to land or day and daytime, like no sword allowed or no healing allowing or most random law like no use of attack which begin with the letter A or else the sinner will be punish in some way according to the gravity of the action
player then has to play in more subtle way, and there is mssion which is not a kill them all
why not generalized this idea to common game? (not only strategy)
would be fun (if punition is a malus that can be double edge, like the poison item in bomberman 1 which let the player infect other player by contact)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just thinking along Civ lines, this could get very frustrating, and would have to be handled veeery caaarefully.
I think the setting ties in as well. In the thread on losing I posted a concept that works on the concept of limited-scope battles feeding into a larger conflict. In that particular case, it works because the player is fed differently than in the typicaly total-war scenario, so the AI doesn''t have much to do with it.
In terms of multiple-faction combat, I think it might be productive to take a WWI/II approach, wherein the player is a single nation in a coalition. Of course, if you include diplomacy such coalitions can develop naturally. I find, however, that in games such as the Civ line it''s just combat abstracted, since in the end diplomacy tends to be another means to total domination.
ld
I think the setting ties in as well. In the thread on losing I posted a concept that works on the concept of limited-scope battles feeding into a larger conflict. In that particular case, it works because the player is fed differently than in the typicaly total-war scenario, so the AI doesn''t have much to do with it.
In terms of multiple-faction combat, I think it might be productive to take a WWI/II approach, wherein the player is a single nation in a coalition. Of course, if you include diplomacy such coalitions can develop naturally. I find, however, that in games such as the Civ line it''s just combat abstracted, since in the end diplomacy tends to be another means to total domination.
ld
The one thing I''d like to see in a game with the option to ally with AIs is an "Allied Victory" option - the biggest problem with diplomatic options in games like Risk or Diplomacy is that both sides know that ultimately they will have to turn on each other, so either alliances have to have well-specified termination clauses or there is no room for honour in such games. Even when two players are notionally allied, the game still pushes them to try and undermine each other.
Civilization III gets part of the way there - there are several ways to win without ever being openly at war with a previously allied civilization - on the other hand, there is still only ever one winner.
A game with potentially friendly AI and allied victories would definitely interest me.
As a side-note, the way I would define allied victory in a last man standing situation is that there is no pair of surviving factions which are not allied (strongly enough). For less clear cut victory conditions (eg dominance rather than extermination), an alliance would be any set of factions where every pair of factions is (at least strongly enough) allied, and any alliance which met the required victory conditions would be victorious, though this does allow the situation with 10 factions where everyone is allied to everyone else except for one pair of enemies who are allied with everyone except each other - meaning there are two alliances, each of which contain 90% of the surviving factions, and so everyone ends up victorious. The simplest work-around is to put conditions on the range of degrees of alliance a given faction can have with the various members of any given alliance - so with 3 factions, A,B,C, if A and B are allies, and C is allied to A, it has to be at least neutral towards B, and similarly if C is an enemy of A, it can''t be better than neutral towards B. If C were to ally with B whilst still an enemy of A, A and B would automatically cease being allies and become neutral towards each other instead. Of course, if you have more than three diplomatic states, then more varied ranges are possible.
Civilization III gets part of the way there - there are several ways to win without ever being openly at war with a previously allied civilization - on the other hand, there is still only ever one winner.
A game with potentially friendly AI and allied victories would definitely interest me.
As a side-note, the way I would define allied victory in a last man standing situation is that there is no pair of surviving factions which are not allied (strongly enough). For less clear cut victory conditions (eg dominance rather than extermination), an alliance would be any set of factions where every pair of factions is (at least strongly enough) allied, and any alliance which met the required victory conditions would be victorious, though this does allow the situation with 10 factions where everyone is allied to everyone else except for one pair of enemies who are allied with everyone except each other - meaning there are two alliances, each of which contain 90% of the surviving factions, and so everyone ends up victorious. The simplest work-around is to put conditions on the range of degrees of alliance a given faction can have with the various members of any given alliance - so with 3 factions, A,B,C, if A and B are allies, and C is allied to A, it has to be at least neutral towards B, and similarly if C is an enemy of A, it can''t be better than neutral towards B. If C were to ally with B whilst still an enemy of A, A and B would automatically cease being allies and become neutral towards each other instead. Of course, if you have more than three diplomatic states, then more varied ranges are possible.
Author
quote:
Original post by Obscure
It is certainly possible through diplomacy (team up with other AI). The old (but good) board game Diplomacy has you controlling a European country (1 of 7) in 1900 Europe. You need to capture the whole board but only start with three pieces (same as the other 6 players). Only by teaming up can you defeat enemies before betraying your allies and taking over the map.
Diplomacy is an exceptional game, but it is also very far from what I am thinking here. In Diplomacy, all players play to win - this is the core of the game, and all players must be very clever (I don't think Diplomacy can be properly played against computer players). I believe Diplomacy has the potential to revolutionize multiplayer games - all I hope with this thread is to describe a different kind of single-player computer strategy game.
My idea is to have many computer players who don't want to win - their actions are in fact designed to create a certain gameplay. They may even be dumb as rocks. I propose thinking of the AI of the computer players in the same manner one thinks of the upgrade path of a certain unit - or the building options of a building. Think of computer players as some sort of resources, pawns to use.
quote:
Original post by liquiddark
Just thinking along Civ lines, this could get very frustrating, and would have to be handled veeery caaarefully.
...
I find, however, that in games such as the Civ line it's just combat abstracted, since in the end diplomacy tends to be another means to total domination.
Yes, Civ has a lot diplomacy, and it is true that it is very hard if not impossible to play Civ without carefully considering the complex relationships with the other civilisations. However, the AI in Civ is again designed to win and the game only has a handful of factions. Like Diplomacy and Risk, Civ is a game where a few simetrical factions fight for world domination.
What I propose is to make the players goals different from the goals of the AI players (this makes the game specifically geared towards singleplay). Because only the player aims to dominate, his goal is a lot easier to achieve, and this allows an increase of the difficulty level by adding a lot more opponents. The gameplay focus changes from kill,krash&destroy (not necessarily removed) to maneuvering the different computer players.
[edited by - Diodor on October 18, 2003 4:14:50 AM]
Interesting...
I had an idea for a space empire style game while ago(ala Masters Of Orion, but probably fewer menus than the latest incarnation) which sounds something like what you are suggesting.
Rather than focusing purely on building a political empire, you could focus on building any kind of empire you liked. So for example, you prefer set up some kind of trade empire, and eventually evolve into some kind of giant galaxy spanning corporation. Rather than forcibly take over planets, you'd kind of insidiously gain influence over them, establishing monopolies over their trade etc. They'd still be in control of the starships, but they'd probably find themselves relying on you to pay for them...
And that's just one area of focus. You could take the more traditional route of establishing political dominance, you could focus on technology etc. Or you could go for a more general strategy, and focus on multiple things.
The galaxy would be populated by a number of serious rivals, some of which would be focussing on the same things as you, others would focus on completely different things. More than one of the big players could even gain joint victory without even being allied - it is possible for one faction to build a trade empire without affecting another nation's ability to build a political empire. Furthermore, the galaxy would also be populated with a number of smaller rivals, ranging from smallish, non-expansionist empires of a few systems to individual systems. These guys would not necessarily be trying to compete with you, but are available as a potential resource - to be exploited. Too small to build any worthwhile starships? Buy them from someone elses shipyards. Not enough of a particular resource? Buy it from one of the independents.
[edited by - Sandman on October 18, 2003 5:28:13 AM]
I had an idea for a space empire style game while ago(ala Masters Of Orion, but probably fewer menus than the latest incarnation) which sounds something like what you are suggesting.
Rather than focusing purely on building a political empire, you could focus on building any kind of empire you liked. So for example, you prefer set up some kind of trade empire, and eventually evolve into some kind of giant galaxy spanning corporation. Rather than forcibly take over planets, you'd kind of insidiously gain influence over them, establishing monopolies over their trade etc. They'd still be in control of the starships, but they'd probably find themselves relying on you to pay for them...
And that's just one area of focus. You could take the more traditional route of establishing political dominance, you could focus on technology etc. Or you could go for a more general strategy, and focus on multiple things.
The galaxy would be populated by a number of serious rivals, some of which would be focussing on the same things as you, others would focus on completely different things. More than one of the big players could even gain joint victory without even being allied - it is possible for one faction to build a trade empire without affecting another nation's ability to build a political empire. Furthermore, the galaxy would also be populated with a number of smaller rivals, ranging from smallish, non-expansionist empires of a few systems to individual systems. These guys would not necessarily be trying to compete with you, but are available as a potential resource - to be exploited. Too small to build any worthwhile starships? Buy them from someone elses shipyards. Not enough of a particular resource? Buy it from one of the independents.
[edited by - Sandman on October 18, 2003 5:28:13 AM]
quote:Original post by Diodor
What I propose is to make the players goals different from the goals of the AI players (this makes the game specifically geared towards singleplay). Because only the player aims to dominate, his goal is a lot easier to achieve, and this allows an increase of the difficulty level by adding a lot more opponents. The gameplay focus changes from kill,krash&destroy (not necessarily removed) to maneuvering the different computer players.
How would you address the need for limits on the player''s power? You talked earlier about wanting to limit them to a small fraction of the total mass of force on the board, so I assume there is some mechanism in your head for doing so, but if other players are waiting Kuwaits to the player''s Iraq, shouldn''t they be allowed to invade? And then wouldn''t you need an honest-to-dog superpower or two to stop them?
Hoping that''s more stimulating than it is pedantic,
ld
Author
quote:
Original post by liquiddark
How would you address the need for limits on the player's power? You talked earlier about wanting to limit them to a small fraction of the total mass of force on the board, so I assume there is some mechanism in your head for doing so, but if other players are waiting Kuwaits to the player's Iraq, shouldn't they be allowed to invade? And then wouldn't you need an honest-to-dog superpower or two to stop them?
There may be plenty of methods to limit power by direct game rules. For instance, corruption limits unlimited empire growth in Civ (or makes it useless).
In the context of this thread however, I'll note that it is perfectly possible to impose limits by designing the AI of the computer players. For instance, the AI players may respond by joining arms to destroy any one player that grows above everyone else by invading neighbours (pretty much what happened to Iraq). So the player won't win by invading every Kuwait around him, but perhaps may do so by inciting an Iraq to conquests and then fighting it down to maintain the peace.
[edited by - Diodor on October 23, 2003 8:35:00 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
