Tone and Pace of Game is Confusing

[Libervurto]

This game is sending me mixed messages.  The relaxing music and all the mechanics based around researching tech and advancing through the ages makes me believe that I should be taking a slow, cautious and strategic approach to play.  However, the AI is incredibly aggressive, they seem to be completely uninterested in anything but destroying me as soon as possible!

I don't think this behaviour makes much sense given the mechanics of the game, and the reality of war being a risky business; war is something that should be avoided until it can be avoided no longer!  We have a map with limited resources, so it is a matter of time before we are actively competing for those resources, and in such a situation it's inevitable that conflicts will arise.  Then it is down to the diplomacy and military might of the civilisations to settle territory disputes and secure peace for a time, until the cycle repeats itself and eventually one side is wiped off the map.  There is no sense or need to rush this.

Even if an enemy saw that they were militarily supreme, they wouldn't just go and destroy everyone else (unless they were causing them real problems), they'd demand tribute, and use their power to secure territory by threats, diplomacy and minor skirmishes.  I want to see enemy AI launching attacks to take over strategic points and resources, not just to kill all my people.  I want to see their forces line up near my borders and issue demands on the threat of sacking my cities.

Any tips on what I can do to make the game play more like this, the way I would like it to be?

Edited December 23, 2016 by Libervurto

[sphyrth]

From experience, the Petra AI tries to destroy your army WHILE building another base on another strategic location.

From your suggestion, I think you want something with the attributes of a turn-based strategy setup: make war only on strategic points and only if those points are being contested, and then saddle back once those points are won/lost.

The only tip I could give is that you make maps with an attack-defend setup. Very linear.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I agree that the tone of the game is wrong. You are right, the relaxing music does not match the gameplay, and the gameplay does not match the relaxing music. It is like the game does not know what it wants to be. You will see a bunch of people acting like the game is in beta already and should be a competiitive game like starcraft. On the other hand the territory mechanics and other things reward a methodical strategic gameplay. i do not think the team knows what they want the game to be.

[sphyrth]

16 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

i do not think the team knows what they want the game to be.

Talk about exhausting the flamethrower after completely roasting it.

[elexis]

Mostly satisfied with the game mechanics. Agree that we need more (than zero) technically skilled visionaries compatible to the developers and players pov.

The pace of the game seems slow already as one needs to reach city phase, build a fortress and construct a ram and destroy the enemy civic centers in order to win (which was possible with citizen soldiers in a17 and possible with champions in a18-a20). If we deincentivize early attacks, the game would become extremely boring to competitive players.

Singleplayer games target casual players who might play less games but expect longer ones. So this is mostly influenced by the aggressiveness of the bot. There are plans to allow setting the behavior of the bot #2550. It could become defensive by default. Also if there is a singleplayer campaign, none of this will apply anymore.

[elexis]

Also to me it sounds like @Libervurto is looking for the ceasefire option.

[sphyrth]

@elexis

That's what I also initially thought, until he said "until the cycle repeats itself again". It's like he wants Petra to openly say "Give me 5 Food or I'll attack that storehouse right there!" or something.

[elexis]

20 hours ago, sphyrth said:

It's like he wants Petra to openly say "Give me 5 Food or I'll attack that storehouse right there!" or something.

#4431

[Lion.Kanzen]

Sound like Opression Campaing scenario in AoE 1 for Yamato Campaings.

[Libervurto]

On 23/12/2016 at 4:48 PM, sphyrth said:

@elexis

That's what I also initially thought, until he said "until the cycle repeats itself again". It's like he wants Petra to openly say "Give me 5 Food or I'll attack that storehouse right there!" or something.

Basically, yes.  I am imagining the AI being more concerned with controlling resources than killing the opponent.  Like the saying in chess, "to take is a mistake", meaning that going after your opponent's pieces is often much less effective than concentrating on controlling territory.

I am not suggesting that this should overwrite the current AI, I understand that many people enjoy the hectic "build and battle" dynamic similar to Starcraft, and even in my "pacifist" vision of the game there is room for erratic factions who just want to raid and pillage, but IMHO that shouldn't be the way most factions behave normally, they should be a little more cautious and self-preserving.

I would like games to be quite long, several wars might be fought between the factions, interspersed with periods of peace, before the game is over.  Maybe I am in the minority with this wish, but I've always wanted to play something that feels between Age of Empires and Civilisation in scope.

Adding depth to the AI behaviour would allow for lots of different play styles and also new mechanics.  For example, I've always thought it would be cool if instead of conducting diplomacy "magically" you actually had to send an emissary with a guard to negotiate peace and trade deals; can't really do that sort of thing if the AI attacks on sight.

[edit] I shouldn't really say that the current method of diplomacy happens "magically", it is part of a "tabletop" paradigm where the players can interact with each other at any time, as if they were sat around a table together.  Another paradigm could be that the player exists within the game world, either collectively as any of his/her units, or as a single unit that represents the player (like the king in chess); in this case the players' units would have to come into contact with each other to conduct diplomacy.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Libervurto
clarification