Robi's Civ Theory

[Robi D]

Its safe to say i have many theories and ideas running through my brain, can't help it its just me. Logical and analytically pretty much describes me, so its not a huge shock i'm an engineer . I find the dynamics of MP games interesting, much more changable then playing against the AI, and this is my take on those dynamics. This isn't aimed at anyone, newbies and experienced players may take something from it. You don't have to agree with what i say, you can comment if you wish. This just me putting down some of these ideas down for all to see. Anyway with further delay, here is essay number 1, exclusive to the CDZ


The tension of War and Peace

Every MP game has it on life. As good as you make the AI it doesn't see things the way a human does. It has a set of parameters and follows them. Its devoid of emotions and judgements, if a=b do c, it follows its own path, it doesn't try to get in your head. A human does, they will not just be thinking what to do if a=b, but also what you will do. One aspect of this is the tension of War and Peace.
I know what your thinking, what the hell is he talking about? Its something you probably already know instictivly, but haven't put it into words.

Each game will start with the tension of peace, since your at peace by default, except always war games of course. Now the thing about peace is that it pay a big divided, namely a high tech rate. In peace you are able to devote your resources towards research, which lead to a space victory. War on the other hand slows your tech rate a great deal, meaning you will be losing ground to your opponents who are at peace in the tech stakes. And this is why the tension of peace is formed. No one wants to go to war and risk losing ground to everyone else. The longer this tension goes the harder it is to break.

But the tension of peace does get broken. Wars have their rewards too, with more land comes more cities and more resources to use in the future. Depending on how strong the tension of peace is will decide when the rewards of war are great enough to take that risk. That is not to say that one war somewhere in the game will break the tension of peace, or two or three, there is no exact number, its the results of a war or wars that determine that. If two people go to war and get bogged down into a stalemate or a very slow advance by one party, then others will see no reason to go to war because they are gaining in techs on those two people. However if the war is one where one person is winning easily or begins to win easily after an early stalemate, then the peaceful people will reassess their position, for a quick end to war will enable the victor to consolidate their gains and use those extra resources back into research.

These extra resources me that into the long term the winner of the war will catch up and pass the people who are peaceful. That is when the tension of peace is broken, all of a sudden you will find everyone is going to war because they don't want to lose the long term advantage. With that the tension of peace becomes the tension of war. The transition between the to is not a gradual thing, because there is very little middle ground between the two. Like a rubber band, once its snapped that it. And the tension of war works much in the same way as peace. As long as other people are seen to be gaining from their wars, the tension of war remains until someone has gained what they can and reverts to peace to consolidate and get their research going again. Once again the other will reassess their positions and just as quickly the game will return to the tension of peace.

Generally speaking the tension of peace is harder to break then the tension of war, since with new techs you get better units to fight wars in the future, where as wars get you land/cities/resources to use for research into those new tech when you go back to peace. This is why you will find a game will swing between periods of mostly peace to period of mostly war during it life. More than likely this will happen several times.

So how does this help you? Well the short answer is the better you understand the tensions of peace and war, the better you are able to manipulate this to your advantage. A quick example, the game is peaceful, your doing well but there is a few people who are starting to pull away in techs. The status quo means that continues indefinately. For you to win you have to change the tension of peace into war. Going first gives you an advantage for a few reasons. Firstly you have to to plan, select the best person for a quick victory. Where as your being proactive, the other will have to react. They wont jump into war right off because if you get dragged down into a grinding affair they win. However if you have donw your assessment right and are looking to win easily, then those at peace will have to act fast, speading to much time assessing the best opponent into your hand, since you already have a headstart in your war. This makes it more likely that they wont pick the best opponent for war, with luck they might start fighting each other.

Another key factor when looking at the tensions of war and peace is the map, is it crowded and is there plenty of land between everyone, is everyone on one continent or spread over several. If there is more then one then that adds a diamension to the this tension. In the early part of the game, when there is little or no contact you can have one continent in peace and the other in war at certain times, but it does tend to converge into the same state. Because even without contact, if one continent feels the other continent is gaining fron being in a different tension, it will change to that tension too.

The final key factor is the players themselves. Two people will look at the same situation and come to different conclusions. Some tend to favor peace, others war, so the calculation of when a change from one to the other provides a greater reward will differ. That in turn might change your calculation slightly more one way or the other. The way you look at a situation is based on three thing.
1. What you are thinking.
2. What you think your opponents are thinking.
3. What you think your opponents think your thinking.

Of those 3, number one your certain of (if not then your in trouble) so thats the biggest influence, number two is partly guesswork, partly monitoring there actions so thats medium influence, and number three is completely guesswork, very abstract, so its a small influence. I know what some of you are saying right now, how does going as far as trying to work out what they are think your thinking help, but that is another essay altogether.

In conclusion the point of which the tension of war or peace is broken depends on the events in the game, the map and the players. All of them influence the other two factor to some degree. There is no exact science into working out when a tension of war or peace will break or when it would be an advantage to try and break it, it all comes down to a bit of guesstimating and a gut feeling. The best way to improve those is experience. And that is what makes civ fun to play over and over again

[mauer]

There's alot of thinking going on there. My game goes something like this:

-I wonder why he's doing that
-Maybe I should build a unit
-Wonder what this does
-enter
-repeat

[BCLG100]

I normally have a plan, then get bored waiting for it to happen so try a different plan that takes less time to happen.

[Whomp]

Interesting stuff Rob. What about allies in all this? I've found that having solid allies in these games has been the most critical aspect of MP. It's when different factions feel they've been wrong is when I've seen things go amiss.

One thing I like in some of the more recent games is the no tech trading. It adds an interesting dimension to that tech equation you're talking about.

[akots]

I don't know about tension. I have no tension, only decisions to be made on quite rational basis in most cases. Otherwise, I thought it is something related to gameplay but after reading was first somewhat disappointed since it seems quite philosophical. But it's quite a refreshing point of view IMO.

[Robi D]

quote:Originally posted by mauer

There's alot of thinking going on there. My game goes something like this:

-I wonder why he's doing that
-Maybe I should build a unit
-Wonder what this does
-enter
-repeat

That is still an evaluation process. As i said people already know these thing instictively if not consciously.

quote:Originally posted by BCLG100

I normally have a plan, then get bored waiting for it to happen so try a different plan that takes less time to happen.

Well there is a whole essay i could write about you

quote:Originally posted by Whomp

Interesting stuff Rob. What about allies in all this? I've found that having solid allies in these games has been the most critical aspect of MP. It's when different factions feel they've been wrong is when I've seen things go amiss.

One thing I like in some of the more recent games is the no tech trading. It adds an interesting dimension to that tech equation you're talking about.

Thanks for the kind words.
Allies are a whole essay of their own. And your right the difference to their shape when tech trading is on or off is huge. For this topic you can view 2 people in an alliance as a single entity since people will plan and coordinate their moves as one.

quote:Originally posted by akots

I don't know about tension. I have no tension, only decisions to be made on quite rational basis in most cases. Otherwise, I thought it is something related to gameplay but after reading was first somewhat disappointed since it seems quite philosophical. But it's quite a refreshing point of view IMO.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying the individual players are in a tension or even feel tension, this is the actual game itself. Its one part of why games take on a life of there own. The rational decisions you make are based the current events of the game.

Look at this as the top level of a model, it is abstract. How it is applied depends on the conditions of the game, which in turn sets the parameters of how your going to apply the top level to the lower levels, right down to what your next build will be in a city.

This all comes from my systems engineering studies where you work from the top down. You don't start with a predetermination of what the outcome should be. Anyway before i go off on a tangent, the essay is not designed to say what you should do, its more to help improve your judgement of what you should do

[Robboo]

Great write up.. Can wait for more installments.

quote:Originally posted by Robi D

Well there is a whole essay i could write about you

I'd be interested in this essay..

[akots]

Well, if one defines tension from an engineering POV which is deviation from the minimal energy state, for example, considering a spring, then I might somewhat agree to that. IMO, the spring should go off and properly expanding the spring is the only way to go. But this again pertains to the gameplay since by building the empire you are actually yourself determining the tension of this spring and when it starts breaking out.

With Civ3 it were quite different because of corruption. There, typical scenario was to just build up and then let it go by unleashing the dogs of war at the proper moment in the right direction. The stalemate in Civ3 is quite vague concept. Of course, bigger was also somewhat better but not that critical.

While in Civ4 there is no corruption and there are multitude of resources, so I'd say that bigger is always better especially on lower difficulty levels like Noble or Prince or even Monarch and Emperor. Can't say anything about Immortal or Deity levels except that maintenance costs there are so huge that it is quite challenging to make a large empire running. Anyhow, human only games are not played above Monarch, so that is quite a hypothetical notion. To put it short, your concept of tension is apparently related subconsciously to the concept of balance of tech rate versus growth in a particular game and how this balance tends to resolve itself via wars among players. At least this is how I get it from you nice tension chapter.

[Robi D]

quote:Originally posted by akots

Well, if one defines tension from an engineering POV which is deviation from the minimal energy state, for example, considering a spring, then I might somewhat agree to that. IMO, the spring should go off and properly expanding the spring is the only way to go. But this again pertains to the gameplay since by building the empire you are actually yourself determining the tension of this spring and when it starts breaking out.

With Civ3 it were quite different because of corruption. There, typical scenario was to just build up and then let it go by unleashing the dogs of war at the proper moment in the right direction. The stalemate in Civ3 is quite vague concept. Of course, bigger was also somewhat better but not that critical.

While in Civ4 there is no corruption and there are multitude of resources, so I'd say that bigger is always better especially on lower difficulty levels like Noble or Prince or even Monarch and Emperor. Can't say anything about Immortal or Deity levels except that maintenance costs there are so huge that it is quite challenging to make a large empire running. Anyhow, human only games are not played above Monarch, so that is quite a hypothetical notion. To put it short, your concept of tension is apparently related subconsciously to the concept of balance of tech rate versus growth in a particular game and how this balance tends to resolve itself via wars among players. At least this is how I get it from you nice tension chapter.

Ok i see where you are coming from. I was not refering to a nation need to expand, i was talking about the dynamics of the game, how the states of peace and war develop so you get times when the game is virtually all peace, followed by times when it is virtually all war.

[BCLG100]

quote:Originally posted by Robboo

Great write up.. Can wait for more installments.

I'd be interested in this essay..

me too.