Posts: 6,664
Threads: 246
Joined: Aug 2004
The writeup for Game Three is now finished. The community had the broad outlines of how this game would end up playing out predicted correctly, however some of the details were a bit different than we expected. Also if you're looking for more Civ4 AI Survivor in general, Axiis has been helping with written reports for a lot of the games from Season Two. He wrote up a report for last year's Game Five that I added to the website this weekend.
I have to run at the moment; I'll try to answer your other questions in the thread in a day or two. Remember, the next game will be the following Friday (September 1st), not this Friday as I will be traveling at the end of this week. Thanks. 
Posts: 2,273
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2005
(August 20th, 2017, 10:27)haphazard1 Wrote: I tend to think of the peace weight value as putting leaders into the "warmonger" or "builder" camps. Warmongers like/respect other warmongers but dislike builders, and similarly the builders like/respect other builders but dislike warmongers. The effect is not all that large (I think) compared to things like having different state religions (for most leaders, anyway, some care more and others less). But it can be enough to shift relations by one "level" (cautious to annoyed, for example) and that can trigger a threshold for allowing a leader to declare war when they otherwise would not.
Peace weight is also used to artificially make certain civs dislike each other.
The Carthaginians count as "evil" mostly (I think) so they can be at odds with "good" Rome. The "evil" French are rivals to the "good" English. The "good" Koreans are inclined to be invaded by the Chinese and Japanese.
It doesn't matter as much what the view of the specific leader is historically; de Gaulle has maximum "evil" in peace weight, I believe. (Well ... he did basically give modern France its current "elected dictator" government, heh.)
August 22nd, 2017, 15:16
(This post was last modified: August 22nd, 2017, 15:26 by Coeurva.)
Posts: 933
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2015
You're right about de Gaulle's peace weight (ties with Alex and Brennus, but lower than Mao's; okay). But what's more, he's also the easiest leader to capitulate of the whole lot (tied with Gandhi and Mansa Musa), where historically you'd expect him to be one of the most fiercely resistant (that honour goes to Sitting Bull, I think).
The reason is memes. That's all it is.
EDIT: Genghis Khan shares the maximal resistance to vassalization.
August 22nd, 2017, 15:21
(This post was last modified: August 22nd, 2017, 15:23 by AdrienIer.)
Posts: 6,256
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2014
(August 22nd, 2017, 14:53)Dark Savant Wrote: It doesn't matter as much what the view of the specific leader is historically; de Gaulle has maximum "evil" in peace weight, I believe. (Well ... he did basically give modern France its current "elected dictator" government, heh.)
To be fair there were good reasons to go for a more centralized form of government. Giving him the maximum evil weight for that is a bit much 
(August 22nd, 2017, 15:16)Coeurva Wrote: But what's more, he's also the easiest leader to capitulate of the whole lot, where historically you'd expect him to be one of the most fiercely resistant (that honour goes to Sitting Bull, I think).
The reason is memes. That's all it is.
Yeah that's just stupid
Posts: 8,784
Threads: 40
Joined: Aug 2012
(August 19th, 2017, 13:37)Brian Shanahan Wrote: I'm getting an error all day on the bracket and standings spreadsheet, both on my phone and on my desktop. Anybody else with this problem?
Me too. Google drive is saying:
"Sorry, the file that you've requested has been deleted.
Make sure that you have the correct URL and that the owner of the file hasn't deleted it."
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld
Posts: 12,510
Threads: 61
Joined: Oct 2010
(August 22nd, 2017, 15:21)AdrienIer Wrote: (August 22nd, 2017, 15:16)Coeurva Wrote: The reason is memes. That's all it is.
Yeah that's just stupid I prefer the leaders be based on memes than on a serious attempt to get history right. Especially a serious attempt by programmers and artists who have other constraints like the actual work of building the game to a tight schedule. You can spend an academic career without reaching a solid understanding of even one civ; I shudder to think how bad it would be with some amateur research followed by whatever mangling is needed for game balance and fun.
This way, it's flavor but everyone knows it's caricature. If it were attempted history, then it'd be a subject of debate, and that'd take all the fun out of playing. It wouldn't be fun even if they got all the history right, and odds are they wouldn't.
EitB 25 - Perpentach
Occasional mapmaker
Posts: 587
Threads: 7
Joined: Apr 2016
(August 23rd, 2017, 11:36)Mardoc Wrote: This way, it's flavor but everyone knows it's caricature. If it were attempted history, then it'd be a subject of debate, and that'd take all the fun out of playing. It wouldn't be fun even if they got all the history right, and odds are they wouldn't.
Some of the leaders are really WTF though. I mean what the heck did the real life Montezuma do to be forever branded a psychotic lunatic for decades of kids being introduced to him for the first time? He got colonized by the Spanish and now he's evil-incarnate? I guess he's supposed to be portrayed as angry his civilization was destroyed?? I don't really get the reasoning.
Posts: 2,273
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2005
(August 23rd, 2017, 23:30)Fluffball Wrote: Some of the leaders are really WTF though. I mean what the heck did the real life Montezuma do to be forever branded a psychotic lunatic for decades of kids being introduced to him for the first time? He got colonized by the Spanish and now he's evil-incarnate? I guess he's supposed to be portrayed as angry his civilization was destroyed?? I don't really get the reasoning.
The real-life Moctezuma II fought wars of conquest partly because the Aztecs sought additional targets for human sacrifice.
The Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs principally because they got plenty of native allies upset about recent conquest and poor treatment.
It doesn't help that the Aztecs weren't nearly as sophisticated as the Mayans formerly were, or as the Incans.
... maybe you could argue Moctezuma was just following in the footsteps of his father Ahuitzotl, but "war to sacrifice conquered peoples" isn't what I'd call good.
Posts: 8,784
Threads: 40
Joined: Aug 2012
(August 22nd, 2017, 18:23)Old Harry Wrote: (August 19th, 2017, 13:37)Brian Shanahan Wrote: I'm getting an error all day on the bracket and standings spreadsheet, both on my phone and on my desktop. Anybody else with this problem?
Me too. Google drive is saying:
"Sorry, the file that you've requested has been deleted.
Make sure that you have the correct URL and that the owner of the file hasn't deleted it."
And now it's working...
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld
Bobchillingworth
Unregistered
I think the Civ Montezuma is supposed to be the father of the one who got stomped by the Spanish, who ruled at the peak of the Aztec's power. He's presumably a psychopath in Civ because the Aztec nation pursued a particularly violent and appalling foreign policy even by the standards of the time. Civ's gameplay benefits from having at least one predictably rabidly aggressive leader in the pack to keep things interesting, and Montezuma is probably one of the least controversial options they could have chosen.
|
