Defining Race Personalities

from GalCiv2 Forums
I am having a HOOT creating my own custom opponents (as you can probably tell from my various posts). Anyway, I know the devs are really busy here - but I thought that we could work to establish what exactly a "Torian" or "Krynn" personality encompasses. Afterall its difficult to create a custom opponent if you are unsure what the personality template you assign it encompasses.

Anyway, I will start. These are based on my observations. Note most of my observations come from Pre-Dark Avatar - so with all the AI work that has gone into that a lot of my observations may no longer apply (if they ever did).

Generic AI - I have no idea. Unless someone plays a whole bunch of games with this we will probably need a dev to answer. I would assume that it tends to be very middle of the road in its strategy.

Dregin - Bullies. Love to invade and extort money. They have never really done all that well in my games. Usually slaughtered by the good AIs.

Korx - They are supposed to be mercenaries trading anything, but I honestly haven't seen that. They seem to be similar to the Dregin, just not as aggressive. They have never really done all that well in my games.


Yor - Will attack a weaker race, but they kind of keep to themselves. They have never really done all that well in my games.


Korath - Only played with them once and found them very Dregin like. They are supposed to be Hyper-evil, not sure if this makes them more aggressive.

Thalans - I once had them declare war on me even though they were undergunned simply because they (Correctly) perceived that I was gobbling up other empires. They tend to employ an Influence strategy. They have never really done all that well in my games.


Arcreans - Aggressive and like to extort cash and gobble up smaller races. Not sure how they differ from the Dregin. Occasionally do well in my games.

Terrans - Like to employ diplomacy. Not really all that aggressive, but will definitely dogpile on a race if everyone else is attacking them. They have never really done all that well in my games.

Altarians - Very aggressive crusader types. Will support friends in a war even if it means they are going to get spanked. For some reason they almost ALWAYS do very well in my games.

Torians - Not really sure what their personality encompasses. They Occasionally do well in my games.

Iconians - Not usually that aggressive, they like to research and build lots of wonders and trade goods. They frequently do very well in my games

Krynn - Haven't had enough experience. They are supposed to be even more of a zealous crusader than the Altarians.

Anyway - these are my observations. Can anyone flesh out this list with the AIs playing strategies/tendancies? Please feel free to contradict me if you have observations that differ.

Dano
12,526 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Seems to me you have as good a handle on this as anyone, but I'll add my two cents anyway. One global generalization to note is that certain AI's that usually do well or poorly in your games may be entirely different against someone else that plays differently than you do. Also, I haven't yet played DA so I only have knowledge of the DL races.

Drengin - I pretty much agree about being bullies. If they're close to you they're usually the first to attack, if you're not evil. Even if you are evil but weak they'll be on you like white on rice asking for money. If you're evil and *not* weak they actually can be dependable allies. I've found the Drengin to be strong early but usually get taken out early as well. But if they do last until late game then they're usually the top dog in the galaxy.

Korx - totally weak as far as I've ever seen. Nothing whatsoever redeemable about them.

Yor - Usually the Yor have been pretty strong in my games. Similar to the Drengin in some sense but just a little more patient and hence a little more deadly. The Yor usually do pretty well in most of my games. If you're evil the Yor make a very good ally as long as you're not too weak. Actually, this is a generalization that seems to be true in almost all games that I've played. If you're evil the evil races are better allies than the good races are if you're good.

Thalans - they do tend to turtle up and go into influence starbase mode a lot. Their influence starbase's can get a bit annoying but I've only seen them as a threat in one game where they managed to get ahold of most of the galactic resources. Otherwise they're pretty weak.

Arceans - Good breeders and colonizers. Almost always do well in my games, but not really that good in a war.

Terrans - weak and usless.

Altarians - Holier than thou. First ones to go to war with you if you're weak, even if you are good. Can be strong researchers and colonizers. It does seem that they can take awhile to develop and their growth can easily be stunted early. About 50/50 on them having an impact in the game.

Torians - Similar to the Arceans. Actually I think this is the best race to play (at least in DL) with their free 25% morale bonus.

Iconians - another weak and usless race.

Drath - The Drath are another good race to play (again in DL) but are usually pretty weak as an opponent.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
f you're evil the evil races are better allies than the good races are if you're good.


How so Mumblefratz? I've never strayed from being an evil civ so I wouldn't know the differences when it comes to ally interaction. The Korx are always useless unless I carry them for most of the game but the Drengin have always fared well in my games, especially as an ally, but then I always throw them some bones to chew on and keep them happy.
As a sidenote, how are you enjoying your new comp, aside from going through it and cleaning out all of the 'junk'?
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
How so Mumblefratz?

I've never actually allied with anyone but what I mean is that if you're evil you generally get better treatment from evil races than you get from the good races if you're good. It does seem counter intuitive, you'd think that if you're good you'd be less likely to be attacked by a good race, but it doesn't seem to be true. But don't read any real life moral meaning into this.

I have dejunked the beast at this point and am re-installing my apps. Just got my email setup and transfered from the old PC last night. I'm getting pretty close to putting GC2 on it, but that's saved for last since once it goes on I won't get anything else done. I also need to install more memory and upgrade my old PC for the wife.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The Korx really ARE useless, even in DA. I'll agree with the Drengin in DA, though... they seem to get gobbled up pretty quick, with multiple races going at them. I wonder if that has much to do with them not getting along well with the Drath...
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Dano, i think your observations are mostly accurate, but i think they describe the most commonly seen personalities. a lot more goes on beneath the surface, i think.

personally, i've found either good or evil tends to dominate the galaxy, but in most games i've seen, one side usually wipes out the other by mid game. i agree with mumble, the largest single factor is the human player. i'd say the second largest are military mining bases. if one player gets their hands on more than one of these (let alone 3 or more), all bets are off. even the most passive player will start to become a warmonger if they get enough of these bonuses.

i'm convinced the terrans just suck (the only way they can be a threat is to set them a couple difficulty levels higher than the other players), but as for the rest, i think it has to do with the luck of the draw. a while back, i played a series of test games on custom maps to guage how the different AIs play when certain circumstances were normalized. in one, i put a fairly limited number of star systems in tight clusters, and watched what happened. interestingly enough, races that usually suck did remarkably better.

my second series of experiments was to mess with alignments. if you play everyone on the same alignment, there's far less war. in the test where i combined everyone playing neutral on the above-described map, there were only a couple wars and no civs were actually killed off (partly due to how difficult it was to launch an invasion). (also, this reminds me of one feature from GalCiv1 that didn't make it to DL - the ability to change a race's alignment, but i'm pretty sure that's going into DA).

my conclusion? the most significant factor in how an AI will play is the results of the initial rush (for planets and resources), but this certainly causes some AI to suck more than the others. the AIs that tend to suck are the ones that consistently fail to do well during the rush. races that grab the lion's share usually pursue military supremacy. the rest of their personalities come out when there's a greater threat.

for example, in a recent, unmodded sandbox game on masocistic, the early game was dominated by war. i managed to avoid the fray as the terrans with a military tactic of just-enough, and lots of trade and diplomacy. i vultured 4 of 5 military resources when they were attacked, but not before the torians had managed to take over half the galaxy. still, with 4 maxed red cones, my military strength was rated far above anyone else. after that, the torians switched from pursuing a military victory to a cultural one.

it's very interesting stuff, like my own set of lab rats. i think the game would be more interesting if alliances were easier to forge, i.e., didn't take as much friendship and the required tech was more sought-after by the AI.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I just thought of something else -

In order to determine the meanings of these AI - templates, I suppose we should separate Aggression, from the personality, since Aggression is set differently than the AI template. This means that the AI template is even MORE ambiguous than our game observations. I.e. how do we talk about the strategies that an AI uses INDEPENDENT of aggression.

In this light it seems we know the following -

Thalans - Like Influence, will launch a pre-emptive strike if you are a warmonger (not sure if this counts as aggression or foresight)
Iconians - Like research/wonders/trade goods
Altarians - Will go to war with enemies of friends, even if it means they will get stomped.
Torians - Expand and breed.

Other than this, I think all of the different objectives and strategies (independent of aggression and extortion) are mysteries.

Agree/Disagree?

Dano

Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've found that the personalities seem to be much more variable than is suggested here.

While the personalities mentioned above are accurate, the Race assignment may or may not be. I've had games where the Torians turtle and tech, and the Alterans warmonger. Korx and Iconians have had incredibly variable strategies from influence and wonders to warmongering.

What I'm trying to say is that it seems more like the races have a preset aptitude for a certain personality (call it individual personality), but that there is a randomness to each game for secondary personality traits, which sometimes might coincide with the 'individual personality' and sometimes might cause it to go 180 degrees from what we might otherwise be used to from that race (call it the 'game personality').

I think those game personalities are predefined and then randomly assigned, which is why we keep seeing the same types of behavior. It is when the game personality meshes with the individual personality that the race seems to get off to a really strong start, or when they complement each other (as opposed to contradict) that they adapt better and develop new strategies as the game progresses and the galactic balance shifts.

Just my .02
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Do the personalities actually influence AI gameplay?

I, too, love custom races (having a ball with my stargate universe of wraith, go'oauld, free jaffa, replicators, lucian alliance, geni, ori, asgard, and tok'ra).

But - it seemed me that the 'personality' was only used for the AI communication templates - and AI behavior was determined more by the ethics and agression sliders?

For example - some of my stargate races were tailor made to use the standard AIs (wraith=drengin, yor=replicators, lucian alliance=korx, etc) -- but it seemed like what I was basically getting were communications based on the templates from using the standard races....

For example, my wraith would always be telling me how good Torian skin tastes... though there were no Torians in the game.

Consequently - I changed the personality back to 'Generic' for all races (keeping sliders as appropriate) - and I notice no difference in AI behavior.... just that my custom races no longer refer to races/cliches/ticks/etc from the standard races.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Do the personalities actually influence AI gameplay?


The personaltities are actually different AI engines which do things differently and have differing priorities.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think Robert Foley is correct i.e. that the AI personality templates have statistical dispositions (i.e. choices made by a combination of overall strategy that the race enjoys as well as coin-tosses). Should the coin-toss mesh with the particular environment, then the overall behaviour of that AI for that game might be effective, but not characteristic of that race.

Hopefully someday we will learn the tendancies of the AI templates so we can build more effective custom opponents.

Dano
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, it has been a while since anyone posted on this thread, but I thought I'd give it a stab.

Naturally, I have had slightly different experiences with the AI personalities than the other posters here. I agree that human personality MUST play a significant role in determining behavior. I love how the personality of each AI unfolds during a game, until, by mid-game, you usually have your list of loves, hates, and must wipe from the universe races. What especially tickles me is that, very often, the lannguage the AIs use when talking to you is a good clue to how the AI player is likely to react to you. I have to second the notion that evil races seem to make stronger allies. Who'd 'a' thunk it? Another weird thing: often one or two races become "superpowers" early in the game, and there are some that tend to be minor powers. Weird.

I always play a custom race, and I am usually neutral or evil. Here's my breakdown:

Yor: By far my favorite AI to talk to. I love being called "talking meat!" These guys are very straightforward: if they like you, they'll follow you to the end of the universe. If they don't like you, they'll make it clear. I like to know where I stand. And yes, N-1, I DO want to see the collection of skulls over your flame pit!

Drenigin: Less trustworthy, but if you are a Super Diplomat, they are great. They are so weak diplomatically, they will do whatever you want them to, and they pay top credits for whatever you want to seel them. I've had them bully me, but I've found that if you pay them what they ask, it makes them like you more. Don't call it a bribe, call it an investment. They'll back you up, if you need it.

Korath: Same as Drenigin, but maybe a little more trustworthy. Hey, "evil" doesn't mean evil to your friends!

Korx: I disagree with the assertion that they are useless. I've actually seen them take on the Yor and do pretty well. These guys are almost always "minor" powers in my games. They will ally up with you FAST if you trade with them, which is good for an early economic treaty. On the other hand, they will sometimes withhold their really advanced techs for very little reason. They don't change their minds about you quickly, and they just don't seem to care what you do, as long as money is coming their way. On the other hand, no, they aren't the biggest threat on the block.

Krynn: I hate these guys. They almost always begin by acting quite decently, then suddenly turn on me. And they won't make peace. You can't spy on them, you can't stop them, it really sucks. Good thing they aren't all that good at fighting! These guys often become early superpowers in my games.

Thalans: Another early superpower. These guys expand like there is no tomorrow. They too will turn on you quickly as well. I don't like them, but I don't hate them. If you can ally with them (not especially hard, but not especially easy), they can be useful.

Drath: The evil "good" race. I hate them. They ALWAYS want to attack me. They ALWAYS bully me. I hate them. Make them stop. Fortunately, they often don't last long in my games. Drath "Remnant"... I like that. I hate them.

Terrans: Not really useless, but often just a minor race. They tend to stick it out for the long run in my games, and they can make pretty decent allies. Not great, they will hold out on you with the high tech techs (making you pay a HUGE amount). War with the Terrans is not really much of a threat. They are, however, quick to support you in a war, even if it is for their own gain.

Arceans: Don't trust them. They're animals. Ok, not really, but I'm gonna show them who is the "cheese eating surrender-monkey!" Condescending, holier-than-thou, unwilling to trade advanced techs, always holding out for more money, rarely if ever coming to your aid, and quick to make peace when they are losing. Also quick to cosey up to you when you are winning. Really, who is the surrender monkey, I ask you? These guys occasionally become an early superpower (at least they did in GC2). They are often very powerful, and they tend to have some depth to their military infrastructure (i.e., hard to take over).

Altarians: Ooooooh, I hate them. I suspect they are behind all of the big galactic meetings that decide to wipe me out. They really are quick to attack if they perceive weakness. They are almost completely untrustworthy. They will, however, trade tech, which can be pretty important. Good riddance to the Altarians.

Yor: Worthless plucked parrots. They talk all lovely-dovey, but they aren't, really. They can be pretty agressive. Reasonably trustable if you are on their good side. I don't like them, but it is peersonal. Generally ok for trade, not particularly threating, but they can put up a good fight later in the game. If you let them stick around.

Iconians: Almost as holier-than-thou as the Arceans, worse for holding out you vis-a-vis trading high technology, very likely to become an early superpower. Catch them before this if you want to be their ally. I don't like them, but they aren't too insulting. Not the best warriors either.


Also, I hate the Paulos and the Akillians. Both very snotty and hard to get tech from. Love the Dark Yor... very agreeable guys. Lentzlandians... not so great, not so bad.

Anybody disagree?


Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Given my play style, I've noticed a few things that seems to almost always happen in my games.

Terrans: Typically aggressive, but don't throw down with me because I buy their ships. Early game they make fine arms dealers for my military needs.

Drath: Expansionist hogs. They also have a serious attitude problem. Demanding tribute here and there, they're at least as bad as Drengin for bullying others. At least the Drengin won't stab me in the back so easily.

Altarians: For a research race, they're pretty stupid. What makes you think attacking anyone with a Laser-1 craft will end well for you? If these guys aren't the first to go, it's because I'm coddling their candy asses. I may keep an alliance with them until they go apespit crusader on the galaxy, or when they can't give me some useful tech. Then I call in the Yor.

Yor: My buddies. If they like you, they're loyal to the death. Which happens more often than not, more's the pity. I'll help them out with military tech and the occasional stipend to keep my dogs of war fit.

Thalans, Torians, Iconians: All pretty much the same, they act tough but get smashed early. Mainly because they don't understand that they really only have each other in the galaxy, as everyone else pretty much hates them.

Krynn: If there's one thing worse than the Drath, this is it. Unless you can wage early and constant war, these sneaky buggers will colonize the hell out of the galaxy and then start getting uppity when you don't bow to their whims. One of those races you just can't be nice to, because they'll take advantage until they're ready to stab you in the back.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Huh, you use the Terrans as arms dealers? I'm going to have to look into that... given their super ability, do you get good deals out of them at all?
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Um, these descriptions of how the AIs ultimately fare in your games is interesting, but I think everyone (apologies to all) except Kryo is off the mark on what this setting does for custom opponents. I've played with it quite a lot, and here is what (I'm pretty sure) it REALLY does:

For each race they have a seperate template for how they develop a world, and in what order they decide to research something.

The drengin AI for instance will divide almost every tile in its universe evenly between factorys and research centers, and will early and often go for researching weapons.

The generic AI appears to be the same one the Minors use. This AI will typically build about 5 to 1 research structures to manufacturing structures, and will research many things but tends to specifically neglect the infrasturcture techs (research centers, industrial theory) - typically giving it a very small, but decently outfitted fleet.

The Iconian AI appears to highly value research, and builds about 3 to one research to manufacturing structures. This AI puts a high premium on researching logistics, as well as power plants and the like. They seem to divide the research evenly between weapons and defense techs.

The Drath AI appears to highly value government techs, diplomacy and influence in its research strategy. I haven't gotten a handle yet on how they develop worlds, their strategy almost seems random.

The Thalans develop more heavy industry and cash worlds, but rarely build research worlds or even research buildings. This is why you see them develop quickly and then fade, they are not building any research. Thalans seem to like to focus on manufacturing tech and one weapon tree.

The Torians will build the most farms of any race in developing their worlds. They love love love the infrastructure techs, as well as farms, stock markets, and power plants. They seem to put a low priority on just about all kinds of weapon techs.

etc. etc.

Play around with this and you will see what I am talking about. If you have a question about the strategy of a specific AI for this setting, ask me and I will tell you the results of my testing. You can probably figure all of this out on your own, however.

Hope that helps.

Edit - also, the aggressiveness of the AI is NOT part of the personality template. Some of you are describing aggressiveness when you are detailing the AIs. Aggression is a seperate variable, with its own slider you can control - and is completely not otherwise related to the personality you choose.

Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Wyndstar, could you please go into more details about the AI personalities?

In addition, do the personalities have anything to do with the +'s and -'s on the opponant selection screen?
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Those pluses and minuses you mention are all flavour text that are supposed to be in reference to their ability scores. I don't think they're at all relevant.

Also, Wyndstar: it's worth noting that the Arceans have the best fleet management skills, and that several AIs are derivative of others... I believe the Drengin AI was used as a template for several others, at least, the Korath included.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I can see what you mean, Starstriker1. According to the flavor text, that the Iconians have weak researcher, but apparently, the Iconian AI builds lots of research buildings.

Does anyone know a good ai for a race that is really good at research, and does not like to deal with other races? I can take care of the research part with bonus abilities, but I'm stumped on the second part.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If you don't want them to deal with other races well, you may want to make them warmongers. Other than that... the Yor do appear to be fairly isolationist in most games I've played, their super ability aside.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I was thinking more along the lines of "A secretive race that doesn't give a damn about the rest of the universe." Sadely, I doubt there is one like that. The yor AI is interesting though, and I never thought about using their AI.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The Iconians might be an option as well. They seem firmly in the isolationist camp, though that may just be because of their weakness.