how closed is the new closed economy?

[Graymane]

Immigration/Emigration? If so, will we see a strategy for winning focusing on this?
Money expansion/contraction? Can I manipulate the markets and inflation by loans? Is there a set amount of money or are loan funds created out of thin air?
Selling military units? This was a good way to generate starting funds in 2010.
World Market gifting you stuff? Do they actually get it from somewhere or will they manufacture it out of thin air?

[George Geczy]

We've made a lot of changes to make the world much more "closed" than SR2010 (or for that matter any other game we've seen), though not everything will function in a 100% closed system.

Resources (oil, food, etc) are a fully closed system. Even when the UN / World Market give aid to a region, they do so from inventories that they've purchased from regions on the map, as part of the standard market system we've implemented.

In SR2020 Military units can be scrapped to regain a portion of their raw materials, but the mysterious 'sale to arms brokers' of SR2010 no longer exists. (Just who in the world can afford to buy a dozen B2 Bombers and a fleet of nuclear carriers on spec?)

Loans and credit are still created from 'private markets' and as such are not really a closed system, however regions will continue to have credit ratings and caps on their borrowing related to their economy size and ability to repay. (Interesting note: We had to loosen up the credit system as we were designing SR2020, because based on our original criteria countries like the US, and in fact most of the world, should have already had their credit cards taken away...)

-- George.

[red]

That sounds very promising, I look forward to seeing a closed world market in action. Is the AI now competent in building and trading strategies?

[George Geczy]

That sounds very promising, I look forward to seeing a closed world market in action. Is the AI now competent in building and trading strategies?

The AI's trading strategies are greatly improved. They will seek out product trades around the world (with humans and other AIs), and actively look for diplomatic trading opportunities for goods they produce, as well as playing the market for profit.

Resource management (handling production, pricing, and overcapacity) are also improved. But don't expect the AI to go building new facilities all over the place; the AI will choose trading options instead of facility building.

-- George.

[red]

the AI will choose trading options instead of facility building.

Is this to say that the AI does not know how to build facilities?

[Gargantou]

the AI will choose trading options instead of facility building.

Is this to say that the AI does not know how to build facilities?

I think he meant that simply if the AI can trade for something, it will prioritize that over building a factory in order to acquire the same merchandise, so to speak.. I think..

[George Geczy]

There is an internal debate here at the studio about whether the AI even should consider doing any significant building of facilities.

It sorta boils down to whether the AI should play SR2020 as a game, or as a simulation of the real world.

In the real world, regions generally consider long term issues - whether it be issues of depleting resources too fast, or flooding markets, or whatever. Some of these factors (such as depleting a terrain resource) don't exist in the game, and others change in importance when you 'expect' to only be around for a few years as ruler.

So the world of SR2020 gives each region a full, realistic set of resources and facilities. AI regions will then use that set and use other tools (trade, cutting production, etc) to balance their economies.

If a Human player starts in Egypt and wants to take over the world, then obviously he or she will have to build up, create new production capabilities, etc etc. But the AI playing Egypt is happy to just 'be Egypt'.

Obviously there will be some disagreement on this point (as I said, we even disagree here at BattleGoat on this). But with almost 200 countries in the world, trade becomes a key factor, and the AI take advantage of this.

-- George.

[tkobo]

Im sorry, i dont see a clear answer there.

Are you saying the AI can and will build, but only rarely and only if it cant solve the issue other ways ?

[The Khan]

I think he says that AI will try to act like "actual world governments",trade focused and complacent, while we will have the chance to behave uniquely, like Andorra taking over europe.

I still want the US AI to open its national oil reserves...

[Lightbringer]

If the AI can now build facilities, but is generally too conservative to do so, then it sounds like a perfect aspect of pre-game difficulty adjustments.

Choose AI difficulty:

A. Sit there and do nothing until your neighbors who are building like crazy crush you.

B. Do a little bit so that when they crush you they don't have to spend as much money.

C. Rape, plunder, and develop the full strength of your lands, so that weaker AI and pesky Humans will flee before your wrath!

OK...so I was being a bit smarmy. But being able to adjust such aspects of the AI behavior could radically change the way each game plays out. If you want to try your hand at Obama style diplomacy and take over the world by talking your enemies to death, you can set the AI to play along. If you plan on doing your best Hitler imitation, then you can give the AI a fighting chance to defend itself at "full strength".

Again, I'll stress my viewpoint that any chance to make the game more customizable to each player (or each player's whim at a given moment) is a good thing.

-Light

(Edit: Also, I'd like to add this. Unless I am mistaken, if you play a "Turmoil" scenario, it would be rather out of character for every other nation in the world to behave as if nothing is wrong and it is business as usual. If you are playing a mild scenario based on the status quo, then OK, I can see the conservatism. )

[red]

But George, if the AI is not trying to win, why am I playing? Will there be no regions cornering markets, plotting invasions, and in general making an interesting situation? If their goal is to survive in their own little corner of the world, well, it's a little underwhelming.

Besides, players should be behaving as though this were a real-world sim in the sense that they are not allowed to do incredible things to their countries. This doesn't happen in the real-world for reasons other than the rulers' benevolence! It happens because of constraints which the game does not model. Perhaps then the game should model these constraints, and the problem would be solved. I think it has nothing to do with the approach the game takes or such--if this is a problem then the game is just not modeling what needs to be modeled.

[BigStone]

In the real world, regions generally consider long term issues - whether it be issues of depleting resources too fast,

Sorry ... but i've always found this somesort of a shortcomming > not able to find new recources .
It would have made the game more interesting for "civ-builders" like me

[George Geczy]

Sorry ... but i've always found this somesort of a shortcomming > not able to find new recources .
It would have made the game more interesting for "civ-builders" like me

Similar to my 'pipelines' comment in another thread, this too is something that was considered, but leads to some much more philosophical design questions - such as just how much complexity you can continue to toss into a game. Sure, there are some people that will take every ounce of complexity that can be fit in - resource exploration, pipelines, refugees, currency exchange, blockades, and the wishlist goes on - but at some point you simply make the game experience too unwieldy for the majority of strategy game players.

But George, if the AI is not trying to win, why am I playing?

Another of those deep philosophical design questions - should the AI (or some AI regions) be attempting to take over the world? Even in WWII only one side had a definition of 'win' as being 'take over the world (or at least my part of it). For the Allies, the definition of win was instead 'stop the other guys from taking over the world'. Though some AI regions will instigate regional battles, especially in the 'Melting Pot' and 'Shattered World' campaigns, most AI regions will play a responsive role similar to the Allies.

Of course, that's just a discussion of the Campaign /Sandbox mode, which like all good sandboxes pretty much let you set for yourself what your definition of 'win' will be; in our Scenarios/Missions, a more focused and goal-oriented gameplay is available.

-- George.

[red]

If the AI is not actively trying to advance its own interests, then I do not see how there can be a realistic feel of a world, an immersion in the game and fascination with it. That is one of the best parts of a well-working strategy game.

If you have played GalCiv II, you know how immersive it is to be playing against opponents who seem like some very intelligent and no-nonsense humans running an empire. That should be your goal, I think.

Having an AI just sitting there really does beg the question of why I am playing. Nothing's happening that I don't make happen, nothing is coming to disrupt me that I did not see coming, no region exists as anything but a passive target, really. That's not interesting.

I don't expect Lithuania to take over the world, but if I am playing Sweden, and Germany and Russia are not pressuring me to their advantage, then how is that interesting? Am I to sit there and twiddle my thumbs, marvel at my educational system, and in ten years destroy them with an economy that has built up while they sat there? Again, not interesting. The AI has to have its own agenda or I am playing only against my own imagination.

[tkobo]

Hmmm.....
That nagging voice in my head is saying "Uh oh,if they are taking this long to give an answer,its not a good sign".

So is that little voice right ?Has the AI being able to build been dropped ?