List of strategy or tactics games with random map generators or an unpredictable computer opponent

[Nutmeg]

A random map generator or an unpredictable computer opponent are very welcome features in a strategy game. Here are some games I know of (also games suggested by thread contributers) which have one or the other:

Age of empires 2, mythology.
Alpha Centauri.
Armageddon empires.
C-evo.
Civilization 2, 3, 4.
Dominions 4.
Eador: Genesis.
Heroes of might and magic 3.
Master of Orion.
Shogun total war.
Worms armageddon.
X-COM: UFO defense.

In your reply, please suggest additions to this list.

 

[tred]

constructor
birthright gorgon's alliance

 

[Whiran]

Why did you list Civilization 2 and 4 but not the others? What was missing from Civ 5 to meet your criteria?

Or, for that matter, the other Heroes of Might and Magic or X-Com: Enemy Unkown?

I'm trying to better understand what you are looking for.

 

[Grimwulf]

AI in latest version of Dominions 4 is probably the most unpredictable AI opponent I ever saw in any game. Unlike previous versions, Impossible AI is now actually hard to beat. Not every time, but still. Random map generator still kinda sucks balance-wise.

AI in original Eador (Genesis) was damn fucking gud. And it was literally impossible to beat campaign on max difficulty. I mean, literally. Any Civ game is beatable on Deity, Eador Genesis is not.

 

[Nutmeg]

tred,

Please write more about the games, I'm curios.

Whiran,

Heroes of might and magic 2 IIRC does not have a random map generator. Not sure about 1, 4, 5 or 6 as I have not played them.

I played Civilization 1 and 3 a very long time ago, and cannot remember if the maps were randomly generated. I have not played Civilization 5.

I have not played X-Com: Enemy Unknown.

I am looking for games with a random map generator or unpredictable (highly stochastic) A.I.

Grimwulf,

Added Dominions 4 because it fulfills the criteria. The A.I in Eador might be good, but is it unpredictable? Does the game feature a random map generator?

 

[Norfleet]

Being unpredictable is not necessarily good. Being good is often highly predictable, because the outcome is always the same: "Aww, fuck, we're dead." In pretty much every game I'm good at, often the best at, I'm characterized as extremely predictable...and there's fuck all they can do about it. Their crushing beneath my shiny black boot is inexorable and inevitable.

 

[DakaSha]

AI in dominions 4 is a pile of steaming goatshit.

Also Armageddon empires & Ai war.

 

[laclongquan]

No mention of Sid Meier's Alpha Centaury yet?

 

[Grimwulf]

Grimwulf,

Added Dominions 4 because it fulfills the criteria. The A.I in Eador might be good, but is it unpredictable? Does the game feature a random map generator?

Nah, you pretty much know what to expect from Eador AI, since your opponents in campaign have kind of personalities, feature-strategies, specific types of units and alliances, etc (YOLO-barb with centaur alliance that's always aggro; pacifistic white wizard that plays defensive autism and declares war only on EVAL opponents; etc). It doesn't make the game any easier, though.

And yep, there is a random map generator in original Eador. Not too sure about remake.

AI in dominions 4 is a pile of steaming goatshit.

Yet it's still unpredictable.
(it was also drastically imroved in latest 4.14)

 

[tred]

tred,

Please write more about the games, I'm curios.

well, it's been a long time since I last played them. But as far as I remember:

Constructor (if you stay away from FAQs, guides and such) is very unpredictable. The enemy AI on hard is...well...hard. It is constantly trying to destroy the player, you almost have no time to truly "breath" on hard, there is always some problem going on and you have to solve it or you lose. Besides, Constructor is a great game, it's style is something that just does not exist anymore.

Birthright Gorgon's Alliance, it's been a decade since I last played it so I am not sure if the map generation is truly random or if it just has some random options. In my memory, it was a difficult game (again, stay away from FAQs or guides), very unpredictable because of it's many parts. I mean, you had to worry about magic, diplomacy, warfare, guilds, temples, trade routes, adventurers (you had to recruit them and go complete side quests on the map, there was the strategic map and the first person map on dungeons, etc) and their stats, artifacts, etc. Truly complex game. And it was great too.

 

[pakoito]

Conquest of Elysium 3, not that I've ever survived long enough to collide with the AI before either of us died.

 

[LizardWizard]

Why did you list Civilization 2 and 4 but not the others? What was missing from Civ 5 to meet your criteria?

Probably because the former are great/passable Civs while the latter is utter shit?

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Really? I thought the 4th one was pretty shitty. I'd rather play the third than the fourth any day of the week.

The third does have randomly generated maps.

The fourth one felt so... I dunno... vapid, in comparison to 2 and 3.

 

[Nutmeg]

IncendiaryDevice,

Okiedokies added 3.

tred,

Awesome. Although I'm still not sure if the games qualify. From a quick glance through youtube videos of the games they don't seem to qualify on grounds of random map generatiion. For the purposes of my list, it's not enough to have a good or challenging computer opponent, but a genuinely unpredictable one (it can do very very stupid things and still qualify, as long as it's unpredictable) so I'll leave them out for now. Did you hear Constructor is getting an HD version?

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I have to wonder why random maps and unpredictable AI are valued? In the past, I oftne gravitated towards games with random map generators or non-linear progression. Can't say why. Sometimes I wonder if it's linked to gambling, even though I hate gambling - I consider it too simple, so uninteresting. Yet Random maps oftentimes don't balance things right, so you end up with either a bad roll of the dice or a lucky break. It's that big gully inbetween which I think reminds me of gambling. But is that what makes me like random maps, the high I get when I get a good map? Or is it something else? And what about non-linear games, the ones which don't tell you what to do or don't try to protect you from losing or getting hurt or whatever? Am I a masochist? Do I like to get hurt? Do I like to get lost? Why have I preferred that over a more reliable and less frustrating path? Well it can't be hurt or frustration alone because I love success. It's rewarding. I just don't like feeling like it's "given" to me, or something else.

I think the only linear game I've enjoyed in the past decade was Anachronox. It stands mostly alone. Early in my gaming life I also did play several mission-based military simulation games. I grew out of it though. Started with Quarantine, I think. I started to play a lot of strategy/tactical games and I just hated them if they didn't have a random map generator and lots of nuances.

There's something to this. I just know. But I"m not smart enough to piece it together.

Fundamentally, if it's just a challenge I want, I can get that from Tetris or an IQ test or a crossword puzle. Of course, an IQ test wil just make me fel dumber. BUT that's a real challenge anyhow. Itmust be more than just that.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I'm not a great fan of random, aside from small variances based on known variables which encourage additional thought and minor gambling, but when things get too random it annoys me greatly. Let's compare a few games to illustrate the point:

Medieval: Total War versus Civilisation III. With M:TW you always have the same map but can choose a different nation. I really, really enjoyed this game but it has limited life, at some point there's little point repeating the process. Civilisation III I don't enjoy so much, but play it more, because it has more variables and an almost inexhaustible supply of new scenarios via tweaking options. So if I was stuck on a desert island with just one game for eternity, I'd go for Civilisation III, even though it's random is mostly infuriating but if I wanted to buy a new game that I could have a strong memorable experience with I'd go for M:TW. I'd rate C3 as an imbeween game to play while waiting for a new cool game to play and M:TW as a cool game.

Likewise for King's Bounty: The Legend versus Heroes of Might and Magic III or Icewind Dale versus Diablo/clones. KB:tL and ID are cool games, where as HoMaM and D/c are just excellent fillers, and it's the random which is the main factor in this viewpoint. Ideally I like to play games which don't make me rage, the rage from random is just a side-effect or downside to the longevity of replayability.

This kind of viewpoint won't be the same for everyone because, as you suggest, some people simply enjoy the masochism. It's very rare to find a game that provides both eternal random plus predictable scenarios/combat etc, just another reason why Chess manages to remain so popular, even in a booming games market, it's still quite unique in this field.

 

[Norfleet]

Uh...Chess contains precisely zero random elements. I would not really say that Chess is an example of a game that "provides both eternal random plus predictable scenarios/combat". Plus, white is OP.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I think you misunderstood. Chess provides eternally random encounters - ie: a different game each time with different problems to be solved - but has unchanging non-random mechanics and start position.

Neither player in a game of chess can blame/thank the random for their loss/win, but two players can play a different game every time they play and be addicted to the discovery of the new. There are very few games which achieve this.

Civilisation - starting with a food bonus next to a river on grassland versus starting in tundra with not a deer in sight. Heroes - starting with slow and dispel and all zombies protecting resources versus starting with protection from water and cure with all marksmen protecting resources, for one player they join, for the other they fight etc etc. Diablo/clones, one player finds uber this or that, one player doesn't, but at least in pve it doesn't matter so much.

 

[Duram]

This list is going to be too big. Way to big.

It would be a little bit smaller if you change that OR to a AND.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I'm not a great fan of random, aside from small variances based on known variables which encourage additional thought and minor gambling, but when things get too random it annoys me greatly. Let's compare a few games to illustrate the point:

Medieval: Total War versus Civilisation III. With M:TW you always have the same map but can choose a different nation. I really, really enjoyed this game but it has limited life, at some point there's little point repeating the process. Civilisation III I don't enjoy so much, but play it more, because it has more variables and an almost inexhaustible supply of new scenarios via tweaking options. So if I was stuck on a desert island with just one game for eternity, I'd go for Civilisation III, even though it's random is mostly infuriating but if I wanted to buy a new game that I could have a strong memorable experience with I'd go for M:TW. I'd rate C3 as an imbeween game to play while waiting for a new cool game to play and M:TW as a cool game.

Likewise for King's Bounty: The Legend versus Heroes of Might and Magic III or Icewind Dale versus Diablo/clones. KB:tL and ID are cool games, where as HoMaM and D/c are just excellent fillers, and it's the random which is the main factor in this viewpoint. Ideally I like to play games which don't make me rage, the rage from random is just a side-effect or downside to the longevity of replayability.

This kind of viewpoint won't be the same for everyone because, as you suggest, some people simply enjoy the masochism. It's very rare to find a game that provides both eternal random plus predictable scenarios/combat etc, just another reason why Chess manages to remain so popular, even in a booming games market, it's still quite unique in this field.

I was playing MOO2 earlier and it dawned on me one of hte reasons I like it is because of the customizeable races and how difficult it's to know whether a setup will be good or not without actually playing it. Now, the thing which came to my mind was how difficult it might be to design all of it. See, ideally, every customization option would be perfectly balanced, so that no matter what your selections, there's a winning strategy. But the reality is many of the available customizations are only distantly balanced and quality tested. The job of figuring out whether a selection is balanced or otherwise valid, lies at least partially on the player. And this is where I think the "magic" happens. Things happen which weren't balanced against. You can make or break the game.

Do you think "breaking the game" can be a reason some players play?

This also has ties with class balancing in RPGs and/or MMORPGs. Many players have expressed hostility towards overbalanced class systems. The admonishment is the overbalancing destroys the organic nature of it. When something is organic it's not perfectly defined, so results are varying and sometimes unpredictable. Paradoxically, this is what some players prefer.

Balancing a sytem perfectly needs numbers usually. Unless something is explicitly tied to a strict numeric system or classification system, so you know exactly what you're getting yourself involved in, you can't be perfectly sure what you'll get. For example, if I select "Omniscient" in MOO2 it'll show me all the planet/star information. While that's a real cool selection, it's not strictly numeric. When something isn't numeric or strictly classifiable, you can't compare it to other things reliably. Instead of a linear system which is more easily computed, you have something which is blurry and probably non-linear in nature.

(note that just because something is blurry-ish dosn't mean +1 farming or whatever is a worse choice)

Somehow I think unpredictability and non-linear outcomes are all tied into this.

 

[Norfleet]

Do you think "breaking the game" can be a reason some players play?

*A* reason? It's the *ONLY* reason. Victory is doing better than you're supposed to. Mediocrity is defeat.

 

[kyrub]

AI in original Eador (Genesis) was damn fucking gud.

A common myth? - What is good on AI in Eador? The units running at you like mad? AI is unable to take stance and let you come at it. Its units get stuck at obstacles, they don't time their attack. I have found AI in Eador to be extremely limitted, one trick pony. The game is designed so that we don't notice how little the AI was taught. (And the fact you cannot beat AI on impossible is given by its huge advantage, not by its capacity. The very fact you have to win battles without losing your units to win shows how exploitable the AI is.)

(Battle AI in Heroes of Might and Magic III is one of the best, on the other hand. It's absolutely no contest with Eador.)

 

[Grimwulf]

AI in original Eador (Genesis) was damn fucking gud.

A common myth? - What is good on AI in Eador? The units running at you like mad? AI is unable to take stance and let you come at it. Its units get stuck at obstacles, they don't time their attack. I have found AI in Eador to be extremely limitted, one trick pony. The game is designed so that we don't notice how little the AI was taught. (And the fact you cannot beat AI on impossible is given by its huge advantage, not by its capacity. The very fact you have to win battles without losing your units to win shows how exploitable the AI is.)

(Battle AI in Heroes of Might and Magic III is one of the best, on the other hand. It's absolutely no contest with Eador.)

I was talking about strategical AI, not the tactical one. Battles are shite, but they were just as shite in HoMM (any of them), Disciples series, King's Bounty and many other similiar games.

The difference is in HoMM the global map domination was a cakewalk. In Eador it's not.

 

[kyrub]

they were just as shite in HoMM

Far from that. HoMM 3 battle AI is one of best in genre and it is pretty efficient. It is the only AI that I am aware of that was programmed to think differently on various difficulty levels. The battle rules are classy, so well thought up to the detail and the AI can even use them against you. Strategic AI is poor, but it is hard to get ground in large battles when AI has advantage (if you don't use exploits like divided stacks). Sadly, the HoMM 3 spell system is a bit limited with many spells being not good enough options.

Strategic AI in Eador - it seemed a very linear game to me, but who knows, I admit I did not get that far to evaluate it. Repetitive and dull battles turned me away.

 

[Grimwulf]

Far from that. HoMM 3 battle AI is one of best in genre and it is pretty efficient. It is the only AI that I am aware of that was programmed to think differently on various difficulty levels. The battle rules are classy, so well thought up to the detail and the AI can even use them against you.

You must be kidding. Are you sure you talk about Heroes of Might and Magic III? Maybe some other game has HoMM abbreviation too. Because AI in HoMM was no different from any other AI of the genre - basically whatever you do in combat might as well be considered exploiting. Because AI can't react to basic child maneuvres.

Examples:
(battle starts in 4.16)



Or this one:



Come on, these are all over the place.