Many new players, it seems, do not practice diplomacy in an organized, coherent way but in a "spur of the moment" haphazard way. For example, an AI request will come up which asks you to "stop trade with someone" or "give tribute/help", "declare war", etc and I think many beginners just decide at the moment what "feels" best with no long term planning. But this isn't the best or most interesting approach.

What you should do, upon founding your empire and exploring the land is to see who and where the AI Civs are located and how powerful they are, then decide who is going to be your your long-term ally. Then using the F4 screen, figure out who another Civ that the potential ally really likes (and presumably that third civ likes back) that you also would want as an ally. Then you will attempt to (as much as possible) get relations between you and these two Civs as high as possible, forsaking all others when necessary. The key to remember is that you must ally with two Civs that themselves are extremely friendly to another thus avoiding the "trading with enemy" penalty and also the awkward situation where each ally asks you to war on the other! This usually but not necessarily requires you to have the same official religion as these other two Civs.

And that means that when they ask for reasonable tribute, you give it. That means when they ask you to stop trade with those outside the triangle, you do it. That means when they ask you to join in war, you do it if it is safe to do so (and it is a huge bonus to do it as it prevents the -1 you failed to help us in war but rather gives +1to4 for mutual struggle). Realize though that when you do that, that other Civ will be a lifelong enemy most likely but that okay. Of course, it means that relations with some of those Civs outside of the triangle will probably be irreplably harmed but it is much better to have strong friends and strong haters than to have everyone cautious or annoyed at you.

Now it is important to avoid having "backstabbing" or "rogue" or particularly warlike nations in the triangle. Although all AIs will backstab if you are too weak or present too much of a target (so in all cases having a credible military is a must), some do it much more than others. Montezuma and Isabella come to mind in most cases. Avoiding warlike civs is also good because you might otherwise be forced into too many wars and being a pariah nation yourself.

But it is important to also realize that you can shift or change the triangle as the situation unfolds. Unless you're playing with very few Civs, if you're playing with 8 or more, its unlikely that you have great relations within the triangle but all others hating you. Say you have a triangle with A and B but also have good relations with C and A also have good relations with C. You may then decide to have C in the triangle and drop B. So in this way, you can shift the triangle from time to time. But by focusing on two at a time, you will find the game proceeds much better than trying to equally please and equally displease everyone.

it sounds all great but what if someone in your triangle turns out to be your competitor?

Agree, that is not easy to keep a banlance between the "friends" and enemies"

No eternity firends and enemies. Sometimes u should change your positions.
it sounds all great but what if someone in your triangle turns out to be your competitor?

Good points. I realized on higher levels diplomacy and allies are the key to victory many times. I had to go to war across the pond to protect Hatty from being overrun by Catherine. Catherine was second to me in points and continued to gain ground and overtook me with each of Hatties cities she took.

Seeing this unfold was VERY disturbing so, I sent lots of help and went to War to protect Hatty and my lead. After re-taking several cites and returning them to Hatty, Catherine offered me peace. I made her make peace with Hatty as well and thus preserved my lead.

I had no intention to go to War at that time, but if I did not and I "let" Catherine kill Hatty and more importantly take the valuable cities and territory, I would have lost. Their continent was almost double the size of my puny island:D

This is a very fun game:lol:

I say to hell with diplomacy and just kill everyone! :devil:

I say to hell with diplomacy and just kill everyone! :devil:

Not an option on the higher levels;)

very good points! i'll practise these in my games.

it sounds all great but what if someone in your triangle turns out to be your competitor?

In that case, you shift to a new triangle as I have suggested. If you are have a strong friendship with A & B and find A turns out to be a competitor, find someone that B likes a lot (call that Civ C) and that you also have decent relations with and make B & C your new triangle.

On a somewhat related note, I should also point out that you need to check relations between A & B regularly. If A & B's relationship starts to sour, you may then be forced to shift to a new triangle as well even if you don't need or want to.

The other advantage that I forgot to mention is that with the triangle approach, you gain the benefit not only of the friendship with the other two Civs, helpful for your security and well being generally but also helps to enhance enmity of your enemies to your triangle allies.

Remember that there is a penalty of "you declared war on my friend" which the triangle approach helps greatly for you to take advantage of.

As you have very high relations with these two Civs (A & B), if a third Civ E declares war on you, both of your allies will automatically lower their relations with Civ E due to the negative "you declared war on my friend" penalty. This makes it a easier to enlist A or B as war allies against Civ E. Also Civ E now have more hostile Civs against it and this helps keep it in check.

Of course, sometimes (and it is fun when it happens), this approach will then cause some of those outside the triangle to form their own triangles and makes coalition style world wars more possible too.

If the triangle is enhanced by a common religion, you have good chances for a diplomatic win (assuming standard 6 opponents), I achieved my first on Prince this way.

Yes I agree.

I am in a game right now, granted only on Prince Diff but a custom map with 17 other Civs, but diplomacy is critical.

Early on I identified who I would be fighting and who was likely to stay a long time friend. Not only that, but be a 'viable' friend in the long run... not get killed off in 300 turns.
3 neighbors basically...Isabella, Peter and Fredrick. Fredrick was the obvious friend choice and 'buffer'. Isabella had to be taken out first then Peter.

It took a bit in getting this setup. I traded tech to Fredrick to make sure that he continued to like me, would go to war if I asked (I did the same in reverse) and that he would not get ram rodded by this neighbors. I did just about everything he asked except a few tech deals and trading for my Marble, but he would accept lesser deals instead. I didn't want him completing wonders before me ;)

It has worked out very well, we are currently on 'Friendly' terms and ranked 1st and 2nd and the only 2 Civs under the a certain religion which I founded :) It took quite a bit of diplomatic maneuvering, trading and going to war when he asked but has paid off many many times over. :)

I found that in higher dificulties (Immortal, for example), Montezuma will declare war to you no matter how far away he is, and how powerful you are. It is very annoying... :mad:

On a monarch game recently, I started next to Monty.

For that very reason, I rushed him

Thanks for pointing out the usefulness of a trade triangle. I had been kinda doing it but not quite so proactively. Course, I'm only on my second game of Civ IV so I'm still learning all sorts of things about this version of the game (some good, some not so good).

I found that in higher dificulties (Immortal, for example), Montezuma will declare war to you no matter how far away he is, and how powerful you are. It is very annoying... :mad:

I think this is true on any difficulty. :D

I usually play on standard maps with 18 aggressive civs on monarch so you can imagine diplomacy is very important. I agree that diplomacy needs to be thought through and planned ahead, and I think that your idea of a "triangle" is a good starting principle, but there is much more involved in good diplomacy. A couple of tips:
1) Most importantly, consider not just power in diplomatic relations, but also the leader's personality (if not playing random personalities). You will learn general principles from observation. For example, Montezuma can be bribed to attack just about anyone if you have decent relations with him, Isabella will despise you if you don't take her religion, and Mansa Musa will continue trading with you until he is furious.
2) Keep threatening agressive civs busy. For example, Monte is often behind in techs with a huge military. Bribe him with a tech or two to attack one of your competitors who doesn't like you much.
3) Keep advanced financial civs busy. These are the guys you are going to want Monte to attack. Otherwise, their economy will be booming and they will out tech you. By having Monte's hordes pillage their cottages, you can zip ahead in the tech race.
4) Try to pick allies in the middle of the pack. You don't want the strongest civ to be your ally (unless you think you can out space-race them or they have a huge population to help you win diplomatic) because with your help, they will only get stronger and it will be difficult to overcome them militarily since you will probably have few other strong allies. You also don't want the weakest civ as your ally because they won't be able to do anything for you.
5) Unless you found an early religion and plan to promote it, don't be afriad to not adopt religion right away. Often, it is a bad move diplomatically so be sure you know the Ancient diplo situation before adopting.
6) Plan ahead. Always be thinking about your next couple of strategic moves. If you know that you are eventually going to have to attack Cyrus to expand your empire, but are busy with other things, don't trade a bunch of useful military techs to him.
7) Always reasses your entire diplomatic situation when a new strategic resource is revealed. Usually this means Horses, Copper, Iron, Oil, and Aluminum. If an enemy has a resource on the fringes of their empire or none at all, they make a good target for quick action. On the other hand, if an enemy has several of the resource, they could become a threat to your power so either befriend them or prepare for a large-scale war.
8) Be dynamic. Don't be afraid to let go of friends if you need to or ally yourself with former enemies. But always check the diplomatic table before you make any drastic policy changes.

@Maltz and Poptarts and whomever,

I just finished my first game (played on noble), was Monty's neighbor, and he never declared war on me. He went back and forth from cautious to pleased. At the end, he became annoyed but I eked out a cultural victory before he had a chance to declare war on me. The game ended in the 1940's, he was amassing his forces on various fronts. He more than likely could have taken some cities, I played pacifism almost the entire game and had little military.

I fully expected him to come after me. I used the U.N. to mess with his civics but I can't say if that had an effect on his actions.

What are the various sources of positive modifies and negative modifies? Does someone have a list and how they work. As I understand it, "+X you trade with us" can give a "-X you trade with our enemy". and the Xs are linked.

religion
going to war with or refusing to help
yielding to requests for resources or tech
starting deals or canceling deals
longevity of relations

These are a handful of factors that will influence other leaders opinions of you. I don't know the specific values assigned to these variables but I believe time and severity of request may have an influence of the assigned value. Plus, if you refuse a civ the same request over and over, I believe the minus (-) reaction is cumulative.

I say to hell with diplomacy and just kill everyone! :devil:

What I've come to love best about reading your posts, Zombie, is your unerring sense of le mot juste.

OP: Excellent guide - I've been doing exactly the mistakes you noted, trying to keep everyone in the middle. Last game however I decided to try and get a couple of solid friends after miserably failing few monarch games in a row. Inland lake, Japanese, monarch: I start between Monty and Genghis. I decide to befriend the mongols, rush Monty but his neighbor Napoleon jumps in to help him.

To make a long story shrt, the war is still going on in 1300BC, Ghengis just arrived to help mop-up the strong French forces, Monty is down to 2 cities. Meanwhile, the third member of our triangle and 3rd overall, Julius Ceasar, with little help from me is in a war with the 1st ranked Huayna Capac (I'm ranked 2nd). I will probably send the Mongols at them too soon, with them beeing low ranked making it really easy to bribe them into any war.

This I hope will slow down the Incans enough for me to finish off the Aztecs and French. I think I'll need to keep the Mongols busy though or they might turn after me eventhough we're at +8 total. So far it has been my best monarch game (w/default settings).

I just started playing Monarch and have definitely come to these realizations that diplomacy is way more important now. Even on Prince, I could just outexpand the other civs and grab most of the important resources, and be way ahead the whole game (especially in military tech). But anyways, I've been wondering about the difference between civs asking for "help" and "tribute." In my current game as the Mongols, I went for Metal Casting fairly early (right after Alphabet) so I could leverage it for trade, and immediately upon finishing it Gandhi asked me nicely for it. What was strange about this is that he was in first place at the time, and was cautious with me. Shouldn't he be asking for tribute instead of help? Needless to say, I told him to shove it because this tech was my ace for a while.

I'm guessing it has a lot to do with the leaders themselves; someone like Monte or Izzy will probably ask tribute at the first sign of a military advantage, whereas Gandhi is such a peacenik that he'd ask nicely even if annoyed. I used to play random personalities, so I'm actually quite new to the default assumptions about leaders that people on this forum seem to throw around. Gives the other leaders more character, so I figured I'd try it. :p

newbie question: is there any reason this needs to be a triangle? what is specifically better about having 2 friends versus 3, or even 1? i suppose that if you're playing with only 5 civs you wouldn't really need more than 1 ally, but if you're playing with 15 civs 3-4 allies might be a good idea.

The biggest problem with trying to make 3-4 friends is their relationship with each other. You can't be friends with 2 civs that are "worst enemies". You'll get demands to stop trading with their enemy or join them in their war. I think that the strategy is good; pick one or 2 to be your GOOD friends. With more civs around (10+) you can have some that you can waffle on, don't give into their every demand, but attempt the occasional trades with.

From his description of amateur diplomacy, I think polypheus has been spying on me. Great post!

My one question is how do you work out the geography in time? It seems that decisions need to be made very early when I generally have no idea where these civs are. I don't see the point in choosing allies when you could end up without a neighbour to integrate. Paper is discovered too late and all leaders are unwilling to give away their world map anyway.

Is there a particular way to deal with this or do you just need to buy time?

In my current game I have two quality allies - Washington and Genghis Khan. I have tried to foster good relations from day one and things are going well. Caesar is also a good ally. Cyrus, the Incans and the Indians are diplomatically out of favour with the bloc.

This gives rise to a dilemma.

I am playing as Catherine on Monarch, epic speed, standard map. I have been crazy spamming cottages and my science and economy is strong I havea border with Genghis and Wash is close by. They are the 2nd and 3rd place after me. Wash has more land than me and Geng is in third place for land.

I have just got military trad. What do I do, attack my friends (and closest rivals) or plod on for a non military victory. This is the toughest decision I have ever had to make . Suggestions very welcome

First, i wanted to thank the original poster for his very valuable addition to the strategy forum. My friend, you pointed out every single mistake i've ever done so far, and showed me a very interesting and efficient way to survive in the upper levels of difficulty (that is, Noble for me, as i'm a newbie), even more interesting since it implies that military strategies are not the only viable ones.

@Fung3 : It highly depends on your style of play. Some like to bring war, chaos and devastation to the lands, some like to show how much they can be so technologically advanced, some like to show they have people skills.

If you're the warrior kind, destroy them. I'd recommand starting with your enemies, using your allies. It'll weaken your allies, and avoid the backstabbing.

If you're a diplomat kind, prove yourself diplomacy victory can be achieved. Be careful though, your competitor will be your arch-nemesis to the diplomatic victory. Whoever that is better be outside of your friends circle, so that your friends are numerous and neither have a doubt about voting for you.

Why don't you save your game, try one of these paths, and later try the other ? It could be interesting to see which one you're most skilled at, and which one you like most.

Why don't you save your game, try one of these paths, and later try the other ? It could be interesting to see which one you're most skilled at, and which one you like most.

Great minds think alike, that is what I decided to do. After work yesterday, after much deliberation, I decided to take the tech route to victory. Launched SS in 1859. My earliest launch date so far.

Tonight I will go back to that crucial save and build a vast army of Cossacks and destroy my rivals.

Any suggestions as to which support units to stack with the cossacks?

The reason I do diplomacy in the 'haphazard' way is that it is impossible to compile all the relevant information to a diplomatic situation once it has popped up on the screen. How do I know if I want to 'cancel all deals' with Cleopatra unless I know what the deals are and what she thinks about me and what she thinks about my friends? Tracking that over the game and over multiple sessions requires making tons of notes and visiting dozens of screens every 5-10 turns. No way.

The reason I do diplomacy in the 'haphazard' way is that it is impossible to compile all the relevant information to a diplomatic situation once it has popped up on the screen. How do I know if I want to 'cancel all deals' with Cleopatra unless I know what the deals are and what she thinks about me and what she thinks about my friends? Tracking that over the game and over multiple sessions requires making tons of notes and visiting dozens of screens every 5-10 turns. No way.
Took me a while to figure out, but you can check your advisors while another leader has popped up to chat.

Took me a while to figure out, but you can check your advisors while another leader has popped up to chat.

Could you share that with us, please!

The inability to check on the current trading/diplomacy situation prior to accepting or denying a proposal has been a source of great frustration to me. I wanted to be able to click something like 'I shall return in a few moments after consulting with my advisors', enabling me to take a look at'F4' and then return to the table to continue negotiations with the rival leader.

newbie question: is there any reason this needs to be a triangle? what is specifically better about having 2 friends versus 3, or even 1? i suppose that if you're playing with only 5 civs you wouldn't really need more than 1 ally, but if you're playing with 15 civs 3-4 allies might be a good idea.

With 2 allies, there are only 3 relationships you need to manage - your relationship with each of the allies, and their relationship with each other.

Add just 1 more (a diplomacy square), and you double the amount of relationships to 6 that need to be kept on good terms. This is usually unfeasible based on the cause-and-effect-looping nature of the diplomacy system.

I wanted to be able to click something like 'I shall return in a few moments after consulting with my advisors', enabling me to take a look at'F4' and then return to the table to continue negotiations with the rival leader.
dude, just hit F4 without answering the request. when you're done looking at the state of the world and exit the diplomacy screen your counterpart will still be waiting patiently for your answer.

dude, just hit F4 without answering the request. when you're done looking at the state of the world and exit the diplomacy screen your counterpart will still be waiting patiently for your answer.

Thanks buddy ! :thanx:

On a monarch game recently, I started next to Monty.

For that very reason, I rushed him


Hhahaha I love doing that.

Anyone ever get started inbetween the incas and the aztecs... it sucks.

I'm hearing a paradox here. Don't make one of your allies someone on your borders, but do spread religion to your allys to cement the relationship.

I generally Use one Aggro civ on my borders by spreading the religion to them, then I hope or send a dif religion to the other guy on my continent insuring the controlled war later down the road.

There's no paradox! Spreading religion and making allies are two different things. :)

If you spread religion to them, you have a couple of things going for you, especially if that religion is your state religion: you get to see what's in their cities militarily and they are more kindly disposed towards you. Not to mention, with the appropriate shrine built by a great prophet, you can reap money in off them. Double bonus, that. Anything that gives you clues and a diplo bonus is a plus. At least you'll be able to see what's coming if they decide to whomp you.

There's no paradox! Spreading religion and making allies are two different things. :)

If you spread religion to them, you have a couple of things going for you, especially if that religion is your state religion: you get to see what's in their cities militarily and they are more kindly disposed towards you. Not to mention, with the appropriate shrine built by a great prophet, you can reap money in off them. Double bonus, that. Anything that gives you clues and a diplo bonus is a plus. At least you'll be able to see what's coming if they decide to whomp you.


I'm not retarded but you might be.
I definitely WANT a war with one of my neighbors. When I spread religion I do it fast and drop it right in their capital. If their state religion is your state religion and you war with them you're in for one hell of a problem. diplomatically and with unhappiness in your own civ.

I'm talking about making civs without a religion adopt your state religion.

I'm not retarded but you might be.
I definitely WANT a war with one of my neighbors. When I spread religion I do it fast and drop it right in their capital. If their state religion is your state religion and you war with them you're in for one hell of a problem. diplomatically and with unhappiness in your own civ.

I'm talking about making civs without a religion adopt your state religion.

You did not point that out in your post, friend. No need to become insulting when someone is trying to answer your post. :rolleyes:

As for "making them", you can demand they do so if your religion is present in their cities. Having religion present in each of their cities gives you a line of sight so you know what forces to present against them; just dropping a missionary into their capital isn't going to tell you what's in every city. Otherwise, you can't really force the issue.

You did not point that out in your post, friend. No need to become insulting when someone is trying to answer your post. :rolleyes:

As for "making them", you can demand they do so if your religion is present in their cities. Having religion present in each of their cities gives you a line of sight so you know what forces to present against them; just dropping a missionary into their capital isn't going to tell you what's in every city. Otherwise, you can't really force the issue.


Sorry about that. Long week.

If you drop a missionary in another civs capital it spreads to all of their trade connected cities in only a matter of turns.

Sorry about that. Long week.

If you drop a missionary in another civs capital it spreads to all of their trade connected cities in only a matter of turns.

Np. :)

I've tried that and it doesn't seem to work for me. I wonder why. :( Anyhow, this ain't the proper place for that. It's about Triangle Diplo, not religion. ^_^

Great thread. Thanks.

I have always been a little unsure about how to handle diplomacy. I seems those I want to kill often want to be friends with me.

By the way, any of you having any backstabbing problems with attacking a long time friend (in Civ4). I dont like it, but before backstabbing them I usually get them to give me whatever tech they can. It s a mean game!

I'm fairly new to this game but i've noticed that certain Leaders are more likely to backstab than others, also, some leaders without the aggresive trait favour war more than leaders with the trait. Isabella for example.I hate her and i ALWAYS try to get rid of her ASAP if she is my neighbour. I have also noticed that it is sometimes good to have a Warmoger as your friend that way u have added protection from the bullies ;) .

Good thread, and comes at a good time for me as I'm using the 'triangle' approach myself on my first Warlords game. I have Huayna wedged on my border and have made an effort to befriend two middle-of-the-road civs on my other border. Spammed missionaries to my allies and have cemented a good relationship as we all are 'brothers of the faith' :religion:

It was just a matter of time, and sure enough Huayna declared war. Must of been those 'close borders' or something along those lines :king: That's okay, it just gave me an excuse to test the waters and drag my buddies into the conflict. I let my allies soften the cities up, then I followed up and took em'. This whole approach is working out rather nicely! And I'm getting a unit up to Lv5 xp so I can build WP, bonus.

For the longest time I tried to either be nice to everyone or screw em' & war with everyone. Something in the middle seems to be a better approach, especially when you start to up the difficulty levels.

Anyway, thanks all for the great thread & input :cool:

Perhaps I missed it, or perhaps it wasn't stated.....

Do you consciously try to make sure that the triangle does NOT include the civ with the largest population?

I've had a few attempts at a true diplomatic victory ruined because I and the civ with the largest population had the same good friends. The votes would get split (or go in his favor), and I couldn't get the number I needed to win.

I find a lot of players fall into the bad habit of trying to be friends with everyone. I tend to start choosing my allies based on how I see the religious picture developing. And even then, I'm cautious.