It seems a lot of people find the diplomacy and AI in Civ V a little disappointing.

If diplomacy and AI remains much like it is in vanilla Civ V, will you consider the expansion pack a fail, even if it adds tonnes of new content and depth?

Diplomacy is getting fixed from the ways the articles are worded. It will be a "fail" for me but I will still play it for hours.

In a perfect world, addressing AI behavior would be the most important factor in determining the success of the expansion.

I'd say so.
AI and diplo are broken, and if they just add new features without fixing the game's major flaws the game will still stay broken.

No. In a game I play right now, the AI - and that includes the likes of Bismarck, Oda, and Augustus, have been nothing but nice to me the entire game. I played nice with them as well, and we got along just fine. I made a consession or two to my playstyle, but I think that the diplomacy can somewhat work. It worked like a charm for me at least.

I think the problem a lot of people have with diplomacy stems from a 'high up there' notion of how a good diplomacy should function, without taking into account that the programmers tried to make the AI more life like. I hate to break it to those guys, but 'life like' sometimes even means to make irrational decisions. IE, the AI attacks because it wants to attack. You may call it bad diplomacy, I call it very much life like.

The AI otoh is indeed a bit questionable. It works as it is right now, it just does not work very well.

I think the game as a whole suffers if the AI is not fixed, but it is highly unfair to say that the expansion.

I wish that the expansion will bring diplomacy on the game, yes.

No. I will stick to multiplayer. Unless G&K make things worse for mp.

I can imagine two scenarios: Let's say Hiwa and I both start in forest area and both adopt "forest" religions. Maybe you can build religion specific wonders, like the shrines in Civ IV. Assume you build it.

a) The way the AI is acting now would mean that Hiwa complains that my Totem is bigger than his, and DoWs me. I would consider that a fail.

b) Or the AI would recognize your common religion. Maybe you get shared bonuses from the existence of the hypothetical shrine. It would encourage mutual existence. If religion leads to a more reliable AI, that would be great.

I guess there is a wide range in how leaders will react to religion. Kind of like the difference between Isabell and Victoria in Civ IV. I am fine with that, since it would mean that religion does not dominate everything, but would mean that overall AI allies are more trustworthy.

I wouldn't consider the expansion a fail if diplomacy and combat AI aren't improved, but I would be disappointed.

Completely off topic:
Hiwa complains that my Totem is bigger than his
Certainly nobody would normally recognize that his Totem is smaller...
Gee, I need :help: Sorry for this, I just couldn't resist.

I welcome the return of religion and espionage. I am excited by the early reports about these features. However, I will wait a few days after release to see what the reviews from others are before I decide whether to buy.

The diplomacy is already a muddle. If you add two complicating factors (religion and espionage) without improving it, it will become an even bigger muddle. The backstabbing doesn't bother me; aggressiveness doesn't either. It is just too many AI diplomatic actions (including DOWs) are blindingly stupid and self-destructive; they bother me even though they often work in my favor.

I'm not just talking about how the AI treats me; they can't even tell who their major AI enemies are, and they squabble with each other while that enemy swallows them up. Adding more factors without fixing the basics would be a big fail.

The diplomacy is already a muddle. If you add two complicating factors (religion and espionage) without improving it, it will become an even bigger muddle. The backstabbing doesn't bother me; aggressiveness doesn't either. It is just too many AI diplomatic actions (including DOWs) are blindingly stupid and self-destructive; they bother me even though they often work in my favor.

I'm not just talking about how the AI treats me; they can't even tell who their major AI enemies are, and they squabble with each other while that enemy swallows them up. Adding more factors without fixing the basics would be a big fail.
This is the most likely scenario, IMO. Yet most of us will buy the expansion and will love it despite all the muddle. We are suckers for this game. :)

Well, the new AI (if there is one) will have to be able to cope with the new features and the challenges they present.

Its already been confirmed that the diplomacy and AI will be improved.

How much it will improve I have no idea however. I think the AI changes are mostly related to the combat AI, rather then the diplomacy though.

Well, even if the combat and diplomacy AI stayed the same, I'd probably play G&K quite a bit, so it'll be worth the money anyway, but I would be disappointed.

I don't think it is likely that we'll go from the current combat AI to something that is on, say, the level of M.A.X. (the first one), so it's probably best to keep one's expectations realistic, but I do believe there is room for reasonable improvement and I'm optimistic that we'll see that.

Diplomatic improvements are much easier and I'm certain of those. It isn't nearly as challenging to make the AI Civs behave in more interesting and less erratic (or predictably inconsistent) ways.

Civ5s issue with diplomacy is lack of variety. In the late game, there's not a lot to do other than to constantly scheme against each other. Gods and Kings might improve that by adding city states into the mix, as they will no longer just be a gold dump. There's also been various suggested improvements to the UN that they will hopefully look at.

As for Civ5 AI and how people perceive it, I already talked about it in length here just recently. The AI isn't broken in the sense that it's not working. It's working as intended. But if you come in with expectations of being able to bully, bribe and cajole AI into submissively sititng in their corner while you take over the world, go back to playing Civ4.

Civ5s issue with diplomacy is lack of variety. In the late game, there's not a lot to do other than to constantly scheme against each other. Gods and Kings might improve that by adding city states into the mix, as they will no longer just be a gold dump. There's also been various suggested improvements to the UN that they will hopefully look at.

As for Civ5 AI and how people perceive it, I already talked about it in length here just recently. The AI isn't broken in the sense that it's not working. It's working as intended. But if you come in with expectations of being able to bully, bribe and cajole AI into submissively sititng in their corner while you take over the world, go back to playing Civ4.

Exactly. Diplomacy should only be a minor mechanism, primarily for trading. The desire that some wants to control what the AI thinks or do in a game is ludicrous (as it was in Civ4), imo. We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage. But we also need more variety and choices that would entail both positive and negative consequences.

Yes. I want Civilization to be less gamey. I would like a bit more realistic diplomacy (no AI suicides into a much larger foe just to prevent him from "winning"), and I want the AI to be able to manage naval units better.

When I'm interacting with civilizations, I want to feel as if I'm interacting with a leader, not with a computer. And right now, I can't say that.

On a less important note, I would love if the gold-per-luxury trades were a bit more randomized (each leader wants a different price besides...240 gold?) It could be like 225 - 255, something like that. I dunno, would be a bit more realistic.

When I'm interacting with civilizations, I want to feel as if I'm interacting with a leader, not with a computer.

To what end? The only goal that a "leader" should have is to win or at least prevent the human player from winning by whatever means necessary. The weakness of the AI is that it does not know how to finish games effectively, allowing a human player that is way behind to get a cheesy win. (Or allow the human player to get way ahead because some feel they should step aside through diplomacy :rolleyes: ). The only purpose of having AI opponents is not give the human player a sandbox game but to agressively remove you from the game.

To what end? The only goal that a "leader" should have is to win or at least prevent the human player from winning by whatever means necessary. The weakness of the AI is that it does not know how to finish games effectively, allowing a human player that is way behind to get a cheesy win. (Or allow the human player to get way ahead because some feel they should step aside through diplomacy :rolleyes: ). The only purpose of having AI opponents is not give the human player a sandbox game but to agressively remove you from the game.

The goal of the leader should be to ensure the survival and growth of his civilization. Like real nations do. They shouldn't care if another civilization is trying to win unless that civilization is threatening to destroy their civilization. If they feel threatened, then they will actively try to undermine the threat.

I am a firm believer in an AI that does not play to win but to give the player an enjoyable playing experience.

Sure, the AI can have goals to achieve, but those goals should not be "build a spaceship" or "buy all city-states". Rather, the AIs should try to build up their score, secure more land, acquire allies and isolate enemies. Yes, that makes victories obsolete, but I think it will make singleplayer much more enjoyable to play. I for one think that the entire world declaring war on you because you have the highest score in the Modern Era is both mind numbingly frustrating but extremely unrealistic and non-immersive.

I can imagine two scenarios: Let's say Hiwa and I both start in forest area and both adopt "forest" religions. Maybe you can build religion specific wonders, like the shrines in Civ IV. Assume you build it.

a) The way the AI is acting now would mean that Hiwa complains that my Totem is bigger than his, and DoWs me. I would consider that a fail.

b) Or the AI would recognize your common religion. Maybe you get shared bonuses from the existence of the hypothetical shrine. It would encourage mutual existence. If religion leads to a more reliable AI, that would be great.

I guess there is a wide range in how leaders will react to religion. Kind of like the difference between Isabell and Victoria in Civ IV. I am fine with that, since it would mean that religion does not dominate everything, but would mean that overall AI allies are more trustworthy.

Actually the correct method would be
c) the fact that we have a shared religion means that if he declares on me OR I declare on him we get a penalty (happiness probably)... both the AI AND the human player must wiegh that factor when going to war.

Should they bother to represent differences and tensions between the same religion? I.e. Protestant and Catholicism, or Suni and Shiite (am I getting that right?)? Or just have a straight positive modifier for the same religion?

Should they bother to represent differences and tensions between the same religion? I.e. Protestant and Catholicism, or Suni and Shiite (am I getting that right?)? Or just have a straight positive modifier for the same religion?

That's what I hope they might do for the "enhancement" ie your version of Christianity/Islam etc. can either be the "Enhanced" or "Unenhanced" version.

Perhaps the "enhancement belief" is similar to the "founder belief"... the founder belief gives a benefit to the "founder" of the religion. The "enhancement belief" gives a benefit to the civ that "enhanced" the religion. (if a civ chooses to follow the enhanced version)

Exactly. Diplomacy should only be a minor mechanism, primarily for trading. The desire that some wants to control what the AI thinks or do in a game is ludicrous (as it was in Civ4), imo. We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage. But we also need more variety and choices that would entail both positive and negative consequences.

I think most people who play this game are more or less seeking for a sandbox experience. It's quite hard to lose a game against AI on this game, at least on non Deity levels.

No, because although neither are perfect right now, the game is still quite fun. Both could be better but they're in a decent state. The AI is still sociopathic at times, and they occasionally launch dumb attacks, but both are better than they were at launch. I've got 276 hours logged right now, and G&K will most certainly add a lot more to that no matter what, unless they really horribly mess something up.

The goal of the leader should be to ensure the survival and growth of his civilization. Like real nations do. They shouldn't care if another civilization is trying to win unless that civilization is threatening to destroy their civilization. If they feel threatened, then they will actively try to undermine the threat.

I am a firm believer in an AI that does not play to win but to give the player an enjoyable playing experience.

Sure, the AI can have goals to achieve, but those goals should not be "build a spaceship" or "buy all city-states". Rather, the AIs should try to build up their score, secure more land, acquire allies and isolate enemies. Yes, that makes victories obsolete, but I think it will make singleplayer much more enjoyable to play. I for one think that the entire world declaring war on you because you have the highest score in the Modern Era is both mind numbingly frustrating but extremely unrealistic and non-immersive.

While I can respect such a position, I feel that it is diametrically opposite of the purpose of playing games and engaging in competition. To me, the joy and satisfaction of playing comes from earning a well-fought (metaphorically speaking) victory through effective decision-making, wits and intelligence (along with a little bit of RNG luck for variety). A well-fought game in which you lose can also be purposeful if you can learn from your mistakes and what to do better next time. Both applies to games and to real-life.

I've been playing Civ for 16 years now and feel that Civ5 is the best one yet. But it is very frustrating to 1) get a cheesy domination victory via capital sniping (something I and others warned about prior to release); 2) opponents sitting on a pile of money and do not spend it on anything, particularly late-game city-states for diplomacy; 3) having a much more powerful military and watching you build spaceship parts and doing nothing about it; 4) acting like an ATM and making think you are actually earning all that gold; and 5) an AI opponent that can only win by cheating or having poor human opponents.

If the AI can do any or all of these things more effectively, then playing on Prince would be the norm and we would have to come up with more effective strategies and better decision-making in order to move up the difficulty levels. Just like in real-life.

While I can respect such a position, I feel that it is diametrically opposite of the purpose of playing games and engaging in competition. To me, the joy and satisfaction of playing comes from earning a well-fought (metaphorically speaking) victory through effective decision-making, wits and intelligence (along with a little bit of RNG luck for variety). A well-fought game in which you lose can also be purposeful if you can learn from your mistakes and what to do better next time. Both applies to games and to real-life.

I've been playing Civ for 16 years now and feel that Civ5 is the best one yet. But it is very frustrating to 1) get a cheesy domination victory via capital sniping (something I and others warned about prior to release); 2) opponents sitting on a pile of money and do not spend it on anything, particularly late-game city-states for diplomacy; 3) having a much more powerful military and watching you build spaceship parts and doing nothing about it; 4) acting like an ATM and making think you are actually earning all that gold; and 5) an AI opponent that can only win by cheating or having poor human opponents.

If the AI can do any or all of these things more effectively, then playing on Prince would be the norm and we would have to come up with more effective strategies and better decision-making in order to move up the difficulty levels. Just like in real-life.

I agree the AI needs to actually Use its money well. (which means not paying for luxuries at all when it is at 20+ happiness)

Now that may mean changing the AIs bonuses (instead of less 'maintenance' costs of Gpt and Happiness, give it cheaper techs, units, and buildings.. so it is just as "big" as you are, but it can do more stuff).. that way me selling the AI a luxury for 8 gpt may actually be a good deal for the AI.. if it uses the extra happiness for extra pop that is "super effective" pop.

But that would be a Major improvement... AIs that actually used their gold to
1. buy units to conquer
2. buy buildings to shoot ahead
3. buy CS (although here the "bidding war" between two AIs is a dangerous possibility).. but if the AI was willing to buy CS away from someone much poorer than themselves.

4. only buy luxuries that they could use effectively (ie not when they have excess happiness)


The goal of the AI paying to win is a good one... the problem is they don't.
[I agree also agree Capitals shouldn't be 'sniped'.. the Domination win needs to be Control of all Capitals, and 50+% of all cities and/or population in the world... for 10 full turns]

Fail is not a noun. Failure is a noun, fail is a verb. So there is no way it can be a fail because a fail is not even a thing.

Fail is not a noun. Failure is a noun, fail is a verb. So there is no way it can be a fail because a fail is not even a thing.

Cool, but I think you know what the title meant.

Exactly. Diplomacy should only be a minor mechanism, primarily for trading. The desire that some wants to control what the AI thinks or do in a game is ludicrous (as it was in Civ4), imo. We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage. But we also need more variety and choices that would entail both positive and negative consequences.


Trading = diplomacy

In a game where trading is so much important gold is really powerfull making research agreements trading luxury resources away for gold or other luxuries for money.. All strong ideas;


However at a certain point in the game the Ai just doesn't want to trade anymore or even at the beginning so it basicly becomes a cash machine give some goods for gold with gold get research agreements or upgrade units and so on its more a ABUSE other then trading...

Because you know the Ai is going to backstab so why should we care about diplomacy we might as well abuse it as early as possible and thats what all people do at higher difficulties abusing the AI's gold ...

like you said :
But we also need more variety and choices that would entail both positive and negative consequences

If there was a option to maintain positif relationships so the human player has a choise face the diplomatic hit for a action in the game and lose gold bonusses and science or don't...its allready a bit in the game warmonger penalty However....

it doesn't matter what you do the AI just hates because there are so many random negatif modifiers from the start you basicly have no control over it...

Instead if there where diplomatic options in the game where you have to choose get a diplomatic hit and face the consequences and lose some trades like the warmonger penalty then the game would be a lot more interesting..


As the current system stands its more a abuse system then a diplomatic system

I completely agree with putmalk. sure the AI should generally play to win, but if they sacrifice the basics like having a powerful army and ability to use it to deter attacks, proper diplomacy to redirect hate and garner trade for a stable economy, i dont see how the AI is playing to win, because they will not be able to survive against another who put emphasis on early domination or landgrabs and cockblock the AI who might flourish late game such as those going for wonders or cultural victory.

settling and improving on lush lands should be the AI's goal, rather than beeline for wonders or cultural buildings, where all that turns wasted could be another 2 warriors and 2 archers that might have defended against a push from its neighbours.

yet with all that said, flavor still must be maintained. let each nation have their own focus only after that have achieve a certain standard with the basic mechanisms(militay, trade, science and general growth of the empire). only then should the AI focus on advanced concepts of victory(wonder spam, utopia rush, UN, space race, domination and so on)

with a good balance, the AI can definitely maintain a substantial defensive force, an economy that doesnt crumble on itself and yet still be able to play to win.

A definite yes from me. AI/Diplomacy is one of our biggest gripes in this community. If it still sucks after the x-pansion, there's going to be a huge uproar and revolt about it. Naval AI is the third thing on that list. If these issues are fixed, then the X-pack is worth the 30 bucks in my book, if not, I'm a Civ refugee to Europa Universalis III for good.

-Mark

A definite yes from me. AI/Diplomacy is one of our biggest gripes in this community. If it still sucks after the x-pansion, there's going to be a huge uproar and revolt about it. Naval AI is the third thing on that list. If these issues are fixed, then the X-pack is worth the 30 bucks in my book, if not, I'm a Civ refugee to Europa Universalis III for good.

-Mark

The AI has been sucking in Civ since the beginning yet you are still here? Huge uproar?? Revolt??? Give me a break.

The AI has been sucking in Civ since the beginning yet you are still here? Huge uproar?? Revolt??? Give me a break.

Take it easy and don't wet your pants in angst yelling at me. :D

The AI diplomacy is good, there is nothing wrong with diplomacy. The combat AI reaches a new low regularly.

My two combat AI gripes that Ive encountered are:
Suicidal Great Leaders
Suicidal Embarkation

Ive seen two great leaders in recent games parade unprotected through my vast territory... in wartime. If the great leader wont wait for reinforcements at least start a golden age.

When you declare war on me, and I have triremes flanking a narrow channel within line of sight, dont embark your most powerful units when they are defenseless! This happened at 2 critical moments, 3 units, all in the same map! I ragequit.. Im so insulted by the combat AI I will endeavour to make a bugreport lol, lets hope it gets fixed. Neither yes nor no for the poll.

Additionally I fear the AI hesitates when attacking cities. Ive been in defensive situations where Im sure Im about to lose a city, yet the AI units will stand outside and not attack only to lose momentum.

I cant understand why they left out the Diplomacy system that was in CIV IV. The new one doesnt work properly and you dont feel that you have any trustworthy allies beside you because they can change behaviour in an instant an become hostile towards you for no apparent reason. I hope they bring back the +/- system again. Otherwise i will not get hooked to the game like i was with CIV IV.

The AI has been sucking in Civ since the beginning yet you are still here? Huge uproar?? Revolt??? Give me a break.

Right in every civ the AI was not that great at combat.

In civ 4 I have seen the AI kill his hole stack just by atacking my city who has longbows :lol:


However diplomacy has been improved at civ 4 and a lot of players liked it and now they have taken a step backwards in thatv regards...

A huge resounding yes! Diplomacy is very very bad. The AI is very very bad. The AI naval AI is even worse than the other two. So I do hope they make big strides in the expansion.

We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage.

There is a difference between an AI occasionally trying to be sneaky or deceptive, both of which would be represented by what may seem random and inconsistent behaviour, and every single AI Civ acting as if it suffered from clinical insanity.

I enjoy being around people with flexible minds who are spontaneous and adaptive. I however do not cherish the company of folks who make a habit of smiling at me while they sit at my house and eat my food, and then randomly try to stab me with the steak knife whether or not there is even a remote reason other than being mentally imbalanced.

You see, the Civ AI isn't merely inconsistent, but predictably inconsistent. You know precisely what it will do eventually; that it will try and stab you with the steak knife.

You see, the Civ AI isn't merely inconsistent, but predictably inconsistent. You know precisely what it will do eventually; that it will try and stab you with the steak knife.


And we couldn't predict what it would do before?

The key difference here is the AI can't be bamboozled while you can bribe them into being your friends until you win.

The AI couldn't remember past its current turn in the past, this is probably the first AI we've had that hold grudges for an entire game and make bold face lies.

Yes, it changes the tone of the late game. And that's fine.

I must agree that the AIs diplomatic decision making is at an all time high. Ive played hundreds upon hundreds of hours and not met any bad diplomacy. Now lots of people complain about ludicrous AI diplomacy without any evidence: where are the bug reports?

I must agree that the AIs diplomatic decision making is at an all time high. Ive played hundreds upon hundreds of hours and not met any bad diplomacy. Now lots of people complain about ludicrous AI diplomacy without any evidence: where are the bug reports?

Wait! You mean CIV V has good diplomacy? Yeah if you only want to go to war constantly then its ok. But if you want to have allies CIV IV diplomacy system is the way to go.

CIV V remindes me more of CIV REV than of CIV IV and that is not good if you ask me. CIV REV is a good game for a console but on my PC i want more diplomacy actions. I want to have good diplomacy in CIV V but as it is now it aint good enough for many users.

The AI couldn't remember past its current turn in the past, this is probably the first AI we've had that hold grudges for an entire game and make bold face lies.

You are comparing the previous bad AI to the current bad AI and conclude that being bad is better than being bad.

When people ask or express hope for an improved AI, they are not asking for the AI to be like in Civ4, you see. I don't see how an AI that reliably fabricates reasons to not like you and then never forgets it throughout the game is more desirable than an AI that doesn't remember what happened three turns in the past.

Or differently put: With the AI as it is currently in Civ5 it does not matter what you do or don't do, but in a well-designed game your actual actions should matter.

The AI coming to your continent, settling next to your city that had been there for a thousand years and then, every single time, hating your guts for "settling near us" until the end of time isn't any better than an AI whose city you wiped out five turns ago and is now your best buddy because you sent them one gold piece.

There are colours other than black and white.

Compared to Civ4, "diplo" on Civ5 is super easy to handle. In IV it was rarely possible to be on good relations with everyone. When you wanted to be friends or even trade with some civ, you usually pissed off some other civs, so you needed careful planning. On V it's easy to be on good relations with most or every civs and therefore get lucrative deals with anyone without any real costs. All you need is to not make some obvious mistakes. Of course they will backstab you occasionally and you may lose a research agreement or two, but it's not a big deal. Once you start your conquering spree with superior technology etc, everyone starts to hate you, but it's too late for them.

Or differently put: With the AI as it is currently in Civ5 it does not matter what you do or don't do, but in a well-designed game your actual actions should matter.
.

Exactly to be honest why would they add denouncement system and decleration of friendship if the AI is designed to win.

Its pretty obious they screwed up...


My main problem is civ 5 Ai stands in no mans land it wants to win the game but olso gives the player diplomatic options whats the deal here?


Most options in the game doesn't matter and if you can bassicly ignore them not a good game design

And we couldn't predict what it would do before?

The key difference here is the AI can't be bamboozled while you can bribe them into being your friends until you win.

The AI couldn't remember past its current turn in the past, this is probably the first AI we've had that hold grudges for an entire game and make bold face lies.

Yes, it changes the tone of the late game. And that's fine.

Once again, I agree. I haven't experienced anything that we couldn't overcome. Being predictably inconsistent is much better than being predictable (ala Civ4). And being inconsistent is much better than an AI being passive.

I must agree that the AIs diplomatic decision making is at an all time high. Ive played hundreds upon hundreds of hours and not met any bad diplomacy. Now lots of people complain about ludicrous AI diplomacy without any evidence: where are the bug reports?

I haven't either. Some will remain friendly throughout the game, some will be fake friendly and some will be hostile. Why would anyone going into a game knowing how your opponents are going to play against you. As far as ganging up against you, they don't do that very well and wish they do better. Gives us some challenges as oppose to letting them stand aside and watch you win.

I must agree that the AIs diplomatic decision making is at an all time high. Ive played hundreds upon hundreds of hours and not met any bad diplomacy. Now lots of people complain about ludicrous AI diplomacy without any evidence: where are the bug reports?

If you declare two wars, your a warmonger and repeatedly denounced, attack and capture a city state, and your an international outlaw. *scoff* It might be ok if there was a real chance one human civ could defeat 16 AI civs at once. However the AI civs can attack city states and declare as many wars as they want on other AI civs or the human player, with no penalty, certainly no warmonger penalty that lasts the entire game. There is your proof the system is broken.

And dude there is no program bug. Its simply just a badly thought out diplomatic system. In any case it does not matter. In Gods and Kings it will be sorted out. In the meantime, you can stick to CiV vanilla if you care that much for the current broken, unrealistic political system. As for me, I like my games to evolve into something better. I do hope the expansion exceeds my expectations.

Wait! You mean CIV V has good diplomacy? Yeah if you only want to go to war constantly then its ok. But if you want to have allies CIV IV diplomacy system is the way to go.

CIV V remindes me more of CIV REV than of CIV IV and that is not good if you ask me. CIV REV is a good game for a console but on my PC i want more diplomacy actions. I want to have good diplomacy in CIV V but as it is now it aint good enough for many users.

I agree completely.

I believe most complaints come from the fact that all relationships decay over the course of a game, and two big empires will rarely stay friendly in the endgame (though it does happen), since both of them are trying to "win", which isn't very immersive.

@nokmirt: it is possible to DoW 2 or 3 times and still keep good relations with most empires. Invading a CS is suicide, unless you are alone in your continent. Note that civs that you haven't met before your dastardly deeds don't know about them, so playing in continents actually eases this problem: you can go medieval on your neighbours before the renaissance and still not suffer that much for your diplomacy. And a couple civs don't care that much about your warmongering, so there's that too.

I voted with yes.
But i can handle diplomacy. For sure you can make a friend in one turn to an enemy without threaten them.( but i can live with this system)
But the ai needs some rework.
Hopefully this will be changed.

I prefer the Civ V diplomatic system to Civ IV's. It does work if you play by the rules.

Civ V diplo being broken is an OPINION, not fact. The only people complaining about the diplo are the ultra competitive minority. The majority of players, IMO, like having a somewhat unpredictable AI opponent. A system where the +1 and -1 modifiers are hidden from sight is better. It rewards players for playing the game, playing alot, and getting a feel for what the AI likes and dislikes.

The biggest problem with the game is naval warfare and ridiculous research agreements that turn 300 gold into thousands of beakers.

I believe most complaints come from the fact that all relationships decay over the course of a game, and two big empires will rarely stay friendly in the endgame (though it does happen), since both of them are trying to "win", which isn't very immersive.

@nokmirt: it is possible to DoW 2 or 3 times and still keep good relations with most empires. Invading a CS is suicide, unless you are alone in your continent. Note that civs that you haven't met before your dastardly deeds don't know about them, so playing in continents actually eases this problem: you can go medieval on your neighbours before the renaissance and still not suffer that much for your diplomacy. And a couple civs don't care that much about your warmongering, so there's that too.

Well thats good news because I am playing until the medieval era in a large domination game.

I prefer the Civ V diplomatic system to Civ IV's. It does work if you play by the rules.

Civ V diplo being broken is an OPINION, not fact.

The issue is that you should not have to follow any rules to placate the AI. The AI civs certainly follow no rules themselves. On top of that we are humans not automatons. Each game should have its own apparent strategy which unfolds from unseen changes as the game progresses. With the current diplomacy system the AI is simply static and does the same old thing game in and game out. Yes, according to most reviews, it is said it tries to win, but very foolishly. In fact it seems to make such stupid decisions, I wonder if the AI has actually been programmed to lose? The way it acts seems to cause me to think it has no chance to win in the end. In fact going one step further, the AI does not really know what winning or losing is, it simply does with no reasoning at all. This will change in G&K hopefully.

Well there are a couple interlinked problems here

1. People want an AI designed to win so it provides a challenge, yet they also want an AI designed to act like a "real civ".

2. The AI is crappy at playing the game.

#2 is a serious problem, the combat AI + AIs use of its gold is very terrible, and other parts of the AI are definitely underwhelming.

This compounds #1. what happens when the AI doesn't use its resources well is the designers take up the slack by making it behave "realistically" even if "Realistic" is nothing a human player would do and is extremely exploitable.

The overall goal should be

1. Game rules that make "game winning" behavior = "realistic feeling" behavior (ie winning is most effectively done in a way that a 'real civ' would do it)

2. AI, both in behavior and accounting for handicaps, that does what a 'sensible' human player should do (not necesarily 'smart' that would be hard, but sensible.)

So for "realistic" diplomacy, have consequences to acting unrealistically in the game rules rather than in the AI. (Civ 4 had a little of this, you add extra unhappiness in cities of a religion if you attacked a civ that followed that religion)

Well there are a couple interlinked problems here

1. People want an AI designed to win so it provides a challenge, yet they also want an AI designed to act like a "real civ".

2. The AI is crappy at playing the game.

#2 is a serious problem, the combat AI + AIs use of its gold is very terrible, and other parts of the AI are definitely underwhelming.

This compounds #1. what happens when the AI doesn't use its resources well is the designers take up the slack by making it behave "realistically" even if "Realistic" is nothing a human player would do and is extremely exploitable.

The overall goal should be

1. Game rules that make "game winning" behavior = "realistic feeling" behavior (ie winning is most effectively done in a way that a 'real civ' would do it)

2. AI, both in behavior and accounting for handicaps, that does what a 'sensible' human player should do (not necesarily 'smart' that would be hard, but sensible.)

So for "realistic" diplomacy, have consequences to acting unrealistically in the game rules rather than in the AI. (Civ 4 had a little of this, you add extra unhappiness in cities of a religion if you attacked a civ that followed that religion)


It would olso help the combat Ai if it doesne't declare war against 4 targets and have to fight a 2 front war

It would olso help the combat Ai if it doesne't declare war against 4 targets and have to fight a 2 front war

Hey its just trying to win don't you know? :rolleyes: :lol: I'll tell you about the AI civs with friends like that, I don't need friends.:eek: The philosophy is that its hands down the best diplo system ever, it works they say. But you have to follow certain rules. :crazyeye: Ha! Damn if I will! :lol:

The poll is in favor more and more for the "yes" choice.

The question is misleading. "If diplomacy AND AI is unchanged will G&K be a failure?" is a broad question. Like I already said, the diplo already works, so if it stays the same its all good. However, the AIs ability to use gold to try to win and its ability to conduct war in and over the oceans is quite poor. If that doesn't improve I would be disappointed.

I voted no because I thought the question was only about the diplomacy, but I could see how many people would take other aspects of the AI into consideration when voting.

The question is misleading. "If diplomacy AND AI is unchanged will G&K be a failure?" is a broad question. Like I already said, the diplo already works, so if it stays the same its all good. However, the AIs ability to use gold to try to win and its ability to conduct war in and over the oceans is quite poor. If that doesn't improve I would be disappointed.

I voted no because I thought the question was only about the diplomacy, but I could see how many people would take other aspects of the AI into consideration when voting.

I didn't think the question was misleading at all, and you should be a bit more careful about posting your opinion as fact. (I bolded that bit)

The question is misleading. "If diplomacy AND AI is unchanged will G&K be a failure?" is a broad question. Like I already said, the diplo already works, so if it stays the same its all good. However, the AIs ability to use gold to try to win and its ability to conduct war in and over the oceans is quite poor. If that doesn't improve I would be disappointed.

I voted no because I thought the question was only about the diplomacy, but I could see how many people would take other aspects of the AI into consideration when voting.

Really diplomacy works hmm so thats why there are so many threats like this and others that complain or point out major problems with the AI

If you declare two wars, your a warmonger and repeatedly denounced, attack and capture a city state, and your an international outlaw. .


I've heard this before, maybe it was you saying it, but what is your source for the 1 free war thing?

There are the .XML categories for AI's opinion on warmonger status. It is NOT an on-off switch.

The higher the number the more they hate you.
Warmonger (They believe you are a warmonger)
Critical 100 Severe 70 Major 40 Minor 15 None

There are also specific opinion modifiers like capturing capitals +80 enmity, and reckless expansion +35 enmity (though this could also be related to settlement)

I don't doubt the game could keep track the number of wars you start. But it's certainly not an on-off switch.

Also, using a defensive war to expand, which was a popular exploit from Civ3/civ4 days as the human wouldn't get dinged with a warmonger penalty, no longer works. As you capture more and more cities, you could acquire land the AI wants and they will still hate you for it.

Land (They covet our land)
Fierce 30 Strong 20 Weak 10 None -6




Oh and maybe people weren't aware of this. Killing a city state is like eliminating a Civ. It's never practical to kill more than a few. In most games I kill none.

as for your comment of the AI not following 'rules' play a game with info-addicit mod. It has an international diplomacy tooltip that shows you the AI's opinion on each other, and they very clearly follow the same rules.

On topic. Where's your source for the 1 free war in Civ5? There's nothing in the .XML as of last August, and we havent had a major patch since.

Here's my study of the .XML
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=439101


This thread has made it amply clear that people continue to use Civ4 logic to judge Civ5 diplomacy. Which while not perfect and needs work in several areas, is being vastly undersold.

Really diplomacy works hmm so thats why there are so many threats like this and others that complain or point out major problems with the AI

First of all, AI is a broad subject. combat/economic/diplomacy. Thread title is vague and people are generally complaining about everything. And this isn't new. I've been writing about AI since Civ3 days and ways to improve it.

combat AI for Civ has always been terrible, I think the difference is you have a group of people looking back at the old games with rose colored glasses thinking grass was greener. It wasn't. Civ4 was just a very refined game with the stacking system with a lot of limiting rules to hide the AI's weakspots. I suspect Civ6 , if 1upt is kept, will add new restrictions on how units can be used/moved to hide AI's weakness in this area.

Diplomacy is just different. I don't really blame people for not getting it, Firaxis has done a poor job of documenting it through interviews/previews and the in-game tooltips suck. They need to get infoaddict style features into the expansion. I recommend people play a game or 2 with infoaddict mod, the game keeps track of a lot of things, behind the scenes and the mod shows you that data. None of it will give you an advantage. Just more graphs and charts rather than the game's vague default tools.

I've heard this before, maybe it was you saying it, but what is your source for the 1 free war thing?

No, its not just me saying it this topic came out ages ago. Along with the understanding that you have to play a certain way. If you declare wars or attack a city state you will gain the envitable "WARMONGER" status, which lasts the entire game. This is common knowledge. Also do not be so keen on the XML. There have been several posts in the past saying it is suspect and remains unfinished. Much of it does not work properly. And I like your example of an on/off switch explaining CiV diplomacy. Yes, you are absolutely right, if you do a certain thing, the switch goes on and you become a dreaded warmonger. However the switch only turns on for the human player, not the AI. It can attack as many city states as it wants, and declare as many wars as it wants too, WITHOUT PENALTY. I have seen it in my games time and time again. And does some pop up come on the screen asking if I want to regard a certain belligerent AI civ as a warmongering menace to the world? NO!!!! Now I ask you is that fair???? Hmmm!!!???

No, its not just me saying it this topic came out ages ago. Along with the understanding that you have to play a certain way. If you declare wars or attack a city state you will gain the envitable "WARMONGER" status, which lasts the entire game. This is common knowledge.

IMHO, your giving people the wrong impression that a few wars will ruin them. Since you didn't know about how city states work, I will chalk it up to that causing your problems. But I've declared multiple wars without getting penalized for being a warmonger.

Warmonger status is not an on-off switch, ive gone several wars until I got that penalty in diplomacy, and only from the civs who hate me the most. Your friends will take a while longer to tell you they think you're a warmonger . A few wars, especially ones declared jointly with another AI, will keep you on the good side of at least half the AI in the game. If however you act a little instigator declaring wars on your own randomly Civ3/4 style (the old oscillation war exploit), then yes, the world will gang up on you. They gang up on other AI's civ who routinely do the same (Alexander, WuZetian, Bismark) those 3 civs, and a few others, love to wage merciless war against everyone if played by the AI, and they almost always get gagned up on. The upside of course is if you're on the receiving end of agression from the AI warmongers, the rest of the world likes you more and want you to join in on their crusade. The right answer is 'yes sir, we will join your war against X the warmonger'

Also note that attacking city states is a tricky thing. You get further penalized if they are under protection by AI in addition to getting penalties to killing the CS, which the game treats as a Civ. To the AI, killing a CS is tantamount to killing an entire civ. It's better to just leave them alone unless you absolutely have to take them over. Furthmore, you don't have to kill them. Attacking one under protection will get you demerits with the AI protecting them, and there can be serveral.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the one free war thing, it's something I can imagine them doing, but you haven't really responded to my question of where you sourced it from. If its too hazy, it could be old information or worse, wrong information.

Sigh. More rantings from people who do not understand or know how to play Civ5. Perhaps some just want to believe what they hear and will not listen to reason or real evidence?

There have been many Civ5 games played that have been fun, challenging, rewarding, competitive and interesting, particularly in their interactions (both diplomatically and warfare) with AI opponents. I'm playing a game right now in which every action (from trades to treaties and DoW) makes sense in the context of what has and is happening. For example, I had the Ottomans turned on me because they're the only ones on par with me militarially and saw that I might eventually take them on.

The game is very playable (but not perfect) as is, without any changes (they had come a long ways since the initial release). My biggest concern is that the stuff they felt they had to add for the expansion pack will screw things up and makes things worse. None of the previous Civ games were perfect and people are talking about G&K had better be perfect...OR ELSE??

I'm not a fan of civ v diplomacy. I tend to find I must war with my neighbours, we can never have a lasting peace.

Even when they have only 2 cities left they will fight me.

If I sign a defensive pact, the ai doesn't understand - it acts as no deterent.

Firaxis know this is broken, they have already said they will be improving it.

They have known its been broken for a long time, hence the minor improvements over time. Remember the pacts of secrecy and cooperation.

If Gods and Kings only fixed diplomacy, I'd still be a happy bunny!

I'm not disagreeing with you on the one free war thing, it's something I can imagine them doing, but you haven't really responded to my question of where you sourced it from. If its too hazy, it could be old information or worse, wrong information.

IDK read through the threads there are too many to list, this argument has gone back and forth like a seesaw. :)


My biggest concern is that the stuff they felt they had to add for the expansion pack will screw things up and makes things worse. None of the previous Civ games were perfect and people are talking about G&K had better be perfect...OR ELSE??

Well then its amazing, I really thought I'd tell you the wonderful news. Yes its great! You don't have to buy G&K. Besides the stress of a real finished game might be too progressive for you to take on. I know you have enough on your hands at your university for educating CiV delinquents. :lol:

Gee I wonder how he will like that post? LOL!

Keep in mind even if it is bad, its a huge step in the right direction. The thing is all that stuff, as you regard it, should have been there in the beginning. If it was what ever would you have done?

I've heard this before, maybe it was you saying it, but what is your source for the 1 free war thing?

There are the .XML categories for AI's opinion on warmonger status. It is NOT an on-off switch.

The higher the number the more they hate you.
Warmonger (They believe you are a warmonger)
Critical 100 Severe 70 Major 40 Minor 15 None

There are also specific opinion modifiers like capturing capitals +80 enmity, and reckless expansion +35 enmity (though this could also be related to settlement)

I don't doubt the game could keep track the number of wars you start. But it's certainly not an on-off switch.

Also, using a defensive war to expand, which was a popular exploit from Civ3/civ4 days as the human wouldn't get dinged with a warmonger penalty, no longer works. As you capture more and more cities, you could acquire land the AI wants and they will still hate you for it.

Land (They covet our land)
Fierce 30 Strong 20 Weak 10 None -6



Oh and maybe people weren't aware of this. Killing a city state is like eliminating a Civ. It's never practical to kill more than a few. In most games I kill none.

as for your comment of the AI not following 'rules' play a game with info-addicit mod. It has an international diplomacy tooltip that shows you the AI's opinion on each other, and they very clearly follow the same rules.

On topic. Where's your source for the 1 free war in Civ5? There's nothing in the .XML as of last August, and we havent had a major patch since.

Here's my study of the .XML
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=439101


This thread has made it amply clear that people continue to use Civ4 logic to judge Civ5 diplomacy. Which while not perfect and needs work in several areas, is being vastly undersold.



First of all, AI is a broad subject. combat/economic/diplomacy. Thread title is vague and people are generally complaining about everything. And this isn't new. I've been writing about AI since Civ3 days and ways to improve it.

combat AI for Civ has always been terrible, I think the difference is you have a group of people looking back at the old games with rose colored glasses thinking grass was greener. It wasn't. Civ4 was just a very refined game with the stacking system with a lot of limiting rules to hide the AI's weakspots. I suspect Civ6 , if 1upt is kept, will add new restrictions on how units can be used/moved to hide AI's weakness in this area.

Diplomacy is just different. I don't really blame people for not getting it, Firaxis has done a poor job of documenting it through interviews/previews and the in-game tooltips suck. They need to get infoaddict style features into the expansion. I recommend people play a game or 2 with infoaddict mod, the game keeps track of a lot of things, behind the scenes and the mod shows you that data. None of it will give you an advantage. Just more graphs and charts rather than the game's vague default tools.

The problem is that everything is hidden under the code there are a lot of modifiers that show up and the player doesn't know what triggers them its really anoying especialyl for beginner player's

A other problem is that these modifiers are extremely sensetive once you settled a few cities you get the settle penalty same with warmonger penalthy you sometimes get it even when you don't beeing a warmonger at all...

you sometimes get a modifier when it isn't true like you are building new cities to fast just because you conquered 3 new cities ...

A lot of these modifiers need to be reworked or at least don't make them that sensetive.

I'm not a fan of civ v diplomacy. I tend to find I must war with my neighbours, we can never have a lasting peace.

Even when they have only 2 cities left they will fight me.

If I sign a defensive pact, the ai doesn't understand - it acts as no deterent.

Firaxis know this is broken, they have already said they will be improving it.

They have known its been broken for a long time, hence the minor improvements over time. Remember the pacts of secrecy and cooperation.

If Gods and Kings only fixed diplomacy, I'd still be a happy bunny!

Well I am not the only one Allah be praised! :D

The problem is that everything is hidden under the code there are a lot of modifiers that show up and the player doesn't know what triggers them its really anoying especialyl for beginner player's

I agree and advocate them revealing more to players in a UI upgrade, but I think the bigger problem is the diplomatic lexicon players use.

We're used to the exploits and lexicon from Cvi3/4 diplomacy

oscillating wars ; attitude/reputation modifiers being used as a proxy for long-term memory ; AI not knowing or caring too much where you settle ; basic concepts of enmity related to shared borders (flat modifier ) ; no penalties for defensive wars that turns into world conquests; no penalties for wonder spamming; no penalties from the runner ups for trying to win

Civ5 turns all those in its head.
- AI's remember exactly what you've done for the entire game and remember past incidents.
-AI now wants certain tiles and they care about it if they don't get it.
-Some AI will care if you're trying to win in the same way as them.
-AI will care about wonder spamming
-AI's can no longer be fooled by defensive wars of world conquest. It's not the war dec that matters now, but how many cities you take and civs you've eliminated.

If you play with those in mind, it's not hard to have a reasonable diplomatic game.

Keep in mind even if it is bad, its a huge step in the right direction. The thing is all that stuff, as you regard it, should have been there in the beginning. If it was what ever would you have done?

I agree, all of the hundreds of features from the Civ4 patches as well as from Warlords and Beyond the Sword should have been in the game since the initial release of Civ4. :lol:

I agree and advocate them revealing more to players in a UI upgrade, but I think the bigger problem is the diplomatic lexicon players use.

We're used to the exploits and lexicon from Cvi3/4 diplomacy

oscillating wars ; attitude/reputation modifiers being used as a proxy for long-term memory ; AI not knowing or caring too much where you settle ; basic concepts of enmity related to shared borders (flat modifier ) ; no penalties for defensive wars that turns into world conquests; no penalties for wonder spamming; no penalties from the runner ups for trying to win

Civ5 turns all those in its head.
- AI's remember exactly what you've done for the entire game and remember past incidents.
-AI now wants certain tiles and they care about it if they don't get it.
-Some AI will care if you're trying to win in the same way as them.
-AI will care about wonder spamming
-AI's can no longer be fooled by defensive wars of world conquest. It's not the war dec that matters now, but how many cities you take and civs you've eliminated.

If you play with those in mind, it's not hard to have a reasonable diplomatic game.

Yeah but The problem with the : "-AI now wants certain tiles and they care about it if they don't get it. "

Is they see the entire continent as their land THis really needs to be fixed as I said some options are to sensetive. Or do you have a other opinion about it?

Same with warmonger hate its to sensetive

Yeah but The problem with the : "-AI now wants certain tiles and they care about it if they don't get it. "

Is they see the entire continent as their land THis really needs to be fixed as I said some options are to sensetive. Or do you have a other opinion about it?

Same with warmonger hate its to sensetive

Why is it a problem, You see the entire continent as your land.

You get nervous when an AI becomes "runaway" killing several others.

Shouldn't the AIs be concerned about a runaway human player?

Warmonger hate is an excellent addition, although it can use some enhancement... ie say +2 points per city taken -1 if you raze the city to the ground (no points if the city was founded by you)

With the current diplomacy system the AI is simply static and does the same old thing game in and game out.

This. Ironic when one considers the unpredictability of individual AIs.

This. Ironic when one considers the unpredictability of individual AIs.

So the old method of /random RNG rolls affected by broad 'aggressiveness' modifers subbing in for real in-games reasons to attack you wasn't predictable?

Ultimately no AI systems are perfect, but the one in Civ5 is, in its process, far superior to what we had.

It's also kind of strange that the new complaint now is that the AI is too predictable. Before it was "I can't understand what it's trying to do"

Yeah but The problem with the : "-AI now wants certain tiles and they care about it if they don't get it. "

Is they see the entire continent as their land THis really needs to be fixed as I said some options are to sensetive. Or do you have a other opinion about it?

Same with warmonger hate its to sensetive

That's a gross generalization. AI's have 2 tacts to hate you on your expansion.

-Those close to you who want your land will specifically say "covets your land" and this usually involves taking specific tiles the AI wants. Maybe a good city placement, or a natural wonder. I've had the AI go to war with me for a city by floodplains. The AI of course was Napoleon.

-Those far away who think you are getting too big for them to feel comfortable will say you are "recklessly expanding"

Those are not the same things.

It's rare that an AI will 'covet your land' if they're not near you. Open borders/scouting by the AI may cause them to want your land, but more often than not, an AI that is far-ish away coveting your lands is just being a dick and will most likely be a warmonger.

I completely agree with Dexters on this subject. The diplo in Civ V, IMO, is better than Civ IV's.

If you have trouble keeping friends in this game, then you are doing something wrong.

Yes, you are absolutely right, if you do a certain thing, the switch goes on and you become a dreaded warmonger. However the switch only turns on for the human player, not the AI. It can attack as many city states as it wants, and declare as many wars as it wants too, WITHOUT PENALTY. I have seen it in my games time and time again.

This too. I think some confuse the issue of individual AI diplomatic behavior with the issue of the overall game AI diplomacy. The Civ4 AI permitted the SP to play in a limited AI diplomacy fantasy world, while in the background it sought to prepare a killer AI to confront the human player. It would even try this with several AIs simultaneously in the hope that the human player couldn't knock them all down, and would fall back to the next best candidate for killer AI. Overall, a fairly intelligent approach to game diplomacy for a commercial production.

It's a myth that Civ4 AI did not play to win. It did, just not on the level of every individual AI, no matter how beaten down or pipsqueak. A beaten down AI that is allowed to live should know that it now doesn't have a chance in Hades to "play to win", and settle down to life as a vassal to somebody.

It is this DESIGN FLAW that has left such a bad taste for so many. OTOH, you know the average individual AI in good health is totally insincere when they call you "friend", because, well you know the story by now...they PTW. OTOH, some pipsqueak you just brought back to life in a "liberation" acts with a petulant arrogance as they make the human player the center of their hate world because - you know the drill, PTW. I just had this experience again when I brought Suliman back to life in a tiny tundra border town he had founded originally, because I didn't want to own it (and you know why, oh how the flaws of CivV pile upon each other), and the first thing the ingrate does is pop up to warn me against settling too many cities too close - cities founded 100's of turns ago who had not pushed a single culture hex! Hey Suli: I settled YOU in your present digs! Does the player experience have to be full of such mechanically gratuitous insults? Sorry, not well thought out at all.

This too. I think some confuse the issue of individual AI diplomatic behavior with the issue of the overall game AI diplomacy. The Civ4 AI permitted the SP to play in a limited AI diplomacy fantasy world, while in the background it sought to prepare a killer AI to confront the human player. It would even try this with several AIs simultaneously in the hope that the human player couldn't knock them all down, and would fall back to the next best candidate for killer AI. Overall, a fairly intelligent approach to game diplomacy for a commercial production.

It's a myth that Civ4 AI did not play to win. It did, just not on the level of every individual AI, no matter how beaten down or pipsqueak. A beaten down AI that is allowed to live should know that it now doesn't have a chance in Hades to "play to win", and settle down to life as a vassal to somebody.

It is this DESIGN FLAW that has left such a bad taste for so many. OTOH, you know the average individual AI in good health is totally insincere when they call you "friend", because, well you know the story by now...they PTW. OTOH, some pipsqueak you just brought back to life in a "liberation" acts with a petulant arrogance as they make the human player the center of their hate world because - you know the drill, PTW. I just had this experience again when I brought Suliman back to life in a tiny tundra border town he had founded originally, because I didn't want to own it (and you know why, oh how the flaws of CivV pile upon each other), and the first thing the ingrate does is pop up to warn me against settling too many cities too close - cities founded 100's of turns ago who had not pushed a single culture hex! Hey Suli: I settled YOU in your present digs! Does the player experience have to be full of such mechanically gratuitous insults? Sorry, not well thought out at all.

An AI that can no longer "play to win" can still not be helping the winner win. (which settling down as a vassal does).. Settling down as a Switzerland might be the better response.. focus on a 'losers club' where the beaten down help each other out, but not the big boys.

Now that doesn't mean they should declare wars that will hurt them much more than it hurts the winning player.

It also doesn't mean they should give up.. the tide may turn.

(now a "liberated AI" should behave drastically differently.. ie it really shouldn't play to win, unless it really gets ahead somehow)

BTW I know full well how to work CivV AI. ToFs were patched to allow temporary masking of warmonger hate. So if you judiciously set up your ToFs with the right AIs you can at least avoid a dogpile.

But there is really little else in diplomacy options for the human player. And, off the diplo topic but not unrelated, the modern era game is totally broken, stealth bombers, the UN, nukes, GS bulbs and all, as Wainy's America game shows. The One True Path To Victory is PorkTower + Rationalism RA + GS bulb to stealth. That means I just Tall Turtle until then, greatly simplifying the diplo game as I only need enough military to repel my inevitably hate filled neighbors (Hey guys, don't you see that I don't covet your lands, I've never started a war, no passive aggression - I don't want their cities! - etc. In fact, my future stealth bomber strike force (+ Paras, MA, RA, escort destroyers as necessary) covets the lands of that other guy on the other side of the world, but hey, he's OK with that, he doesn't hate me like You Whose Lands I Really Don't Covet does.)

Then when I get the strike force together it's like, "ARRROUGH (King Kong chest thumping)! I know all you have been secretly waiting to hate me! Well, bring it on, each and every one of you (and you know each and every one will)! ARRROUGH!"

Game over:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Well it would help if you didn't get the first thing wrong after saying you understand civ5 AI.
AI players do not offer DoF if they dislike you. Even friendly civs with concerns about your rep may still not offer DoF either.

BTW I know full well how to work CivV AI. ToFs were patched to allow temporary masking of warmonger hate. So if you judiciously set up your ToFs with the right AIs you can at least avoid a dogpile.

But there is really little else in diplomacy options for the human player. And, off the diplo topic but not unrelated, the modern era game is totally broken, stealth bombers, the UN, nukes, GS bulbs and all, as Wainy's America game shows. The One True Path To Victory is PorkTower + Rationalism RA + GS bulb to stealth. That means I just Tall Turtle until then, greatly simplifying the diplo game as I only need enough military to repel my inevitably hate filled neighbors (Hey guys, don't you see that I don't covet your lands, I've never started a war, no passive aggression - I don't want their cities! - etc. In fact, my future stealth bomber strike force (+ Paras, MA, RA, escort destroyers as necessary) covets the lands of that other guy on the other side of the world, but hey, he's OK with that, he doesn't hate me like You Whose Lands I Really Don't Covet does.)

Then when I get the strike force together it's like, "ARRROUGH (King Kong chest thumping)! I know all you have been secretly waiting to hate me! Well, bring it on, each and every one of you (and you know each and every one will)! ARRROUGH!"

Game over:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Fixing RAs and Great Scientist bulbs

and also

The combat AI in general + modern combat balance (Stealth and nukes should be good v. cities, bad v. units)

is definitely necessary.

I agree, all of the hundreds of features from the Civ4 patches as well as from Warlords and Beyond the Sword should have been in the game since the initial release of Civ4. :lol:

Indeed your right. Why did they unlearn what they learned from the last game? There was a thread saying that when they developed CiV, it stated that they left a lot out that was supposed to be added to the game, because of time constraints. This happens to games time and time again. Money is the deciding factor, not quality. All of this has been speculated over time on here. Its hard to say what is true or not. I remain skeptical about all these rumors. I do know there is an expansion coming out and some basic details. At least that I can depend on. Your point is certainly valid and well taken however. :)

It is this DESIGN FLAW that has left such a bad taste for so many. OTOH, you know the average individual AI in good health is totally insincere when they call you "friend", because, well you know the story by now...they PTW. OTOH, some pipsqueak you just brought back to life in a "liberation" acts with a petulant arrogance as they make the human player the center of their hate world because - you know the drill, PTW. I just had this experience again when I brought Suliman back to life in a tiny tundra border town he had founded originally, because I didn't want to own it (and you know why, oh how the flaws of CivV pile upon each other), and the first thing the ingrate does is pop up to warn me against settling too many cities too close - cities founded 100's of turns ago who had not pushed a single culture hex! Hey Suli: I settled YOU in your present digs! Does the player experience have to be full of such mechanically gratuitous insults? Sorry, not well thought out at all.

In my current game I have had two declarations of friendships which I agreed upon. One by the Ottomans, the other Spain. Four turns later the Ottomans starting dogpiling units in my territory, here take a look at this.http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11289813&postcount=17

Then later Spain declares war as well. I am not even the aggressor the Ottomans are. The reason I am showing the thread about my game is to prove that the AI does the things people on here do not believe it does. The other fishy thing is that the Ottomans attacked blatantly. Then all of the sudden they want me to give them peace after they sack my city of Najran. They were saying if I keep fighting them the world will grow to hate me. What else is new? LOL! Its crazy they are the bad guys not me. As for Spain they had no backbone either and asked for peace 4 or 5 turns later and we went on trading as if nothing happened. If you talked to Spain now they would not remember us fighting at all. The current AI remembers everything my eye. I am glad they are fixing diplomacy. What a headache its been.

dexters:
Your link to the thread on the .XML (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=439101) sounds interesting. For some reason I'm blocked from viewing it though (I lack necessary access or something). Why?

So the old method of /random RNG rolls affected by broad 'aggressiveness' modifers subbing in for real in-games reasons to attack you wasn't predictable?

Ultimately no AI systems are perfect, but the one in Civ5 is, in its process, far superior to what we had.

It's also kind of strange that the new complaint now is that the AI is too predictable. Before it was "I can't understand what it's trying to do"



That's a gross generalization. AI's have 2 tacts to hate you on your expansion.

-Those close to you who want your land will specifically say "covets your land" and this usually involves taking specific tiles the AI wants. Maybe a good city placement, or a natural wonder. I've had the AI go to war with me for a city by floodplains. The AI of course was Napoleon.

-Those far away who think you are getting too big for them to feel comfortable will say you are "recklessly expanding"

Those are not the same things.

It's rare that an AI will 'covet your land' if they're not near you. Open borders/scouting by the AI may cause them to want your land, but more often than not, an AI that is far-ish away coveting your lands is just being a dick and will most likely be a warmonger.

Where did you get the information that warmonger hate is related to capturing cities because a other poster on this forum posted a big post that warmonger rate is only related to 2 things:

declaring war and eliminating civs. did you experienced it in you're game differently?

this is the post :

Here's how the system works (based on XML variables and study of logs):

Civ B is evaluating Civ A's actions and assigns them a warmonger score. These scores are dependent on Civ B's personality as follows:

temp = 5 * (declarations against majors) + 10 * (majors conquered) + 5 * (declarations against minors) + 10 * (minors conquered)

WM score = (B's warmonger hate) * temp

Notice that the only actions considered are declarations of war and the final blow in conquering a civ. I am certain that these are the only two things considered, city conquering if it is not the last city does not make any difference at all. Also notice that Majors and Minors are considered exactly the same. These actions are only considered if B knows A and the third party at the time the event occurs I believe. Defensive pacts, coop declarations, who they're at war with - all of those things are irrelevant currently, your warmonger rating goes up regardless.

Leader warmonger hate variables range from 1 (Monte) to 8 (Ramk), with a mean and median of 5. Including all DLC, the current distribution is really just limited to 4 through 7:

1: 1 leader
2: 1
3: 1
4: 6
5: 5
6: 5
7: 4
8: 1

"Defenders of the Free World" (7 and up): Ramk, Gandhi, Elizabeth, Washington, Kamehameha
"Do what you like" (3 and under): Montezuma, Alexander, Napoleon

In any given game, these warmonger hate variables are adjusted up or down by up to 2 points (as are all AI personality variable). Then, the WM score above is compared against a series of thresholds to determine the effect on Civ B's opinion of Civ A.

Critical: WM score >= 200 --> -100
Severe: >= 150 --> -70
Major: >= 100 --> -40
Minor: >= 50 --> -15

For reference, a Declaration of Friendship is worth +35, so once you get to Major you will have a very hard time keeping your friends. The "warmongering menace to the world" label will appear for any of the above levels, even Minor. It is not necessarily shown by all leaders who think it, certainly not by deceivers and maybe not by friends.

So, on average, a typical leader with a WM hate of 5 will just reach Minor if you:

1) Declare war twice, or
2) Conquer a CS or civ

Double either the above actions or do both and you get to Major. You really have to play very very nice to avoid getting this label completely.


That's what I understand of the current implementation. I really really hope they address this as part of diplo tweaking in a patch soon ... as it is, it's a real pain and WAY to sensitive for even standard size maps.

They should set decay values to warmongering - like they did in it Civ IV for all the diplo-relation affecting civ actions
Somewhere in the lines that it decays by 10 on average every 50 turns

Something to bear in mind is that most aggressive civs have a higher tolerance for warmongering while more peaceful civs are sensitive to it. So if you're surrounded by Alex, Monty and Napoleon and you declare on someone there's a good chance you won't be labeled "warmonger" but you will be if Gandhi, Rammy and Hiawatha are.

DoFs are no guarantee that the AI is not planning a backstab - every civ has a "deceptive" rating which increases the likelyhood of backstabbing a "friend".

Check out Bibor's Strategy by Numbers thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=409062) for details.

In my current game I have had two declarations of friendships which I agreed upon. One by the Ottomans, the other Spain. Four turns later the Ottomans starting dogpiling units in my territory, here take a look at this.http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11289813&postcount=17

Then later Spain declares war as well. I am not even the aggressor the Ottomans are. The reason I am showing the thread about my game is to prove that the AI does the things people on here do not believe it does. The other fishy thing is that the Ottomans attacked blatantly. Then all of the sudden they want me to give them peace after they sack my city of Najran. They were saying if I keep fighting them the world will grow to hate me. What else is new? LOL! Its crazy they are the bad guys not me. As for Spain they had no backbone either and asked for peace 4 or 5 turns later and we went on trading as if nothing happened. If you talked to Spain now they would not remember us fighting at all. The current AI remembers everything my eye. I am glad they are fixing diplomacy. What a headache its been.

From the looks of InfoAddict, your empire was twice the size of the Ottomans, yet your army was half his size. His decision to backstab you seems like an easy decision. It is unfortunate that after he takes the first city he can longer sustain an efficient attack and fails. I do hope you denounced him as soon as peace was made to let the other Civs know how you feel about the situation. I'm sure there was another Civ that disliked the Ottomans for backstabbing you and would have appreciated the denouncement. Along with a gift I'm sure you could have made new alliances. I would need to know more facts about Spain before concluding why they decided to attack you too. Did you take Ottoman cities before peace was made? Your empire would have been huge if you did, and that comes off as a huge threat to the AI...rightfully so IMO.

Something to bear in mind is that most aggressive civs have a higher tolerance for warmongering while more peaceful civs are sensitive to it. So if you're surrounded by Alex, Monty and Napoleon and you declare on someone there's a good chance you won't be labeled "warmonger" but you will be if Gandhi, Rammy and Hiawatha are.

DoFs are no guarantee that the AI is not planning a backstab - every civ has a "deceptive" rating which increases the likelyhood of backstabbing a "friend".

Check out Bibor's Strategy by Numbers thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=409062) for details.

Lol peacefull ghandi rammy hiawatha dow as much as napoleon does at higher difficulties

Lol peacefull ghandi rammy hiawatha dow as much as napoleon does at higher difficulties

Who said anything about dows from those civs?:rolleyes:

Who said anything about dows from those civs?:rolleyes:

Then they are not peacefull civs

I think he's talking about an xml value, not your anecdotal experience.

fail might be a strong word but ill be VERY disapointed

From the looks of InfoAddict, your empire was twice the size of the Ottomans, yet your army was half his size. His decision to backstab you seems like an easy decision. It is unfortunate that after he takes the first city he can longer sustain an efficient attack and fails. I do hope you denounced him as soon as peace was made to let the other Civs know how you feel about the situation. I'm sure there was another Civ that disliked the Ottomans for backstabbing you and would have appreciated the denouncement. Along with a gift I'm sure you could have made new alliances. I would need to know more facts about Spain before concluding why they decided to attack you too. Did you take Ottoman cities before peace was made? Your empire would have been huge if you did, and that comes off as a huge threat to the AI...rightfully so IMO.

I do not think the Ottomans in this case made the right choice. He had no iron and frankly without it I could clean his chronometers, and did. The AI takes no heed of its real military capabilities compared to those of the human player. Sure, intially, he took a size 1 city from me, but I took that back and returned the favor by taking Ankara. The 2nd largest of his 3 cities along with his horses. He had twice as many soldiers, yet half the quality of troops.

Interestingly enough, after saying that he did have a lone rifleman unit, a village upgrade. A bit of luck that unit and he used it well, when I tried to assault his capital. This game is being played just until the medieval era, so typically there should be no rifles. In this case, my campaign turned into me trying to kill his rifleman and eliminate it from the game. I lost most experienced units doing this. He had it fortified in forest terrain. So I made peace, and have since rebuilt my army. The AI still lost an important city and got nowhere in his little war, which he started. As for me, I can easily replace my losses, and will be in a much stronger position to strike at his capital.

I agree though that I should have denounced him after peace was made. This I did not do. As a player I lack experience. I will keep this in mind next time that happens. At the same time I am not sure about Spain I will look into it next time I play.

It would be fail to me, although I'm not sure that diplomacy and AI are the worst game mechanics... But fixing those two would go a long way in improving the game.

I voted yes, but you need to understand that these projects are a lot harder than people realize so expectations need to be modest.

Particularly with the combat AI making it competent will be a huge task.

Diplomacy in this game is frankly already the best in the series, so not sure why everyone is so worked up about it. The old system was so broken and easy to game, this is more realistic.

@nokmirt - The problem with anecdotes like "I don't think the AI made the right choice" it is not testable, furthermore, the human player on the receiving end have immense advantages, in superior use of units, conservation of damaged units, and the reload option. Based on the infoaddict analysis, the choice was a fair one. You had a large empire with a smaller military. That's a classic case of overstretch and another AI with that confirgration would definately be vulnerable. And AFAIK, the diplo AI is human blind when it is deciding who to attack.

Not saying you reloaded or anything, but it's not really useful in a discussion about the AI to introduce that sort of subjective anecdote.

Where did you get the information that warmonger hate is related to capturing cities because a other poster on this forum posted a big post that warmonger rate is only related to 2 things:

Did I say that? I said capturing city states count as wiping out a Civ, and that the old exploit of turning a defensive war into a world conquering spree without having to DoW yourself is no longer diplomatically free.

The .XML values doesn't provided a flat penalty for capturing cities that are not capital cities or a city state, but then again it doesn't have to. The AI looks at a bunch of other factors as well, some of which we don't know about. This isn't related to 'warmonger' penalty per se, but it's not uncommon previously friendly AI become guarded or denounce you when it looks like your pulling away. And it could be any number of factors under the hood. Like score differential growth, or simply owning tiles they want that you had recently captured, so envy of the vanquished civ's land transfers to you.



this is the post :

Thanks for finding the post citing the 1 free war thing. As I noted, I didn't doubt it's something they would do, but the post is only an observation. Though It seems like a sound observation.

That said, it is worth noting it was made in July 2011, so it was probably based on the April 2011 patch. There was another big patch in August. I do not think the diplomacy got a huge upgrade in August but they did add another modfier "We have traded recently" which is a positive relationship modifier if you've given the AI a good deal. This can include free gifts, discounting lux for gold prices, and taking less than what the AI is willing to give up during peace negotiations.

I voted yes, but you need to understand that these projects are a lot harder than people realize so expectations need to be modest.

Particularly with the combat AI making it competent will be a huge task.

Diplomacy in this game is frankly already the best in the series, so not sure why everyone is so worked up about it. The old system was so broken and easy to game, this is more realistic.

Totally disagree. I'm winning Immortal easily without paying any attention to diplo at all. I'm just trading with everyone, making DoFs with everyone etc. without paying any attention who is hating who and so on. On BtS Immortal, diplomatic planning was an important aspect of the game. It's diplo on CiV that is easy to game, or to be more accurate, it doesn't exit at all.

It seems a lot of people find the diplomacy and AI in Civ V a little disappointing.

If diplomacy and AI remains much like it is in vanilla Civ V, will you consider the expansion pack a fail, even if it adds tonnes of new content and depth?

New content and depth will really renew my interest for Civ V. However, if the AI/diplomacy is not improved my interest will be gone soon.

It's actually the first time I consider pirating a game. Just to see if it has really improved, then buy it if it has. If it hasn't improved I'd probably not want to play it for long anyway.

Totally disagree. I'm winning Immortal easily without paying any attention to diplo at all. I'm just trading with everyone, making DoFs with everyone etc. without paying any attention who is hating who and so on. On BtS Immortal, diplomatic planning was an important aspect of the game. It's diplo on CiV that is easy to game, or to be more accurate, it doesn't exit at all.

You probably got lucky and scraped by the early game without being picked on. I've ended many games, even on emperor, just because I couldn't catch a break diplomatically. Most posters naturlaly would prefer not talking about that or how many false starts they've had before finding that winning game. Lo..

Civ5 has the most inconsistent starts in the last 3 entries of the franchise primarily because the the AI personalities are very strong and the diplomatic mechanics cater to the insider/outsider early diplomatic game. If you're in, you're ok, if you're out, well, hope you survive to brag about it. Also who you start next to or close to matters. If you're surrounded by warmongers, you better hope they are fighting each other.

Early DoF isn't 'easy' as you noted, it's a sign that you fell in the right clique likely due to your position on the map, immortal difficulty ensuring you're bottom of the pact in the early game maning none of the peaceful AI civs saw you as much of a thread, and random luck in who you drew near you. Nothing to do with your skill at all. And they protected you.

I have to wonder how many playthroughs you have had or if you're playing on modded games, specialty maps, or on settings you selected yourself to favour consistent easy starts to not clue in to the strong bias towards varied starts in Civ5. and for me, that is part of the challenge. I easily fail 4-5 in every 10 on my games ( random civs , pangea, large world ) due to bad breaks diplomatically or just a bad starting location.

To the OP: What a question???

Reminds of those old reporter questions: If you had to name the worst person in history, would you have a hard time naming somebody other than yourself? :lol:

@nokmirt - The problem with anecdotes like "I don't think the AI made the right choice" it is not testable, furthermore, the human player on the receiving end have immense advantages, in superior use of units, conservation of damaged units, and the reload option. Based on the infoaddict analysis, the choice was a fair one. You had a large empire with a smaller military. That's a classic case of overstretch and another AI with that confirgration would definately be vulnerable. And AFAIK, the diplo AI is human blind when it is deciding who to attack.

Not saying you reloaded or anything, but it's not really useful in a discussion about the AI to introduce that sort of subjective anecdote.

IMO it did not make the right choice. It simply thought just because it had a larger force, it could win. As you said just as subjectively, "His decision to backstab you seems like an easy decision." Seems and think pretty much mean the same thing. Neither are absolute in this case and both are based on subjective opinion. However, the fact remains the AI made its decision from a tactical point of view. It can not see the big picture.

Lets break down its war plan for attacking me.

Objective 1- Take small city of Najran from enemy with overwhelming force. Success

Objective 2- March on to Baghdad, but retreat if confronted by enemy forces. Success

Objective 3- Begin to send overtures for peace. Success

Objective 4- Defend newly acquired city of Najran with one archer. Unsuccessful

Objective 5- Try to hold Ankara an important home city with negligible forces to protect valuable resource of horses. Unsuccessful

So after looking at its plan what did it gain by attacking me? Absolutely Nothing! And it lost an important city, which will cause the AI later to lose its capital. Not a good plan in a domination game. Not a good plan period. So lets get past the load of codswallop you are trying to lay down on me shall we? The AI has simply, like it or not, taken itself out of the game by invading me. Plays to win my eye! Thats a laugh.

I have seen the AI make this kind of forlorn choice time and time again. In game after game. This is why I hope they make it better in G&K. The AI has to simply be able to think from more than one angle, or from more than one dimension. (It should assess not only strength of the enemy, but their military potential. Does the enemy have the ability to fight a prolonged war? Does it have a strong economy? What strategic resources do I have that it does not? Are we comparable in tech? Things like that. This is why I believe that adding espionage to the mix will help it to collect and assess information to help it win.) At least be able to take more than one thing into account. Maybe with G&K it can begin to formulate better plans for military decisions. It should not step into a big pile of S, everytime it attacks an SP.

IMO it did not make the right choice. It simply thought just because it had a larger force, it could win. As you said just as subjectively, "His decision to backstab you seems like an easy decision." Seems and think pretty much mean the same thing. Neither are absolute in this case and both are based on subjective opinion. However, the fact remains the AI made its decision from a tactical point of view. It can not see the big picture.

Lets break down its war plan for attacking me.

Objective 1- Take small city of Najran from enemy with overwhelming force. Success

Objective 2- March on to Baghdad, but retreat if confronted by enemy forces. Success

Objective 3- Begin to send overtures for peace. Success

Objective 4- Defend newly acquired city of Najran with one archer. Unsuccessful

Objective 5- Try to hold Ankara an important home city with negligible forces to protect valuable resource of horses. Unsuccessful

So after looking at its plan what did it gain by attacking me? Absolutely Nothing! And it lost an important city, which will cause the AI later to lose its capital. Not a good plan in a domination game. Not a good plan period. So lets get past the load of codswallop you are trying to lay down on me shall we? The AI has simply, like it or not, taken itself out of the game by invading me. Plays to win my eye! Thats a laugh.

I have seen the AI make this kind of forlorn choice time and time again. In game after game. This is why I hope they make it better in G&K. The AI has to simply be able to think from more than one angle, or from more than one dimension. (It should assess not only strength of the enemy, but their military potential. Does the enemy have the ability to fight a prolonged war? Does it have a strong economy? What strategic resources do I have that it does not? Are we comparable in tech? Things like that. This is why I believe that adding espionage to the mix will help it to collect and assess information to help it win.) At least be able to take more than one thing into account. Maybe with G&K it can begin to formulate better plans for military decisions. It should not step into a big pile of S, everytime it attacks an SP.

The problem is it DOES assess that "data".. it just can't assess it for a human player, who can actually use the units effectively.
(It seems reasonably successful at dealing with other AIs)

The terrible inability of the tactical combat AI makes the strategic AI overestimate its military strength compared to a human.

Indeed your right. Why did they unlearn what they learned from the last game? There was a thread saying that when they developed CiV, it stated that they left a lot out that was supposed to be added to the game, because of time constraints. This happens to games time and time again. Money is the deciding factor, not quality. All of this has been speculated over time on here. Its hard to say what is true or not. I remain skeptical about all these rumors. I do know there is an expansion coming out and some basic details. At least that I can depend on. Your point is certainly valid and well taken however. :)

The way I see it, Civ4 BtS left out more things that were critical - like hexes instead of tiles, 1upt instead of combat stacks, social policies instead of civics, better leader traits instead of the generic ones and the elimination of religion, espionage and corporations. :D

The problem is it DOES assess that "data".. it just can't assess it for a human player, who can actually use the units effectively.
(It seems reasonably successful at dealing with other AIs)

The terrible inability of the tactical combat AI makes the strategic AI overestimate its military strength compared to a human.

I agree with you. Time and time again, I have seen an AI opponent do very well in methodically and relatively effectivally take over other civs. It would never do as well against a human player unless such player has left him/herself quite vulnerable. However, am I the only one that remembers the PC-based traditional wargames (finite stacks, hex-based movements, leader influence, zone of control, etc.) from Avalon Hill, SSI, Battleground Series, John Tiller and so on? Civ5's hex-based 1upt AI has done a far better job than those real wargames ever done (which were best played PBEM), given the greater complexity than Civ4's massive combat stacks (which even at that level of simplicity, it couldn't even do that well!).

The problem is it DOES assess that "data".. it just can't assess it for a human player, who can actually use the units effectively.
(It seems reasonably successful at dealing with other AIs)

The terrible inability of the tactical combat AI makes the strategic AI overestimate its military strength compared to a human.

Saying that it actually does assess that information, makes it even worse off than I thought. Thats means its twice as stupid, and playing to lose, not to win. The AI is also not all that effective against itself. I have seen it try and try again to take a city from itself, and not even come close. If it had only attacked with all available units surrounding that city, it would have taken it. Instead it attacks piecemeal, a unit here, a unit there, perhaps one ranged unit will fire when it has five available. The whole thing is ridiculous. I have never seen such a bad AI as this one.

Anyway, I am sure we will be hearing from Dennis Shirk about new AI changes. there has been a million questions posted to him about that. Hopefully since he knows about historical tactical boardgames, maybe he can help improve the AI. IDK we'll see.

Also, diplomacy will certainly be different than it is now with the changes coming in G&K. The AI may not be smarter when it fights, but perhaps it will better organize its forces, making it harder to take advantage of. Hopefully it chooses its battles more carefully with the SP and itself. Attacking from a position of strength, not weakness. Fighting with much mor resolve, in order to accomplish its objectives, and with the ability to hold on to those objectives.

You probably got lucky and scraped by the early game without being picked on. I've ended many games, even on emperor, just because I couldn't catch a break diplomatically. Most posters naturlaly would prefer not talking about that or how many false starts they've had before finding that winning game. Lo..

Sure you aren't making mistakes? There are couple of simple rules:

Don't denounce anyone. Probably never worth the cost
Don't join any war when requested
Don't attack a CS that is protected by someone or conquer any CS
Don't declare a war to a Civ you have a DoF with


Early DoF isn't 'easy' as you noted, it's a sign that you fell in the right clique likely due to your position on the map, immortal difficulty ensuring you're bottom of the pact in the early game maning none of the peaceful AI civs saw you as much of a thread, and random luck in who you drew near you. Nothing to do with your skill at all. And they protected you.

Cliques are a CIV thing. On CiV you can have DoFs with two civs that are in war with each other without any problems. AI behaviour just doesn't make sense. If you act like it would, you probably just make things to go worse.

Sure you aren't making mistakes? There are couple of simple rules:

Don't denounce anyone. Probably never worth the cost



1) Why not? Factions form in the game. Sure there are no buckets like a religion to put them in, but depending on Civ mix, you either have the builders DoF and scheming against the warmonger or you have two factions forming. The early and early mid game is quite dynamic.

Don't join any war when requested

2) I join when it suits me, decline when it doesn't. You only get digned diplomatically if you agreed to join a co-op war in 10 turns and when the time came change you mind.

Don't attack a CS that is protected by someone or conquer any CS
Killing CS, especially with no provocation carries a lot of negative penalties and it is by design. That said, I have conquered CS before when it was in my way and allied to an annoying warmonger who kept DoW on me. I didn't have to DoW since it was already at war with me. So I avoided some of the penalties there.

But I'm not getting why you need to conquer CS. You can reduce their number in settings if you feel they get in the way. Personally, I play with max (20) on my large pangea games and I leave them alone usually. When gold starts rolling in, I start buying up the ones close to me and co-opt them into my empire. That's kind of the point of city-states. The game mechanics is such that owning a City-state as your own city is often less profitable than getting the city-state bonus.

I personally quite like the very though decision needed whether a CS should be killed or not. That creates real trade offs, as opposed to bean counting marginal benefits. I tend to see them as secondary actors and pawns. Which was their intent.


Don't declare a war to a Civ you have a DoF with

And why in the world would you do that. After the middle to late classical, with a few wars declared and DoF going around, it's fairly easy to spot where the cliques are forming and who the warmongers are, *assuming you've met most civs* (I know some maps are just damn hard to meet most civs this year just because of barbs and mountains)

Fake friends usually can't wait to DoW or backstab you right away; those further away from you usually have less of an incentive to backstab that early and you can milk their fake friendship well into industrial.



Cliques are a CIV thing. On CiV you can have DoFs with two civs that are in war with each other without any problems. AI behaviour just doesn't make sense. If you act like it would, you probably just make things to go worse.

They're in Civ5 as well. I guess with religion and the new order/autocracy/freedom biases coming in the XP, there will be formal buckets to put them in, in the near future.

The best way to view cliques in Civ5 is that they don't last forever and are dynamic, though I've kept friends for entire games after the April 2011 patch. There's inflection points throughout the game when interests diverge and you find your old friend legitimately no longer wants to be your friend because you guys are now competing over land, city states or something you did annoyed them and vice versa. That's of course not the same as fake friends.

Your early-game alliances usually start to wear thin by the renaissance and if you didn't piss off the entire planet by playing like a warmongering dork, you can usually find someone else to DoF with, and they will bring their friends along to fight your new enemy /old friend. There's usually a third set of alliances by industrial but that's situational.

The late game is usually just playing out the trajectory of your industrial era alliances. By this point AI victory goals are clear. The builders would have completed apollo's and warmongers are trying to conquer their side of the map. Since the human player is still in, the assumption is, you control your side of the map and AI domination victory is unlikely, but that then sets you up for a massive world war in some games.

The way I see it, Civ4 BtS left out more things that were critical - like hexes instead of tiles, 1upt instead of combat stacks, social policies instead of civics, better leader traits instead of the generic ones and the elimination of religion, espionage and corporations. :D

What the hell are you talking about? :crazyeye::crazyeye:

I voted yes. That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy it. But not fixing diplomacy when it's the biggest flaw of the game, would indeed mean they failed at chosing the expansion features.

Saying that it actually does assess that information, makes it even worse off than I thought. Thats means its twice as stupid, and playing to lose, not to win. The AI is also not all that effective against itself. I have seen it try and try again to take a city from itself, and not even come close. If it had only attacked with all available units surrounding that city, it would have taken it. Instead it attacks piecemeal, a unit here, a unit there, perhaps one ranged unit will fire when it has five available. The whole thing is ridiculous. I have never seen such a bad AI as this one.

Anyway, I am sure we will be hearing from Dennis Shirk about new AI changes. there has been a million questions posted to him about that. Hopefully since he knows about historical tactical boardgames, maybe he can help improve the AI. IDK we'll see.

Also, diplomacy will certainly be different than it is now with the changes coming in G&K. The AI may not be smarter when it fights, but perhaps it will better organize its forces, making it harder to take advantage of. Hopefully it chooses its battles more carefully with the SP and itself. Attacking from a position of strength, not weakness. Fighting with much mor resolve, in order to accomplish its objectives, and with the ability to hold on to those objectives.

If the AI isn't suppose to attack when his military strength is twice yours and your empire is stretched thin, then when is he suppose to attack? Attacking IS the right choice in this situation. Yes he failed because you are "smarter" with your units, but it was still the right choice.

The wrong choice would be to allow you to continue your reckless expansion. Once your cities get up and running, you can focus on your military. Why would he want to let you do this?

1) Why not? Factions form in the game. Sure there are no buckets like a religion to put them in, but depending on Civ mix, you either have the builders DoF and scheming against the warmonger or you have two factions forming. The early and early mid game is quite dynamic.

Because it potentially has a massive cost with only very uncertain and mild positive effect. If the civ you denounce turns to hostile, which usually is quite permanent state, you lose thousands of gold and science beakers from trading and RAs. The only thing you get back is a mild positive modifier to denounced civs enemies, which in practice is probably almost meaningless. Negative modifiers tend to last longer than positive ones, and you can get civs friendly or to even declare friendship without denouncing their enemies.

2) I join when it suits me, decline when it doesn't. You only get digned diplomatically if you agreed to join a co-op war in 10 turns and when the time came change you mind.

Declaring war probably has a even bigger negative modifier to the target than denouncing.

Killing CS, especially with no provocation carries a lot of negative penalties and it is by design. That said, I have conquered CS before when it was in my way and allied to an annoying warmonger who kept DoW on me. I didn't have to DoW since it was already at war with me. So I avoided some of the penalties there.

Killing CSs seem to have some kind of global negative modifier. That is conquering a CS annoys every neutral Civ. If this is true, it's a very bad thing to do.

And why in the world would you do that.

Well, I've done it for a mistake. :lol: Destroys your diplo for the rest of the game.

They're in Civ5 as well. I guess with religion and the new order/autocracy/freedom biases coming in the XP, there will be formal buckets to put them in, in the near future.

The best way to view cliques in Civ5 is that they don't last forever and are dynamic, though I've kept friends for entire games after the April 2011 patch. There's inflection points throughout the game when interests diverge and you find your old friend legitimately no longer wants to be your friend because you guys are now competing over land, city states or something you did annoyed them and vice versa. That's of course not the same as fake friends.

"Dynamic cliques" are more or less the same as no cliques. Negative modifies can be quite permanent (so there are long lasting "cliques" where everyone hates the human player), but positives are not. That's the reason why you shouldn't try to join any dynamic clique: it's likely you will make permanent enemies, but it's unlikely you will make long lasting friend.

Another thing to notice is that there probably is an anti-Human bias in diplomacy. It seems that for AI civs negative modifiers vanish much quicker. At half game, just about every AI probably has denounced and/or declared war to every other AI, captured a city state etc. Still they are making research agreements with each other. If human tries to join to "dynamic diplo" of the AIs, he soon ends on situation, where he can't make any RAs and barely gets half the money from trades.

Trading is easy on CIV5 as there seem to be only very mild "you traded with our enemy" -penalty. On CIV4 that penalty was substantial and forced you to think who you wanted to trade with. Generally diplo on CIV5 is much easier to handle than it was on CIV4. Now actions either have drastic negative consequences without much positive (denouncing, declaring wars, capturing CSs) or have virtually no effects on diplo (trading, choosing SPs). If you struggle with diplo on CIV5, you are probably doing something wrong.

Your argument for not denouncing is that you lose out on opportunities for RA and trading. I agree, RA are too strong and you can rape a Civs coffers via trading if you so feel like it. These 2 things should be adjusted so that there is more incentive for denouncing.

I know alot of people don't like to hear this, but if you make artificial rules for yourself, like "I won't sign RA with enemies", you might have more fun with this game. No, you shouldn't be forced into doing so, but it is what it is.

And negative modifiers can disappear over time just like positive ones. The problem is that the human is usually so high in score in the late game, dominating land%, tech%, wonders, CS alliances that there really is no reason for any Civs to stop hating you. They think they want to win and liking you, the dominant leader, will not help their cause.

Because it potentially has a massive cost with only very uncertain and mild positive effect. If the civ you denounce turns to hostile, which usually is quite permanent state, you lose thousands of gold and science beakers from trading and RAs. The only thing you get back is a mild positive modifier to denounced civs enemies, which in practice is probably almost meaningless. Negative modifiers tend to last longer than positive ones, and you can get civs friendly or to even declare friendship without denouncing their enemies.

Or alternatively, you'll get into an RA and they DoW on you and you lose your gil and beakers. You seem to have a pretty black and white view of every issue we've discussed. But diplomacy delves into shades of grey.

If you're idea of denouncing is randomly popping up and denouncing real friends because you plan on attacking them soon and want cover for your warmongering, then that's a problem with your playstyle.

Denouncements act as signals to the world community on 1) how trustworthy one of you are 2) who you dislike and alternatively who you could possibly work with against a common enemy 3) how trust worthy you are.

If you get backstabbed and don't denounce, which I believe is the issue that started the discussion on denouncements, then no one would know and you wouldn't get brownie points.

Declaring war probably has a even bigger negative modifier to the target than denouncing.


Again, it's not black and white either/or. Depends on the situation. In the context of your comment, you're talking about joining in co-op wars, and I'm saying you don't get digned by your friends if you don't join.

Now, in situations where one friend is asking you to declare on another, especially with DoF active, I naturally decline. But I get plenty of co-op war requests on real pariah states.


Killing CSs seem to have some kind of global negative modifier. That is conquering a CS annoys every neutral Civ. If this is true, it's a very bad thing to do.


For the third time, killing a CS = killing off a Civ (ie: wiping out a civ from the game, every last city) So yes, it has a negative modifier.

You can get away with killing 1 CS just as you can get away with killing 1 civ in most games and play like as if nothing happened, even if there is a penalty against you in the background. Naturally you need to be able to defend yourself regardless of what you do, or you'd get picked on sooner or later even if you don't kill anyone.


Well, I've done it for a mistake. :lol: Destroys your diplo for the rest of the game.


That's a backstab and the AI will denounce you for backstabbing them ,which turns the world against you as untrustworhy. This Goes back to my earlier point about denouncements as useful signals in the game.

Only the victim of the backstab gets the 'you've been backstabbed' diplomacy message so if you don't denounce, the one doing the backstabbing essentially got away with it.

And yes, in some situations you CHOOSE not to do it for other reasons, like maybe you want to get more gold from them. That's what diplomacy is, a set of choices. Not black and white absolutes that you keep going back on. Never denouncing and giving trade as a flimsy excuse is not an optimal strategy. Most of the time, the AI doing the backstabbing aren't a good trading partners anyways.


"Dynamic cliques" are more or less the same as no cliques. Negative modifies can be quite permanent (so there are long lasting "cliques" where everyone hates the human player), but positives are not. That's the reason why you shouldn't try to join any dynamic clique: it's likely you will make permanent enemies, but it's unlikely you will make long lasting friend.


A clique is a clique. I used the word dynamic to describe the changing interests and groups as the game progresses. Grouping come and go in this game. The clique itself is what it is, civs with a close relationship you can count on as friends. Continuing to insist it doesn't exist does underline perhaps why you're having so many problems with the AI?


Another thing to notice is that there probably is an anti-Human bias in diplomacy. It seems that for AI civs negative modifiers vanish much quicker. At half game, just about every AI probably has denounced and/or declared war to every other AI, captured a city state etc. Still they are making research agreements with each other. If human tries to join to "dynamic diplo" of the AIs, he soon ends on situation, where he can't make any RAs and barely gets half the money from trades.

Play with infoaddict. There's a global relations web showing what the AI think of other AI civs. The assertion of an anti-human diplomacy bias doesn't hold water in this regard. But then again, every Civ game has had people say there is a bias against human players, until of course the bias is clearly for human players, at which point the human player says the game is 'fair'. Goes to show our own biases in subjective readings of the AI and RNG results.



Trading is easy on CIV5 as there seem to be only very mild "you traded with our enemy" -penalty. On CIV4 that penalty was substantial and forced you to think who you wanted to trade with. Generally diplo on CIV5 is much easier to handle than it was on CIV4. Now actions either have drastic negative consequences without much positive (denouncing, declaring wars, capturing CSs) or have virtually no effects on diplo (trading, choosing SPs). If you struggle with diplo on CIV5, you are probably doing something wrong.

Trading penalties is there, but what drives diplomacy are the dof and denouncements.

If the AI isn't suppose to attack when his military strength is twice yours and your empire is stretched thin, then when is he suppose to attack? Attacking IS the right choice in this situation. Yes he failed because you are "smarter" with your units, but it was still the right choice.

The wrong choice would be to allow you to continue your reckless expansion. Once your cities get up and running, you can focus on your military. Why would he want to let you do this?

Wow, you really like this guy. Were you mates way back or something? LOL! Well he is finished, but he has one city left. And as far as my reckless expansion goes, thats the name of the game in domination. Its conquer or be conquered? Right?

Whatever his choice was really is mute. He had horses which I needed to build my camel archers. So the point is that he had a real big red target on his turbaned wazoo anyway. He simply had to go and there was nothing we could do about it.

Although, he does have one city, which is a size 16 and a port, named Erdine. If I take it and destroy him, which is what I would do in Empire Total War, I get a huge diplomatic penalty. Which is stupid, because any fool knows that you do not leave a potential enemy in your rear. You should be able to conquer your enemies and see them driven before you. Thats how I see it. And the developers of total war see it that way. Hopefully with G&K, CiV changes to a more realistic way of conquering. Conquereors do not care about leaving a city to the enemy. Ever here of Joshua and the story of Jericho. He took the place, burned it to the ground, while killing every single living thing. So he could replace the populace with his own people. Do you think a diplomatic penalty even came into effect? Laughable, can you imagine telling Joshua he now has a diplo penalty for finishing off a civ? He'd probably say, "Well you haven't seen nothing yet!" :lol:

Down with the diplo penalty for finishing a civ! This is the first civ game in which I dare not kill off an enemy. In domination the rules for this should be changed. Besides the AI has no compuction about finishing off the SP or the AI civs, each other. They get no diplo penalty. The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever.

BTW my empire was not stretched thin. I had more military potential than he did, because I could build better units faster than he. I was not weak, at that point I simply did not need a large standing army. However the thing I did was engineer my empire for that inevitability. And that is why that AI was a fool to attack me. I simply was a wolf in sheeps clothing. The AI needs to learn to pick out the wolves among the sheep or this game will continue to stink to high heaven. :rolleyes:

Wow, you really like this guy. Were you mates way back or something? LOL! Well he is finished, but he has one city left. And as far as my reckless expansion goes, thats the name of the game in domination. Its conquer or be conquered? Right?

Whatever his choice was really is mute. He had horses which I needed to build my camel archers. So the point is that he had a real big red target on his turbaned wazoo anyway. He simply had to go and there was nothing we could do about it.

Although, he does have one city, which is a size 16 and a port, named Erdine. If I take it and destroy him, which is what I would do in Empire Total War, I get a huge diplomatic penalty. Which is stupid, because any fool knows that you do not leave a potential enemy in your rear. You should be able to conquer your enemies and see them driven before you. Thats how I see it. And the developers of total war see it that way. Hopefully with G&K, CiV changes to a more realistic way of conquering. Conquereors do not care about leaving a city to the enemy. Ever here of Joshua and the story of Jericho. He took the place, burned it to the ground, while killing every single living thing. So he could replace the populace with his own people. Do you think a diplomatic penalty even came into effect? Laughable, can you imagine telling Joshua he now has a diplo penalty for finishing off a civ? He'd probably say, "Well you haven't seen nothing yet!" :lol:

Down with the diplo penalty for finishing a civ! This is the first civ game in which I dare not kill off an enemy. In domination the rules for this should be changed. Besides the AI has no compuction about finishing off the SP or the AI civs, each other. They get no diplo penalty. The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever.

BTW my empire was not stretched thin. I had more military potential than he did, because I could build better units faster than he. I was not weak, at that point I simply did not need a large standing army. However the thing I did was engineer my empire for that inevitability. And that is why that AI was a fool to attack me. I simply was a wolf in sheeps clothing. The AI needs to learn to pick out the wolves among the sheep or this game will continue to stink to high heaven. :rolleyes:

I agree the "warmonger" should not be based on eliminating a civ... it should be based on ANY cities obtained in war (besides your own)
so something like:

DoW: 10 points

Cities taken from the enemy
your original city: 0 points
liberate the city: 0 points
puppet/annex the city: 2 points
destroy the city through razing: 1 point (instead of the 2 if you hold onto it)
Capital: 5 points


I don't think the AI gets no penalties for finishing off an enemy.

I hate the way people throw around the word fail these days.

Instead of having some sort of objective definition like, I don't know, being a best seller or one of the most played games on steam, a fail has simply meant "i have some things to complain about."

I agree the "warmonger" should not be based on eliminating a civ... it should be based on ANY cities obtained in war (besides your own)
so something like:

DoW: 10 points

Cities taken from the enemy
your original city: 0 points
liberate the city: 0 points
puppet/annex the city: 2 points
destroy the city through razing: 1 point (instead of the 2 if you hold onto it)
Capital: 5 points


I don't think the AI gets no penalties for finishing off an enemy.

I like this in concept but keep in mind you only get -35 for DOF, and there's the risk of double dipping on the penalties. ie: They hate you for conquering a city then also hate you because they covet your new lands. I'm also pretty sure there are other things going on in the background, like your score growth that will alarm the AI.

I am more or less satsified with the less direct link between AI attitudes of your conquests from a single long war and warmongering. The game also more or less fairly measures warmongering as repeated acts of agression, not a singular act of agression or perhaps even defensive wars that turn into long conquests.

You also want the AI to be concerned about capital capture as it is one of the VC requirements.

to avoid confusion positive numbers are bad/negative numbers are good.

What I would suggest are two things

Decay to bad modifiers
- Set decay values for diplomatic faux pas that are mild, but noticable over a long game. ie: no decay first 30 turns, decay of 1 every 5 turns in the next 60 turns, decalu of 1 every 2 turns in the following 60. Decay however cannot bring down diplo penalty to 0 however and must be 1 (or 2 for more serious offenses). So penalty remains, but it's mild. Repeat offenses can only reduce to minimal value of twice the previous value 2 (or 4) and so on.

This should help alleviate early game mistakes, but not let people totally off the hook. And most of their mid-game shenanigans will still be inplay later in the game.

Alow new ways to add modifiers that cover up these penalties.

"We're at peace" modifier
A modifer for extended period of peace to max -10 points (-1 earned on the first 30 turns, and 1 point earned every 10 turns thereafter. Going to war sets this value to +5

"We have open borders" modifier
-1 base bonus to max -5 ; 1 point is earned every 30 turns.

"We have traded recently" modifier
This wording is in-game but describes a good deal given to the AI. We should reappropriate it to mean what it should mena. Active engagement.

Max -5 , -1 is available every 10 turns. So you can't just spam treade and get the max bonus. will take minimum 50 turns of trading to earn full points.

"You have been generous" modifier
Max -50; currently this value is set to -30. And is under the "we have traded recently" label, which is somewhat confusing

"We are your vassal" modifier
Flat -50 for 30 turns then decaying over-time. .XML already have capitulation wording, and essentially the game treats the 30 turn deal you have with the AI as their capitulation period. When they capitulate the AI will go to the table with their cities and all /most of their gold plus GPT.

This modifier simply formalizes it a bit more and makes them less angry at you.

Decay to bad modifiers
- Set decay values for diplomatic faux pas that are mild, but noticable over a long game. ie: no decay first 30 turns, decay of 1 every 5 turns in the next 60 turns, decalu of 1 every 2 turns in the following 60. Decay however cannot bring down diplo penalty to 0 however and must be 1 (or 2 for more serious offenses). So penalty remains, but it's mild. Repeat offenses can only reduce to minimal value of twice the previous value 2 (or 4) and so on.

I'm very much for decays
But decays should be more random, not this straightforward IMO
I liked the way they set it up in Civ IV

I'm open to rng affecting value of decay but random black box stuff would just generate the same complaints about the current diplo and I'm not in favour of showing the actual modifiers as they have in civ4; the systems aren't the same anyways. Civ4 relies almost entirely on those values to run diplo. A lot more is going on in civ5

What you currently see is just a summary .

I'm open to rng affecting value of decay but random black box stuff would just generate the same complaints about the current diplo and I'm not in favour of showing the actual modifiers as they have in civ4; the systems aren't the same anyways. Civ4 relies almost entirely on those values to run diplo. A lot more is going on in civ5

What you currently see is just a summary .

Of course, and I generally agree
Btw, I didn't mean exactly the way it was in Civ IV, just that some kind of randomness in the system would be neat