I was really glad to hear that the civics you choose later in the game will make an impact on world diplomacy. This backs what Ed Beach has been saying about the whole cold war vibe, I.e. western democracies get on, eastern communists semi-get on, fascists such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy etc...

What's the thoughts on how this will work out in the late game? Nations hell bent on world domination will in fact like each other? Cultural civs who are freedom lovers will hate each other for building wonders, but love each other for using the same civics...

I'm interested in how this will play out...

it is interesting.

In a way, it's possible not much will change. Those civs that tend to be warmongers also have low "warmonger hate" so in a domination game they are your best friends already.

And if you stay small and go the RA route, everyone who isn't next to you is generally pretty friendly anyway.

I'm hoping that they incorporate happiness bonuses/penalties for being allied with ideological peers/rivals respectively. That way it'll feel natural in both game and flavor terms.

They also better make the incentives for picking up the non popular policies (order, autocracy) and make them arrive in the Renaissance; to give it equal footing with Freedom

it is interesting.

In a way, it's possible not much will change. Those civs that tend to be warmongers also have low "warmonger hate" so in a domination game they are your best friends already.

And if you stay small and go the RA route, everyone who isn't next to you is generally pretty friendly anyway.

It will give more nuanced diplomacy for the in-between civs, and give some control to the players. Let's say. if they are good friends with a Civ, they may decide to go with the same policy.

I assume there will be new naggy diplomatic windows requesting you to unlock a certain SP from civs who are your friends.

But as SP isn't as flip-floppy as civics, I can see the system being built more as two major inflection points where alliances are first set in classical, re-arranges in the medieval era with religion and is formalized in the ww1/industrial era with the rival -isms.

As for the warmongers, they, rightly, live and die by the sword. If they aren't beaten back to a rump by the late game, they are either a giant that is a threat or isolated and cut off and not worth considering. Either way, appeasing warmongers is like appeasing Hitler. :lol: SP or no, it shouldn't matter. If they happen to align, great.

They also better make the incentives for picking up the non popular policies (order, autocracy) and make them arrive in the Renaissance; to give it equal footing with Freedom

Order is plenty popular if you are warmonger. Autocracy needs a bit of work, but fascism branch is often unpopular in every civ game since 3.

Commerce SP needs an overhaul. Between trade unions SP, the lack of free trade/capitalism SP, and navigation bonuses and :) bonuses deep in the tree, it's mislabelled and out of place. It's more of a mercantile SP and should have come much earlier than it does. It should be the alternative to Patronage ; but given the bonuses for allying with City states will overwhelm any possible bonuses we could come up with, an interesting alternative is to give commerce buffs that scale by the number city state ally as well, but different buffs than patronage and make it opposed to patronage so you can't pick both. this will allow players to refine their playstyles more.

It will give more nuanced diplomacy for the in-between civs, and give some control to the players. Let's say. if they are good friends with a Civ, they may decide to go with the same policy..

hopefully true. good point.

I assume there will be new naggy diplomatic windows requesting you to unlock a certain SP from civs who are your friends.

Hadn't thought of that. That could be annoying.

But as SP isn't as flip-floppy as civics, I can see the system being built more as two major inflection points where alliances are first set in classical, re-arranges in the medieval era with religion and is formalized in the ww1/industrial era with the rival -isms.

I can see that being the intent. we'll see how it plays out.


As for the warmongers, they, rightly, live and die by the sword. If they aren't beaten back to a rump by the late game, they are either a giant that is a threat or isolated and cut off and not worth considering. Either way, appeasing warmongers is like appeasing Hitler. :lol: SP or no, it shouldn't matter. If they happen to align, great.

But warmongers are the best allies, IMO. It's not appeasement when you are using their aggression to better your own position. They will fight other AIs for cheap, and pay better price on trades if you are warmongering yourself. And they rarely are in danger of winning the game.


Order is plenty popular if you are warmonger. Autocracy needs a bit of work, but fascism branch is often unpopular in every civ game since 3.

Commerce SP needs an overhaul. Between trade unions SP, the lack of free trade/capitalism SP, and navigation bonuses and :) bonuses deep in the tree, it's mislabelled and out of place. It's more of a mercantile SP and should have come much earlier than it does. It should be the alternative to Patronage ; but given the bonuses for allying with City states will overwhelm any possible bonuses we could come up with, an interesting alternative is to give commerce buffs that scale by the number city state ally as well, but different buffs than patronage and make it opposed to patronage so you can't pick both. this will allow players to refine their playstyles more.

I generally agree with this, Order and Autocracy can both be pretty useful. Left side of commerce is great on archipelago but the opener/right side lack synergy and need an overhaul to be competitive.

I just hope the UI is well implemented. If I can't tell which civ has which social policies, this whole thing will just be a big pain in the hindquarter regions:). Currently I can't (to my knowledge) check who's adopted which SP's, and if I can't do so (or can't do so conveniently), then this whole thing will just be frustrating.
I can already see myself picking Freedom in order to form a closer bond with India, then suddenly realizing that Gandhi actually went Autocracy this time around. Given that the game's got lousy UI and mostly opaque diplomacy already, I wouldn't be surprised if they just toss in this feature halfheartedly. In other words, I'm interested and excited about this change, but I'm also a little nervous that it'll just be some frustrating thing where I just have to hope that my SP choice works out; sort of like building a wonder and just hoping no one else will randomly get mad at me (I hate that, by the way. Firaxis needs to fix it)

I just wonder if this social policy-diplo will affect all of the social policies. For example: Would a technologically advanced civ with "rationalism" go to war with a faithfully pious civ with "piety" in the modern or future era? Or could them sharing the same state religion change that? (if "state" religions are even part of this EP)

I'm a bit skeptical about this. Unless sharing a common ideology benefits both players, I don't want the AI to like me better just because we both picked "Freedom" or "Order." It needs to somehow benefit players to share the same late game social policy. Otherwise I really don't care what social policies other opponents in the game use.

It's not entirely practical from gameplay perspectives but if they keep it mild enough I'd be fine with it. Just don't make it determinative.

Commerce SP needs an overhaul. Between trade unions SP, the lack of free trade/capitalism SP, and navigation bonuses and :) bonuses deep in the tree, it's mislabelled and out of place. It's more of a mercantile SP and should have come much earlier than it does. It should be the alternative to Patronage ; but given the bonuses for allying with City states will overwhelm any possible bonuses we could come up with, an interesting alternative is to give commerce buffs that scale by the number city state ally as well, but different buffs than patronage and make it opposed to patronage so you can't pick both. this will allow players to refine their playstyles more.
I agree. Having both Patronage and Commerce based on city states, and give different bonuses is a good idea.

People have talked about whether Piety should be changed into a dedicated faith SP tree, and where should we the culture SPs moved to. I think the answer is obvious: Patronage should be the new dedicated culture SP tree. Thematically it actually makes better sense than Piety.

Although going on this hypothetical route, we may eventually need a religious victory and an economic victory to balance the usefulness of Piety vs Rationalism and Patronage vs Commerce.

They also better make the incentives for picking up the non popular policies (order, autocracy) and make them arrive in the Renaissance; to give it equal footing with Freedom

True other wise I don't see people choose autocracy or order

If a civ has been warmongering all game remember they will have a bunch of negative modifiers to their relationships already. So whatever effect the alignment of them taking autocracy happens to give with another civ who also takes that SP branch it will have to overcome the existing negative scores to actually make those two civs friends, so for that to happen the positive score from same late game ideology would have to be a large one. I think more likely that those who have not been warmongering too much during the early game will form friendly blocs when they choose freedom in the late game. The autocracy warmongers will probably still be hated by everyone, including each other. /guess

If a civ has been warmongering all game remember they will have a bunch of negative modifiers to their relationships already. So whatever effect the alignment of them taking autocracy happens to give with another civ who also takes that SP branch it will have to overcome the existing negative scores to actually make those two civs friends, so for that to happen the positive score from same late game ideology would have to be a large one. I think more likely that those who have not been warmongering too much during the early game will form friendly blocs when they choose freedom in the late game. The autocracy warmongers will probably still be hated by everyone, including each other. /guess

As far as I can remember, warmongers tend not to have the "you're a warmonger, gtfo" diplo modifier (at least not as much) if you're sacking cities left and right.

Yeah they don't have it as much, say like with Mongolia, you can maintain decent relations with them while doing some early conquering. That only lasts for so long, and is a kind of grace period where civs with a low WMH are still below a certain threshold with you and other civs who may be declaring and conquering. This generally comes into play only in the parts of the game well before autocracy/order/freedom. Then it builds up. This new late game diplo mechanic takes place after a long time has passed in the game. Check out any map after 200 turns and find a game where Alexander and Nobunaga share the same landmass and aren't out for each others blood.

It's not entirely practical from gameplay perspectives but if they keep it mild enough I'd be fine with it. Just don't make it determinative.

I think it may be determinitive in the sense that it will have enough of an impact and players will have enough of a control going in knowing if they switch to freedom SP, X,Y,Z will hate them for the rest of the game, while A,B,C will like them while E,D will be indifferent.

That's a concern, but hasn't the biggest complaint about Civ 5 diplomacy about the 'psychopathic' 'warmongering' 'schitzo' AI?

There was some truth to it in the initial builds but I don't think those accusations hold water since the big patch that completely overhauled diplomacy in early 2011 (was it the april patch? might be the one before that)

I don't think it's possible to please everyone here

If they leave enough flexibility and ambiguity to the relationships (say 2 civs with opposing SP with a strong common interest still managing to work together on a plan to save the world for the tyranny of Montezuma in a non role-play but actual in-game alliance), then I'll be fine. I am a little concerned it will be too rigid, like Civ4 all over again.


Yeah they don't have it as much, say like with Mongolia, you can maintain decent relations with them while doing some early conquering. That only lasts for so long, and is a kind of grace period where civs with a low WMH are still below a certain threshold with you and other civs who may be declaring and conquering. This generally comes into play only in the parts of the game well before autocracy/order/freedom. Then it builds up. This new late game diplo mechanic takes place after a long time has passed in the game. Check out any map after 200 turns and find a game where Alexander and Nobunaga share the same landmass and aren't out for each others blood.

Yeah warmongers are best when they don't share a border with you, or even better, far from you as balancers on pangea maps to keep other civs occupied.

The real downside to that is you tend to create monsters you have to deal with in the late game. Either the warmonger itself, another warmonger who cashed in on all the wars you were starting with your warmonger friend, or the 3rd civ with a strong economic modifier (Iroquois) who 'wins' all the wars due to tech advantage and has a large empire with a strong UA to back them up. Those are the worst. They can actually make a run for diplo , tech or culture wins.

I agree. Having both Patronage and Commerce based on city states, and give different bonuses is a good idea.

Seconded. Both should be mutually exclusive. I personally wouldnt mind throwing out Patronage and Commerce and replacing them with Mercantilism and Free Trade. Both would focus on wealth and City-states.

I do hope religion and policies won't dictate diplomacy in the game. They most certainly should influence diplomacy, but I don't want to have permanent war with random civs just because I have a different religion/policy tree than they do.

I think it will dictate your relationships with some of the civs only, the ones that are coded to have a high value on caring about religions or ideologies. Some other civs will be more passive in that regard. I still expect to have an Isabella with whom it's very difficult to get on with if we have different religions.

I think this will be interesting. Early and mid game diplomatic camps are formed in part by religion, which is geographic and will create many groups of allies. Than later on there will only be 3 main groups left. I wonder how this shift will work, will you lose allies even if you've gotten along the entire game?

Seconded. Both should be mutually exclusive. I personally wouldnt mind throwing out Patronage and Commerce and replacing them with Mercantilism and Free Trade. Both would focus on wealth and City-states.

I do hope religion and policies won't dictate diplomacy in the game. They most certainly should influence diplomacy, but I don't want to have permanent war with random civs just because I have a different religion/policy tree than they do.

Do you mean ONE would be wealth and ONE would be city-states? Cause by definition under Mercantilism there is no foreign trade, so no dealing with city-states. Unless you consider a city-state you are alleid with to be your "colony".

I bet that Civs have incoded which Ideology they will go for, and also how much they care about having ideological similarities with other Empires.

Another thing that will bring spin into late game diplomacy is the City-states having votes between 12 turns, (12 probably on normal speed). We know that you can rig the votes but otherwise it's unclear what it means.

Also the thing that you can surround a CS with units and lose reputation but blackmail goods about it, details like this sound fantastic. :)

I wish there would be UN resolutions too but maybe they would have announced it already..


I just hope the UI is well implemented. If I can't tell which civ has which social policies, this whole thing will just be a big pain in the hindquarter regions:). Currently I can't (to my knowledge) check who's adopted which SP's,

Actually you can check it from one of the buttons above minimap, sorry forgot what it's titled..

Another thing that will bring spin into late game diplomacy is the City-states having votes between 12 turns, (12 probably on normal speed). We know that you can rig the votes but otherwise it's unclear what it means.

My guess is that CSs "elect" a government that is either pro-Freedom, pro-Order or pro-Autocracy. You will get a diplo boost/penalty depending on which of these three trees you have unlocked.

Rigging elections will attempt to sway the vote in your favour, while a coup (if successful) would replace the current government with one that agrees with your political stance.

I can't wait... :cool:

I think more likely that those who have not been warmongering too much during the early game will form friendly blocs when they choose freedom in the late game. The autocracy warmongers will probably still be hated by everyone, including each other. /guess

With this idea it only rewards peaceful play and unbalances the game. Meh! That sounds so boring and frustrating. Warmongering should be rewarded as well. You should be able to play a bad guy if you want. There are plenty of other bad civs in the game. Warmongers tend to fight each other yes, but should also be able to become friends for mutual benefit too. The haters should join hands to destroy the free world, early on, and late in the game. Why not have a group of renegade bad civs in cahoots?

I think that autocracy warmongers would be better served becoming closer together in blocs, against freedom loving blocs. The Pact of Steel anyone? WW2 anyone? There has to be some balance of good and evil in the world. Hopefully there will be more 3-4 bloc alliances, pitted against each other from an ideaological or religious standpoint, throughout the game. Dogpiling would be at an end finally. Furthermore you should be able to change your play style as time goes on. Early for instance, you could be a holy peace lover. In the middle of the game, become a conquerer. Then in the late game vie for freedom. Or any other variation of play style throughout the game's eras. Flexibilty and balance is needed for a fun immersive game. Not strict one way rules, do this or else, which is way too profound in CiV vanilla. No two players are the same. They should be able to play however they want and take away an original experience from each game played. The point I am trying to make is that you should be able to have fun no matter how you choose to play.

My guess is that CSs "elect" a government that is either pro-Freedom, pro-Order or pro-Autocracy. You will get a diplo boost/penalty depending on which of these three trees you have unlocked.

Rigging elections will attempt to sway the vote in your favour, while a coup (if successful) would replace the current government with one that agrees with your political stance.

I can't wait... :cool:

Whoah a great guess! That sounds like superfun and would be cool both gameplay-wise and historically.

At the end game, civs are competing to win the game. It makes no sense for warmongers to join artificial alliances based on the fact that they chose the same warmonger social policy. Why would we like each other when we know it's both of our goals to eliminate the other from the game?

At the end game, civs are competing to win the game. It makes no sense for warmongers to join artificial alliances based on the fact that they chose the same warmonger social policy. Why would we like each other when we know it's both of our goals to eliminate the other from the game?

Have you ever read history? Not trying to be funny or condescending, just realistic. Many people are not much into history. Anyway, Hitler for instance, wanted to rule the world, right? Even still, he joined forces with the Italians and Japan, both fascist minded countries, which were comparable in ideaology to the Third Reich. So they formed a Pact of Steel known as the Tripartite Pact. This was a ten year agreement, with chance of extension, for the three countries to work together and support each other, to establish and maintain a new order of things, based on their common ideological beliefs.

Now in CiV no alliance needs to be everlasting. Thats the beauty of it. If Hitler had won WW2. If after the war, all that was left standing in his way were Japan and Italy, to gain the hegemony of the world, and to win the game. He would simply fight and destroy, Italy and japan to win. Just like in CiV. There can be only one winner right? ;)

I love my profound examples. :lol: Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, until all my friends stand in my way. At this point they too become enemies. ;)

So while the world is divided into camps of differing beliefs. Those camps should unite into alliances. And when one camp, one belief remains, those then fight to determine a winner. Its simple and its fair, but MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IT ELIMINATES DOGPILING! :D

Agree! Just look at the world right now, and you see that alliance shifts and there are denouncements everywhere. lol

Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, until all my friends stand in my way. At this point they too become enemies.

Or: The enemy of my enemy is my friend, defeat the enemy and you are no longer friends ;) Great fictional WWII example by the way.

Have you ever read history? Not trying to be funny or condescending, just realistic. Many people are not much into history. Anyway, Hitler for instance, wanted to rule the world, right? Even still, he joined forces with the Italians and Japan, both fascist minded countries, which were comparable in ideaology to the Third Reich. So they formed a Pact of Steel known as the Tripartite Pact. This was a ten year agreement, with chance of extension, for the three countries to work together and support each other, to establish and maintain a new order of things, based on their common ideological beliefs.

Now in CiV no alliance needs to be everlasting. Thats the beauty of it. If Hitler had won WW2. If after the war, all that was left standing in his way were Japan and Italy, to gain the hegemony of the world, and to win the game. He would simply fight and destroy, Italy and japan to win. Just like in CiV. There can be only one winner right? ;)

I love my profound examples. :lol: Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, until all my friends stand in my way. At this point they too become enemies. ;)

So while the world is divided into camps of differing beliefs. Those camps should unite into alliances. And when one camp, one belief remains, those then fight to determine a winner. Its simple and its fair, but MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IT ELIMINATES DOGPILING! :D

You can basically do this already. There are plenty of opportunities to get in good with other warmongering civs by fighting common enemies. It's just a little trickier to keep the AI civs on your side than it is to bribe CS's.

Have you ever read history? Not trying to be funny or condescending, just realistic. Many people are not much into history.

Heh. I'm a college history professor, so yes, I have read history and I'm quite familiar with it. However, Civ is a game, not history. Yes, Hitler wanted to rule the world, but he was fine having allies rule their respective territory because allies are necessary in the real world. But if Hitler needed to win a game by conquering other civilizations' capitals, it would not make sense for him to ally with Italy and Japan instead of going after their capitals.

Remember, Civ V is a game, not a history simulator. The AI should be trying to win, and if we're all going for a domination victory, they should not be trying to help me. It also would not make sense for two civs both going for a space race victory to help each other achieve that goal.

To be fair, Hitler could conquer Italy later.

Remember, Civ V is a game, not a history simulator. The AI should be trying to win, and if we're all going for a domination victory, they should not be trying to help me. It also would not make sense for two civs both going for a space race victory to help each other achieve that goal.

I think that's arguable. It is in some ways a simulator of history, not our history, but it has to make sense.

Here's how I see it.

Civ3 simulated great power diplomacy 1600-1918 with entangled alliances , balance of power
Civ4 simulated city-state diplomacy of the renaissance 1400-1700 where religion played a role and territory exchange hands on principle of 'superiority' of one side's army over the other

Civ5 currently simulated real-politik which overlaps conceptually with the great power diplomacy of Europe in the age of empires, but can be ascribed more as an overarching framework that works in most periods of human history. It is also least tied to the European context because real-politik as a framework is a view of the world.

You can see here why Civ4 is liked so much by some, It provides a really stable understandable platform for people to work from, the diplomatic outcomes are often not realistic or even recognizable in the grand sweep of empires, but it has internal logic and outcomes are predictable.

Civ5 by far has the most ambitious task, and they could still fail at it.

Heh. I'm a college history professor, so yes, I have read history and I'm quite familiar with it. However, Civ is a game, not history. Yes, Hitler wanted to rule the world, but he was fine having allies rule their respective territory because allies are necessary in the real world. But if Hitler needed to win a game by conquering other civilizations' capitals, it would not make sense for him to ally with Italy and Japan instead of going after their capitals.

Remember, Civ V is a game, not a history simulator. The AI should be trying to win, and if we're all going for a domination victory, they should not be trying to help me. It also would not make sense for two civs both going for a space race victory to help each other achieve that goal.

I know very well that CiV is a game at the moment, and as far from a history simulator as it possibly can be. With G&K its is going to be more history driven. For instance, in a game during the Medieval Era, diplomacy will feel historically correct. Religion will surely have a part to play. In the Modern Era it will feel more like the Cold War, where diplomacy is more ideologically driven. When playing any era, it will feel like your in that time period.

I know the game is not a history simulator, and I am not saying it should be. However, it is based on the civilization and progress of mankind through history. Therefore IMO more elements from history should be applied to the game. In G&K this will be done. Along with those changes diplomacy will change. The AI will still try to win, but in a smarter more interesting way. Through alliances built on, old and new. Through backstabbing and intrigue. Through a race for faith, culture, and technology. The AIs all will have many tools at their disposal. Alliances and friendships will be more profound. Whether or not your a good or bad guy. Simply because it is easy to find friends and enemies who share your feelings, and beliefs. Just like in history, just like what we see in the modern world. Right professor? :)

Here let me see if I can find it. The Ed Beach interview.

Diplomacy

"The nature of diplomacy is going to change as you progress through the ages," explained Beach. In the early ages, religion will be one of the crucial factors in how other civilizations respond to you. Later in the game, those religious prejudices will give way to ideology preferences. When a civilization commits to the freedom, order, or autocracy culture tree, it will become the new driving force behind international relations." -Edward Beach

If that not a step in the right direction. I don't know what is. Could CiV be evolving into the dreaded history simulator? Hmmm! I like to think so. :lol: I am just joking professor. Loosen up laugh more my friend.

I just would like there to be a reason why civs of similar social policies would like each other that in somehow benefits them. In Civ IV, free market civs would like each other because they could share corporations with each other and mutually benefit. In that way, it made sense, and was historically accurate. Civs that share religion affecting the way they feel about each other makes sense too since it benefits both; one civ spreads religion to get gold or some benefit from each city that follows it, and the receiving civ gets that religion in its cities which can provide happiness or culture or whatever bonus it provides. If civs are going to like each other for sharing social policies, they should be benefiting from it as well, perhaps it should help with foreign trade (which would require them to re-implement foreign trade).

While I want Civ to follow history, I don't want to do so in a way that would make the other leaders play like a computer not trying to win instead of a competitor in a game. I'd like the AI to mimic a human player trying to win a historically based game as much as possible. If they could make it so players would both benefit from sharing a social policy, and therefore they would rather attack a player of a different social policy than each other, then I would be fine with them allying along social policies. So ideally, sharing social policies should benefit human players in a multiplayer game just as it would in a single player game with an AI.

I just would like there to be a reason why civs of similar social policies would like each other that in somehow benefits them. In Civ IV, free market civs would like each other because they could share corporations with each other and mutually benefit. In that way, it made sense, and was historically accurate. Civs that share religion affecting the way they feel about each other makes sense too since it benefits both; one civ spreads religion to get gold or some benefit from each city that follows it, and the receiving civ gets that religion in its cities which can provide happiness or culture or whatever bonus it provides. If civs are going to like each other for sharing social policies, they should be benefiting from it as well, perhaps it should help with foreign trade (which would require them to re-implement foreign trade).

While I want Civ to follow history, I don't want to do so in a way that would make the other leaders play like a computer not trying to win instead of a competitor in a game. I'd like the AI to mimic a human player trying to win a historically based game as much as possible. If they could make it so players would both benefit from sharing a social policy, and therefore they would rather attack a player of a different social policy than each other, then I would be fine with them allying along social policies. So ideally, sharing social policies should benefit human players in a multiplayer game just as it would in a single player game with an AI.


Well autocracy cool represent facisism and communisme(or order)
freedom democracy and capitalisme.

Usally the US love's countrie's with capitalmisme but is suspecious against other communisme cold war

Freedom is Democracy, Autocracy is Fascism, Order is Communism.

BUT we were allies with the USSR to prevent Hitler from winning WW2.

So yes ideology matters but it does not trump geopolitics.

BUT we were allies with the USSR to prevent Hitler from winning WW2.

So yes ideology matters but it does not trump geopolitics.

Well I said suspecious not hostile

The AI should be trying to win, and if we're all going for a domination victory, they should not be trying to help me. It also would not make sense for two civs both going for a space race victory to help each other achieve that goal.

Well actually, two science-minded do help each other achieve that goal, through research agreements. It's not direct, but it's still them helping each other because it's mutually beneficial. In the same way, two domination-minded civs shouldn't directly help each other win, but that's not to say that they should instantly, irrationally hate each other purely because they're both warmongers. I often have games where Genghis Khan hates me, and I'm not even on the same continent, or near him in any way! He still ought to trade with me, since it's mutually beneficial. He should just also be beefing up his military, just in case. As it is, civs don't do that. All they do is insta-hate warmongers.

Well I said suspecious not hostile

lol, fair enough.

Well actually, two science-minded do help each other achieve that goal, through research agreements. It's not direct, but it's still them helping each other because it's mutually beneficial. In the same way, two domination-minded civs shouldn't directly help each other win, but that's not to say that they should instantly, irrationally hate each other purely because they're both warmongers. I often have games where Genghis Khan hates me, and I'm not even on the same continent, or near him in any way! He still ought to trade with me, since it's mutually beneficial. He should just also be beefing up his military, just in case. As it is, civs don't do that. All they do is insta-hate warmongers.

They shouldn't insta-hate warmongers, but I don't get why like minded warmongers should be more friendly towards each other unless it mutually benefits them somehow. Research agreements isn't a good example of how two science-minded civs help each other since any civ benefits from research agreements. Science minded ones don't necessarily benefit more than warmongers do from research agreements.

I think there should be a late game foreign trade route with civs that you're not at war with who share the same late social policy as you, therefore giving an incentive to be on good terms with those civs rather than ones who share another social policy. If I benefited from another warmonger or another freedom minded player via foreign trade routes, I'd want to attack someone else first. These foreign trade routes would make the AI's attitude towards your social policy not feel so forced and feel more natural.

Do you mean ONE would be wealth and ONE would be city-states? Cause by definition under Mercantilism there is no foreign trade, so no dealing with city-states. Unless you consider a city-state you are alleid with to be your "colony".

Yes, I would have to classify what a city-state is, a colony or a trade partner, before I could create a mercantilism and free trade policy branch. Sorry. Perhaps Free-trade should focus on city-states (trade partners) while mercantilism focuses on the inter-empire wealth and possibly bonuses for conquest/puppeting (there are already two policy branches that focus on war, so it may be redundant to add conquest/puppeting bonuses to Mercantilism).

After reading through this thread again, I'm looking forward to the new diplomacy system. With the new system I might actually see a defense pack between civs!

If each civ begins with a set religious/ideological influence value, which civs do you think will be more intolerant than others? Spain comes to mind for religion, but what about ideology? Bismarck? This of course is assuming such values will exist and that there are two values, one for religion and one for ideology.

I just would like there to be a reason why civs of similar social policies would like each other that in somehow benefits them. In Civ IV, free market civs would like each other because they could share corporations with each other and mutually benefit. In that way, it made sense, and was historically accurate. Civs that share religion affecting the way they feel about each other makes sense too since it benefits both; one civ spreads religion to get gold or some benefit from each city that follows it, and the receiving civ gets that religion in its cities which can provide happiness or culture or whatever bonus it provides. If civs are going to like each other for sharing social policies, they should be benefiting from it as well, perhaps it should help with foreign trade (which would require them to re-implement foreign trade).

While I want Civ to follow history, I don't want to do so in a way that would make the other leaders play like a computer not trying to win instead of a competitor in a game. I'd like the AI to mimic a human player trying to win a historically based game as much as possible. If they could make it so players would both benefit from sharing a social policy, and therefore they would rather attack a player of a different social policy than each other, then I would be fine with them allying along social policies. So ideally, sharing social policies should benefit human players in a multiplayer game just as it would in a single player game with an AI.

Thats sounds fair enough to me. I am not saying that if you go around murdering your neighbors, that you should not be free from penalty, certainly not. And I feel that should go for the AI as well. I want the AI to play to win. Saying that, I just feel there needs to be more unpredictability in the diplomacy system. I would also like to see more friendships that have a chance of lasting, and not end abruptly into hatred most of the time. And more friendships among belligerent civs that can form, and become long lasting. Unpredicted backstabbing should also occur, just like it does now. All of this makes the game far more interesting. You never know what to expect, which will make spies so important in the later game.

Even two to four warmonger civs could be great friends right? They conquer neighbors who stand in their way, but still trade and remain friendly to each other. These guys stick up for each other against all comers. Say out of twelve civs these four end up dominating the map against the other eight civs who had relations with each other. They even formed friendships with the belligerent four from time to time, yet were not able to become unified enough to stand together. Because of this they were defeated. Then the remaining four fight it out. It could turn out that the three weakest turn on the strongest of them. Or perhaps the three strongest turn on the weakest. After that, they fight each other to the end. Unpredictability, you never know what going to happen in a game. The AI plays to win, but every game is different.

In game two, it could end up 11 on 1, the classic dogpile. That one civ just simply made all the wrong moves at the wrong time. He went left when he should have turned right, even though he thought the right choice was made. Lets say he defeats all his enemies in turn, or he dies fighting. Maybe he wins via a culture, diplomatic, or space victory to get out of trouble. Somehow he hangs on. Or somehow he fails.

I just feel a dogpile everytime is not interesting. But there still should be a chance it could happen. There should be a chance that various things can occur, not just one inevitability.