A simple guide on how to make AIs love you.

[gladoscc]

A positive value is bad. The higher positive, the more they hate you. If it's negative, it's a good modifier for you.

These values are taken straight out of the latest patch's XML files. There are multiple levels of many things, and I've listed the max (for both good and bad modifiers) simply because there's no reference to what is 'severe', 'major', 'minor'. 'NONE' is obvious.

1. Do NOT have cities close to them, even if they settled close to you. 30 modifier.
2. Do NOT have the same victory goal as the AI. 30 modifier.
3. Do NOT build wonders they want to build. 20 modifier.
4. Do NOT attack city states more than once. 30 modifier.
5. Do NOT be a "minor" warmonger (ie declare war more than once). 40 modifier.
6. Do NOT be a "critical" warmonger (doesn't stack with other warmonger penalty) . 100 modifier.
7. Do NOT ask them to not settle near you. 20 modifier.
8. Do NOT demand anything. 20 modifier.
9. Do NOT culture bomb us. 30 modifier.
10. Do NOT 'break a military promise'. 40 modifier.
11. Do NOT 'break a military promise' with any other civilization. Even if the AI hates the Civ that you broke the promise with. 15 modifier.
12. Do NOT break a 'expansion promise'. 20 modifier.
13. Do NOT 'break a coop war promise'. 20 modifier.
14. Do NOT kill a protected city state. 40 modifier.
15. Do NOT have a Declaration of Friendship with a enemy. 15 modifier for each.
16. Do NOT get denounced by anyone. 20 modifier each.
17. Do NOT denounce any of this civ's friends. 15 modifier each.
18. Do NOT declare war on a friend. 40 modifier.
19. Do NOT refuse a request. 15 modifier.
20. Do NOT get denounced by that civ. 35 modifier.
21. Do NOT denounce that civ. 35 modifier.
22. Do NOT be a 'reckless expander'. 35 modifier.
23. Do NOT take over another civ's capital. 80 modifier.
24. Do NOT pay tribute. 30 modifier. (Yes, you get a BAD modifier if you pay tribute to the civ that asks for it!)
25. Do NOT use nukes. 50 modifier.
26. Do NOT 'ignore' an expansion promise.
27. Do NOT 'ignore' a border promise.
28. Do NOT 'ignore' a city state promise.

Now we have that out of the way (28 bad modifiers!), what are the positive modifiers?

1. Have absolutely no land close to them. ("NONE") -6 modifier.
2. Have no similar 'Grand Strategy' to them. -6 modifier.
3. Return a civilian. -20 modifier.
4. Have a DOF. -35 modifier.
5. Have a DOF with a friend of that civ. -15 modifier.
6. Denounce a enemy. -15 modifier.
7. Trade with them. Amount based on how frequent the deal is, what side does it weigh to..
8. Kill units of an enemy. -30 modifier. Reduces over time.
9. Have a common foe. -50 modifier.
10. Get denounced by someone I don't like. -10 modifier.

You can clearly see why diplomacy is broken. And, let's say France asks you to declare war on Germany. If you disagree, you get a negative modifier with france. if you agree, you get a negative modifier with france for being a warmonger.

You are 'UNFORGIVABLE' if you hit 50. The AI considers you an 'enemy' when it reaches 30. The AI considers war at 50. The AI decides the actual approach (deceptive? war?) based on a variety of factors that includes if you're a human or if you are the AI.

 

[Camikaze]

The list is a little misleading. There are multiple levels of penalties for the grand strategic modifiers. For example, being a warmonger 'only' gets you 40 if it's major, but 100 if it's critical. You've listed them as two separate penalties, when they are just different levels of the same modifier. Similarly, you've listed the 'do not have cities close by' penalty as 30, but it's only 30 if that is at fierce. If it's strong, it's 20. Weak is 10. Again with victory rivalry, wonder envy and city states.

You're certainly right that the bad modifiers outweigh the good modifiers, but the list is still a bit off (though to be fair, you appear to have put the max. level down for the good modifiers as well).

 

[The_Quasar]

hmm... interesting...

Anyone have any idea what the definition of a "critical" warmonger is? or a "reckless expander"?

Does "another civ's capital" include CS? I'm guessing it probably does.

So, even if you go to war with an AI on the same side, if you defeat the opposition capital (surely the idea in the first place), you're more than likely to become "unforgivable" to the AI that you are fighting with! That's nuts!

A lot of those modifiers are good, and I can see where they are trying to go, but one of the major breakdowns seems to be that it's far too easy to get to 50 and unforgivable... perhaps it should be raised a bit, to say, 65?

 

[gladoscc]

The list is a little misleading. There are multiple levels of penalties for the grand strategic modifiers. For example, being a warmonger 'only' gets you 40 if it's major, but 100 if it's critical. You've listed them as two separate penalties, when they are just different levels of the same modifier. Similarly, you've listed the 'do not have cities close by' penalty as 30, but it's only 30 if that is at fierce. If it's strong, it's 20. Weak is 10. Again with victory rivalry, wonder envy and city states.

You're certainly right that the bad modifiers outweigh the good modifiers, but the list is still a bit off (though to be fair, you appear to have put the max. level down for the good modifiers as well).

I've put down the max level down for everything except warmonger because I don't know what "MAJOR", "SEVERE" exactly means, but for warmonger it's obvious that you get a -40 for declaring your second war, as you get a free DOW.

 

[JamesCivFan]

I did a similar list in an old post of mine. Yes, the negative modifiers are a lot more in number than the positive ones. So it's clear that the game needs more positive ones, and to be "smarter" when it comes to warmongering. The AI that asked you to go to war with should not get mad at you at all, and its allies should be slightly happy with you if they hate the AI that you DOW'ed.

 

[FeiLing]

Always knew that returning a civilian is the only way to keep an AI neutral or friendly for a bit longer. I believe though that only works once per civ, anyone know for sure?

 

[apocalypse105]

Well we might as well don't play the game look at all those penalties they might as well call it

civilization 5 dark ages


Can someone explain what this means :
Do NOT be a "critical" warmonger (this is the most severe penalty of 5.)


Seriously why firaxis thought it would be a wise idea to give every action in the game a penaltie

 

[apocalypse105]

I did a similar list in an old post of mine. Yes, the negative modifiers are a lot more in number than the positive ones. So it's clear that the game needs more positive ones, and to be "smarter" when it comes to warmongering. The AI that asked you to go to war with should not get mad at you at all, and its allies should be slightly happy with you if they hate the AI that you DOW'ed.

Yes and most of these negatif modifiers make the game less fun its more a penalty then a diplomacy decission. That's what bugs me with civ 5.

It seems you get penalties for doing something good in civ 5 like building a wonder or expand

 

[smallfish]

Seriously why firaxis thought it would be a wise idea to give every action in the game a penaltie

Jon Shafer

 

[gladoscc]

Always knew that returning a civilian is the only way to keep an AI neutral or friendly for a bit longer. I believe though that only works once per civ, anyone know for sure?

Turn on AI debug mode!

 

[blackcatatonic]

Does anyone know if the modifier for using nukes affects all Civs (i.e. even the ones you don't nuke?) I almost never use nukes in my games, and when I do it's usually too late in the game to test for any diplomatic consequences beyond the obvious ('You nuked them!')

 

[gladoscc]

Does anyone know if the modifier for using nukes affects all Civs (i.e. even the ones you don't nuke?) I almost never use nukes in my games, and when I do it's usually too late in the game to test for any diplomatic consequences beyond the obvious ('You nuked them!')

The modifier for using nukes on another civ isn't in XML files, unfortunately. It seems to be related to the 50 through, maybe the game code has a static [50% of nuke modifier] or something.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Well we might as well don't play the game look at all those penalties they might as well call it

Because the point of the game is to get the AI to like us...

Seriously why firaxis thought it would be a wise idea to give every action in the game a penaltie

An over-reaction to how exploitable the diplomacy was in Civ4, is my guess.

 

[PhilBowles]

A positive value is bad. The higher positive, the more they hate you. If it's negative, it's a good modifier for you.

These values are taken straight out of the latest patch's XML files. There are multiple levels of many things, and I've listed the max (for both good and bad modifiers) simply because there's no reference to what is 'severe', 'major', 'minor'. 'NONE' is obvious.

1. Do NOT have cities close to them, even if they settled close to you. 30 modifier.
2. Do NOT have the same victory goal as the AI. 30 modifier.
3. Do NOT build wonders they want to build. 20 modifier.
4. Do NOT attack city states more than once. 30 modifier.
5. Do NOT be a "minor" warmonger (ie declare war more than once). 40 modifier.
6. Do NOT be a "critical" warmonger (doesn't stack with other warmonger penalty) . 100 modifier.
7. Do NOT ask them to not settle near you. 20 modifier.
8. Do NOT demand anything. 20 modifier.
9. Do NOT culture bomb us. 30 modifier.
10. Do NOT 'break a military promise'. 40 modifier.
11. Do NOT 'break a military promise' with any other civilization. Even if the AI hates the Civ that you broke the promise with. 15 modifier.
12. Do NOT break a 'expansion promise'. 20 modifier.
13. Do NOT 'break a coop war promise'. 20 modifier.
14. Do NOT kill a protected city state. 40 modifier.
15. Do NOT have a Declaration of Friendship with a enemy. 15 modifier for each.
16. Do NOT get denounced by anyone. 20 modifier each.
17. Do NOT denounce any of this civ's friends. 15 modifier each.
18. Do NOT declare war on a friend. 40 modifier.
19. Do NOT refuse a request. 15 modifier.
20. Do NOT get denounced by that civ. 35 modifier.
21. Do NOT denounce that civ. 35 modifier.
22. Do NOT be a 'reckless expander'. 35 modifier.
23. Do NOT take over another civ's capital. 80 modifier.
24. Do NOT pay tribute. 30 modifier. (Yes, you get a BAD modifier if you pay tribute to the civ that asks for it!)
25. Do NOT use nukes. 50 modifier.

What's an

Now we have that out of the way (25 bad modifiers!), what are the positive modifiers?

1. Have absolutely no land close to them. ("NONE") -6 modifier.
2. Have no similar 'Grand Strategy' to them. -6 modifier.
3. Return a civilian. -20 modifier.
4. Have a DOF. -35 modifier.
5. Have a DOF with a friend of that civ. -15 modifier.
6. Denounce a enemy. -15 modifier.
7. Trade with them. Amount based on how frequent the deal is, what side does it weigh to..
8. Kill units of an enemy. -30 modifier. Reduces over time.
9. Have a common foe. -50 modifier.
10. Get denounced by someone I don't like. -10 modifier.

You can clearly see why diplomacy is broken. And, let's say France asks you to declare war on Germany. If you disagree, you get a negative modifier with france. if you agree, you get a negative modifier with france for being a warmonger.

You are 'UNFORGIVABLE' if you hit 50. The AI considers you an 'enemy' when it reaches 30. The AI considers war at 50. The AI decides the actual approach (deceptive? war?) based on a variety of factors that includes if you're a human or if you are the AI.

You haven't mentioned the time limitation - most of the negative modifiers are timebound, and some that aren't (like territorial claims) tend to be dropped if the civ has other reasons to like you. And "we have been at war in the past" can be neutral or negative depending on context.

You seem to have missed "They desire friendly relations with your empire", which is an AI whim but listed as a positive in-game. Do you know how this works?

Re trade, I've got the impression that it doesn't make a difference how much you trade, and that there's little point trading if you already have a trade positive - is this not correct? And does gifting a city/unit count as trade in this context?

While adding more positives is necessary, to me the key diplomacy issue that needs fixing is the symmetrical approach to territorial claims, war etc. I've had warmonger penalties after being the defender in all my wars (though it may be due to taking CSes). I hate getting the "don't settle near us" warning immediately after someone else builds a city next to my territory - i.e. the effect is symmetrical because it triggers whoever the 'aggressor' is.

Also, surely Declarations of Friendship mitigate the effects of some of these? I'm not certain, but I had the impression that friends don't care about denunciations, and civs that dislike the denouncer don't care about their denunciations either (or care less). In my current game I'm about to take Berlin in a war I accepted at Siam's suggestion - the system is definitely broken in that regard if Siam is then going to give me a hit for capturing a capital.

Is there no penalty for having units near another civ's territory? I blame that on a war dec I had in one recent game (with an AI who had previously coveted my territory, but was only showing the strong positive 'common foe' modifier). In the Wonders of the Ancient World scenario (which may of course play by different rules), Alexander contacted me to express concern about the units massing on his border - I don't know if it caused a diplo penalty because I declared war on him at that point.

Re other positives, I think there should be:

+ for open borders (minor). This is partly because OB is currently seen as basically useless. Additional - if you declare war on/denounce a civ you have open borders with.

+ for research agreement (minor, cumulative over time) on completion

+ for killing barbarians in/adjacent to territory (minor form of 'common foe')

+ for denouncing a civ they're at war with (moderate).
+ for declaring war on a civ they've denounced (or at least waive the 'warmonger' penalty with that civ).

+ Liberating a capital (major with civ that is liberated, moderate with other civs. More positive with Civs that have Freedom policy branch, less positive with those that have Autocracy).

Remove or reduce the 'declare war on CS' penalty if a CS has publicly asked to have the target CS destroyed (the other civs may not agree with what you're doing, but recognise that you've come to that CS's aid rather than doing it from malice), except with civs that have placed that CS under their protection.

And seriously, while keeping the giant territorial claim max penalty is okay in terms of your relations with certain civs (I'm looking at you, Oda), make it much harder to get that big a hit generally. This is something you have little control over (and even less while it has the bizarrely symmetrical effect it has now), and it can lead to war far too early, often before you've had a chance to earn the cash or develop the spare resources you need to get even a basic positive.

Reduce likely negative outcomes generally for 'We're after the same Wonder', since there's no way of controlling for that. I'm more uncertain whether this should also be done for 'They think you're after the same victory condition', since I think that knowing who you're upsetting should factor into deciding which vic condition to shoot for, and you can get an idea of each Civ's plans from Victory Progress (Culture) and updates (who's got which CS or who's teching quickly - Diplo or Science), or from looking at the map (who's trying to wipe out the capitals - Domination).

 

[PhilBowles]

Well we might as well don't play the game look at all those penalties they might as well call it

civilization 5 dark ages


Can someone explain what this means :
Do NOT be a "critical" warmonger (this is the most severe penalty of 5.)


Seriously why firaxis thought it would be a wise idea to give every action in the game a penaltie

In principle, it forces player choice - you're going to annoy someone whatever you do, so it's a good idea to pay attention to who you're annoying and make your decisions accordingly. In essence it's the reason people liked the religion mechanic in Civ IV, although the influence of choice of religion/civics on diplomacy was moderate save with a few heavily religion-focused civs.

The trouble is, this isn't how it works in practice because most of these effects are symmetrical (i.e. everyone treats them equally). So if I capture Berlin, I'm likely to piss off not only the Germans, and not only the freedom-loving civs from elsewhere in the world that are neutral towards both of us, but also the Chinese (with whom I have a Declaration of Friendship) and the Siamese (with whom I have a Declaration of Friendship, who already disliked Germany, who are at war with them, and who asked me to declare war on Bismarck to begin with). There is certainly an influence of civ personality on these things (Harald Bluetooth has never declared war on me after fighting a common foe. Alexander has), and you can use that to some extent to gauge your chances. But I think your decisions should also play more of an effect, and also who has which policies - not necessarily just "You and I have the same social policy branch", but, e.g.

"Because we like Freedom, we're giving you extra credit for liberating that capital, and a big penalty for capturing and holding cities, not just enemy capitals"

"As an Honourable people, we approve that you have never reneged on deals and are less likely to consider you a warmonger. However, if you break a deal even with a civ we hate, we're coming for you".

And perhaps even "You claim to like Liberty and Freedom, so we're less likely to trust your claims to those principles if you declare war or invade a city, even if we don't share those values".

 

[spider1]

Diplomacy is broken, and it's been broken since the day this game came out. I have given up completely on diplomacy, and just play a military heavy defensive game now in order to win by means other than taking over the world (which is way to tedious on large maps). This doesn't always work, but it's better than losing your freaking mind wondering why all the AI civs in the game behave so unexplainably irrational.

I love this game, but deplomacy is still a major flaw so I just ignore it and work around it. Hopefully it will improve with Gods and Kings.

 

[gladoscc]

You haven't mentioned the time limitation - most of the negative modifiers are timebound, and some that aren't (like territorial claims) tend to be dropped if the civ has other reasons to like you. And "we have been at war in the past" can be neutral or negative depending on context.

So do the positive ones.

You seem to have missed "They desire friendly relations with your empire", which is an AI whim but listed as a positive in-game. Do you know how this works?

That's not a opinion modifier, that's an approach text. It's not a positive per relation points, it's AI randomly has decided to approach you as 'friendly'.

Re trade, I've got the impression that it doesn't make a difference how much you trade, and that there's little point trading if you already have a trade positive - is this not correct? And does gifting a city/unit count as trade in this context?

Doesn't seem to be true. The value for trade is just a max cap in the XML, which indicates that more trades / better trades = better modifier.

While adding more positives is necessary, to me the key diplomacy issue that needs fixing is the symmetrical approach to territorial claims, war etc. I've had warmonger penalties after being the defender in all my wars (though it may be due to taking CSes). I hate getting the "don't settle near us" warning immediately after someone else builds a city next to my territory - i.e. the effect is symmetrical because it triggers whoever the 'aggressor' is.

Yeah, that's a problem with the AI.

Also, surely Declarations of Friendship mitigate the effects of some of these? I'm not certain, but I had the impression that friends don't care about denunciations, and civs that dislike the denouncer don't care about their denunciations either (or care less). In my current game I'm about to take Berlin in a war I accepted at Siam's suggestion - the system is definitely broken in that regard if Siam is then going to give me a hit for capturing a capital.

DoFs give you -35, and they will take in account your denunciations more, and hate leaders that denounces you. And yes if A denounces B and C hates A, C likes B.

Is there no penalty for having units near another civ's territory? I blame that on a war dec I had in one recent game (with an AI who had previously coveted my territory, but was only showing the strong positive 'common foe' modifier). In the Wonders of the Ancient World scenario (which may of course play by different rules), Alexander contacted me to express concern about the units massing on his border - I don't know if it caused a diplo penalty because I declared war on him at that point.

That influences the AI's 'declare war or not' mechanism. And yeah if you get them asking if you're going to declare war or not, you're gonna get a bad modifier if you lie.

Re other positives, I think there should be:

+ for open borders (minor). This is partly because OB is currently seen as basically useless. Additional - if you declare war on/denounce a civ you have open borders with.

+ for research agreement (minor, cumulative over time) on completion

RAs are included in trade.

+ for killing barbarians in/adjacent to territory (minor form of 'common foe')

+ for denouncing a civ they're at war with (moderate).

Already in game.

+ for declaring war on a civ they've denounced (or at least waive the 'warmonger' penalty with that civ).

Good ideas..

 

[Maktaka]

Re other positives, I think there should be:

+ for open borders (minor). This is partly because OB is currently seen as basically useless. Additional - if you declare war on/denounce a civ you have open borders with.

+ for research agreement (minor, cumulative over time) on completion
RAs are included in trade.
Quote:
+ for killing barbarians in/adjacent to territory (minor form of 'common foe')

+ for denouncing a civ they're at war with (moderate).
Already in game.

RA's as trade modifiers is only beneficial if the trade itself that started the RA is beneficial to the civ, for example if you donate 100 gold beyond what's necessary to get the RA started. Phil's point is that the completion of the RA itself should be a minor positive multiplier, in a "you have proven trustworthy enough to complete an RA with" way.

Only CSes give relations for killing barbarians near them, civilizations do not. Also, you only get a positive modifier with a civ if you denounce their opponent in war if the AI ALSO denounced the foe before going to war. If the AI just pulls an "amma gonna kill you now" without denouncing first, you do not get closer to them by declaring on their foe.


@Phil Defensive wars do not get you warmonger. Declaring on CSes gets you warmonger and conquering CSes outside of a defensive war when the CS is allied with an AI that declared on you. That latter one can be tricky. You may safely conquer a CS if it is allied with a civ that declared on you, and the CS is STILL allied at the time of conquest. If you declare on the CS or its AI ally or you conquer the CS at a time when you could have declared peace instead, you start building up to a warmonger penalty.

 

[apocalypse105]

In principle, it forces player choice - you're going to annoy someone whatever you do, so it's a good idea to pay attention to who you're annoying and make your decisions accordingly. In essence it's the reason people liked the religion mechanic in Civ IV, although the influence of choice of religion/civics on diplomacy was moderate save with a few heavily religion-focused civs.

The trouble is, this isn't how it works in practice because most of these effects are symmetrical (i.e. everyone treats them equally). So if I capture Berlin, I'm likely to piss off not only the Germans, and not only the freedom-loving civs from elsewhere in the world that are neutral towards both of us, but also the Chinese (with whom I have a Declaration of Friendship) and the Siamese (with whom I have a Declaration of Friendship, who already disliked Germany, who are at war with them, and who asked me to declare war on Bismarck to begin with). There is certainly an influence of civ personality on these things (Harald Bluetooth has never declared war on me after fighting a common foe. Alexander has), and you can use that to some extent to gauge your chances. But I think your decisions should also play more of an effect, and also who has which policies - not necessarily just "You and I have the same social policy branch", but, e.g.

"Because we like Freedom, we're giving you extra credit for liberating that capital, and a big penalty for capturing and holding cities, not just enemy capitals"

"As an Honourable people, we approve that you have never reneged on deals and are less likely to consider you a warmonger. However, if you break a deal even with a civ we hate, we're coming for you".

And perhaps even "You claim to like Liberty and Freedom, so we're less likely to trust your claims to those principles if you declare war or invade a city, even if we don't share those values".

I don't know wich game you are playing but it certainly not civ 5. SUre you will piss some people off and you have to choose wich one.

The problem is that diplomacy is to sensetive like someone else said:

You get negatif modifier because the AI settles near you and they thinx you settle near them. Or you are a warmonger because you took 1 citie in a defencive war.

All those things are to sensetive

Because the point of the game is to get the AI to like us...



An over-reaction to how exploitable the diplomacy was in Civ4, is my guess.

No the point of the game is TO HAVE FUN
So you like to play a game with a lots of penalties? I don't I want to play a game thats fun and doesn't punish me from thinxing out of the box and trying new strategies.
A lot of these diplomatic options aren't fun at all at higher difficulties you have to do everything exactly the same don't expand fast don't built wonders exploit the AI his gold and then take over the world. .

 

[PhilBowles]

So do the positive ones.

That's not a opinion modifier, that's an approach text. It's not a positive per relation points, it's AI randomly has decided to approach you as 'friendly'.

So there's a difference between the approaches in the tooltips and what you'll actually get credit for? For instance, I see a positive for 'We have fought a common foe' and for 'We have denounced the same leaders', but not for 'You denounced a leader I'm at war with'.

Doesn't seem to be true. The value for trade is just a max cap in the XML, which indicates that more trades / better trades = better modifier.

Okay, that's good to know.

That influences the AI's 'declare war or not' mechanism. And yeah if you get them asking if you're going to declare war or not, you're gonna get a bad modifier if you lie.

Well, in this case the answer was yes, so I got an even worse modifier... Haven't run across that query from an AI in the main game, though (and in this situation it was another symmetrical effect - while I was actually moving troops towards his cities in preparation for war, the city that actually triggered it was one he founded just as my army was wandering past...).

RAs are included in trade.

Also good to know, and again a modifier I haven't seen listed in the tooltip.

One other big thing I think needs to be added: allied peace treaties. You can declare war together, but if the other guy declares peace you can end up embroiled in a war without support. As far as I can tell, the AI never asks for 'Make peace with human civ' as part of the peace deals it accepts with other AIs. It makes sense that if you declare war as an alliance, the system should default to making peace as an alliance. So, for instance, if Siam were to make peace with Germany while I'm outside the gates of Berlin, I'd get a peace offer as well (in this case I've actually had a peace offer and rejected it because, well, I'm outside the gates of Berlin, and all they have left is a garrison archer. If Siam has been offered peace they haven't accepted it. I haven't seen them during the war, but their score suggests they've taken territory).