You broke your promise to move your troops away from the border

[agonistes]

You do not get a diplo hit for honoring the DP.
You get a diplo hit for DOWing an AI that you have a DoF with. As you should.

As you should? Seriously?

There is no choice about DOWing where you have a DP. Regardless of the existence of a DoF. And no warning that I could see that entering into a DP could lead to a diplo hit. At least give a guy a head's up.

And a DP only kicks in if a third party is the aggressor. Yet I'M the one taking the dip hit? A DP should trump a DoF in terms of global politics. Or the game should offer the option for you to remain neutral. Or at least warn you about the diplo hit. Since the game doesn't have that option, and doesn't warn you, there should NOT be a diplo hit.

And as for the other diplo hit, if it didn't happen, how am I suffering a diplo hit when I never promised France to move from their borders, but never invaded Rome, while Rome was the nation I assured I wouldn't DoW?

Personally, I think V has all kinds of diplo bugs and mistakes. I can't tell you how many times I've told a Civ to piss off, only to later be told I broke my promise not to expand towards them.

 

[Alesson]

Personally, I think V has all kinds of diplo bugs and mistakes.

I gave up on trying to play diplomatically in Civ 5 BNW, I used to play as Rome because of the production bonuses for extra cities, but when I had to deal with all the backstabbing and the fact they were expecting me to shamelessly give up on my own interests for theirs every time and all my exclusive luxuries being banned at WC by 'allies' I switched to the Assyrians and decided to warmonger my way to victory, it's been working every time.

 

[beetle]

As you should? Seriously?

Surely you are not arguing that, absent other factors, DOWing during a DOF should be okay?

There is no choice about DOWing where you have a DP.

Right, which is why a player should almost never sign a DP. Have you ever seen an AI offer a DP out of the blue? (They will ask about renewing a DP. But that is usually an equally bad deal for the player.)

And no warning that I could see that entering into a DP could lead to a diplo hit.

That is a fair complaint. Most of these diplomatic mistakes one has to make in a game or two before understanding how they work exactly. There is some (game) logic to them.

A DP should trump a DoF in terms of global politics.

That is real-world logic, but actually would not work as well for in-game play mechanics. It would be too easy to exploit.

Or the game should offer the option for you to remain neutral.

Nah, too exploitable. Since the AIs do not use the DP mechanic themselves, it needs pretty severe limitations IMHO.

Or at least warn you about the diplo hit.

Agreed. The in-game explanation and civlopedia entries really warrants more exposition about diplomacy. It is pretty straightforward once you accept it for what it is. (And after you have been caught by surprise once or twice.)

Since the game doesn't have that option, and doesn't warn you, there should NOT be a diplo hit.

I strongly disagree. First, your argument is a non sequitur. Secondly, the in-game diplomacy works better as-is than what you describe (which would be pretty much make DP risk free).

And as for the other diplo hit, if it didn't happen, how am I suffering a diplo hit when I never promised France to move from their borders, but never invaded Rome, while Rome was the nation I assured I wouldn't DoW?

Well, you did DOW France, correct? There is, of course, a diplo hit (with every AI) for that. The mouse-over text explaining the penalty for DOWing after agreeing to move is very specific. I can only assume that you are seeing red modifiers, but you are not certain where they came from, and you are misattributing a penalty.

Personally, I think V has all kinds of diplo bugs and mistakes.

No. You (and many, many others) might disagree with them. You might think them arbitrary. But they are consistent and quite predictable.

I can't tell you how many times I've told a Civ to piss off, only to later be told I broke my promise not to expand towards them.

Ah, this is a big clue as to why you are struggling! The dialogs are phrased as requests, but they are actually demands. (1) Not acquiescing to the demand is a big diplomatic hit with that AI. (2) Doing what prompted the demand is a big diplo hit with that AI. (3) Agreeing to the demand but then doing what prompted the demand is a separate big diplo hit for being a liar -- and I think it effects every AI. Note that (1), (2), and (3) are each separate from each other!

I gave up on trying to play diplomatically in Civ 5 BNW, I used to play as Rome because of the production bonuses for extra cities, but when I had to deal with all the backstabbing and the fact they were expecting me to shamelessly give up on my own interests for theirs every time and all my exclusive luxuries being banned at WC by 'allies'

There is a poorly documented “rapid expander” penalty. Even as Rome you will often want to stay at four cities for the early part of the game. If you trade away all copies of your exclusive lux, and are not getting other diplo hits, your trading partners will vote against banning your lux.

Giving up on diplomacy, because it feels arbitrary, is not an uncommon response. Kind of a shame really, since the diplomacy (such as it is) adds another layer of depth.

 

[agonistes]

First, your argument is a non sequitur.

The connection is perfectly clear.

Surely you are not arguing that, absent other factors, DOWing during a DOF should be okay?

I'm surely not. I'm arguing that a DoW resulting from a DP that happens to be against a civ you have a DoF with should be okay. I'm arguing that the DP DoW should be an exception to the rule. DP trumps DoF.

and you are misattributing a penalty.

I'm not.

 

[beetle]

I'm arguing that a DoW resulting from a DP that happens to be against a civ you have a DoF with should be okay. I'm arguing that the DP DoW should be an exception to the rule. DP trumps DoF.

I agree from a real-world perspective, that makes sense. I do not agree that, within the limited scope of Civ5 diplomacy, that such a change makes sense. DP does not really work like you would hope because it has no deterrent effect on the AI. Unless they fix that, it would just add to the imbalance to have DP trump DOF as you suggest.

I'm not.

I am happy to try help you figure out what is going on then. It was France that said move or DOW, correct? How did you answer? What was the narrative (approximately) of the red diplo message you saw after that? Was that red diplo message just with France -- or every AI left in the game?

 

[Trackmaster]

I think that it's actually a good part of the game, that adds some balance to the AI. Remember all of the neurons and connections inside your brain that make you the deadliest supercomputer ever created? For something as complex as a game like this (not like something as simple as chess or checkers) if you the AI were treated equally, the AI wouldn't stand a chance. The AI asking that question is there way of sniffing out a hint of an attack. With a limited AI brain, its difficult to tell what constitutes an attack and what doesn't. So by posing the question, the can confirm or deny their suspicion.

However, you with all of your connections and neurons can easily sniff out what looks like an attack.

In either case, you don't want to give the enemy the chance to DOW right at your border, capture the workers, and get the first attacks in while its their turn. At least you want the turn advantage.

So when you're asked if you mean war, you have three options:
1: Say no and call off the attack. I've done this before, especially if it wasn't an important battle and I felt like I needed the turn advantage.
2: Say yes and attack anyway. It's frustrating, but this is usually what I do. It can be devastating, but as I was saying, I'll only do this if I'm pretty comfortable with the attack.
3: Lie about it and betray them. I advise against this, especially early on, and especially if you're not going to Domination Victory. With the other three types, you need good relations. I most lie and betray them if its getting towards the end of the game and everyone hates me anyway.

But more recently, I've just started announcing my attacks ahead of time. It might sound counter-intuitive but it actually works pretty well. I like to see what I'm up against and how many guys they have in their arsenal and how they plan on defending. From there, I can go on the perimeter, sack their caravans, steal some workers, and set up slowly and not attack until its on my terms. Granted, if I were playing against live humans this strategy might not work as well.

 

[Alesson]

I think that it's actually a good part of the game, that adds some balance to the AI. Remember all of the neurons and connections inside your brain that make you the deadliest supercomputer ever created? For something as complex as a game like this (not like something as simple as chess or checkers) if you the AI were treated equally, the AI wouldn't stand a chance. The AI asking that question is there way of sniffing out a hint of an attack. With a limited AI brain, its difficult to tell what constitutes an attack and what doesn't. So by posing the question, the can confirm or deny their suspicion.

However, you with all of your connections and neurons can easily sniff out what looks like an attack.

In either case, you don't want to give the enemy the chance to DOW right at your border, capture the workers, and get the first attacks in while its their turn. At least you want the turn advantage.

So when you're asked if you mean war, you have three options:
1: Say no and call off the attack. I've done this before, especially if it wasn't an important battle and I felt like I needed the turn advantage.
2: Say yes and attack anyway. It's frustrating, but this is usually what I do. It can be devastating, but as I was saying, I'll only do this if I'm pretty comfortable with the attack.
3: Lie about it and betray them. I advise against this, especially early on, and especially if you're not going to Domination Victory. With the other three types, you need good relations. I most lie and betray them if its getting towards the end of the game and everyone hates me anyway.

But more recently, I've just started announcing my attacks ahead of time. It might sound counter-intuitive but it actually works pretty well. I like to see what I'm up against and how many guys they have in their arsenal and how they plan on defending. From there, I can go on the perimeter, sack their caravans, steal some workers, and set up slowly and not attack until its on my terms. Granted, if I were playing against live humans this strategy might not work as well.

For some reason I don't know, all Civ veterans are AI lovers, it goes without saying the human player has a higher intelligence, but the AI plays diplomacy very very smartly and sticks to their victory choice doing the right decisions all the way.

From my observations the only thing they're not very brilliant at doing, and obviously very inferior to the human player, is combat, even the City States share the same 'combat brain' the standard AIs seem to have and behave in a very similar way. I know this is probably never going to happen at this point, but instead of giving the AI all sorts of crazy bonuses, like happiness, production and diplomacy overlooking cheats, it would be better to improve their faulty aspects to make them more crafty at fighting.

But back to the main topic, the problem with this system is obviously the penalty, 50 turns is definitely too much, usually 1/4 of a game, I see that as a coward tactic for the AI to be safeguarded against attacks for most of the game.

Around 65% of the time when I'm prompted with that demand I am not even aware that I have too many troops close to that particular AI, I'm either marching to attack someone else or moving troops to reinforce distant cities, it may also happen when I have too many scouting ships on auto and the AI has a large amount of land, then I am forced to declare because it's either that or having the AI doing what it pleases to me and my City State allies for the next 50 turns. If I'm actually going to attack that AI just take the hits in their turn, anything is better than the 50 turns penalty.

The wisest option seems to be always declaring, but if you're sharing the same continent and are actually neighbors and/or are playing in a very high difficulty level, things can get really complex.

 

[Trackmaster]

For some reason I don't know, all Civ veterans are AI lovers, it goes without saying the human player has a higher intelligence, but the AI plays diplomacy very very smartly and sticks to their victory choice doing the right decisions all the way.

From my observations the only thing they're not very brilliant at doing, and obviously very inferior to the human player, is combat, even the City States share the same 'combat brain' the standard AIs seem to have and behave in a very similar way. I know this is probably never going to happen at this point, but instead of giving the AI all sorts of crazy bonuses, like happiness, production and diplomacy overlooking cheats, it would be better to improve their faulty aspects to make them more crafty at fighting.

But back to the main topic, the problem with this system is obviously the penalty, 50 turns is definitely too much, usually 1/4 of a game, I see that as a coward tactic for the AI to be safeguarded against attacks for most of the game.

Around 65% of the time when I'm prompted with that demand I am not even aware that I have too many troops close to that particular AI, I'm either marching to attack someone else or moving troops to reinforce distant cities, it may also happen when I have too many scouting ships on auto and the AI has a large amount of land, then I am forced to declare because it's either that or having the AI doing what it pleases to me and my City State allies for the next 50 turns. If I'm actually going to attack that AI just take the hits in their turn, anything is better than the 50 turns penalty.

The wisest option seems to be always declaring, but if you're sharing the same continent and are actually neighbors and/or are playing in a very high difficulty level, things can get really complex.

I think that successfully fighting a combative war is just much more complex and subjective compared to one of the other victory types. It's always the same issue across the real time strategy and turn based strategy games. The AI doesn't see attacks coming, the AI never takes their navy seriously, the AI doesn't value faster units, the AI has loopholes that you can exploit, etc. It's possible that someday you could program an unbeatable AI, like how you can program unbeatable chess players, due to the game being very simple compared to a game like this, but that would take so many man hours and computer hours. For now, all that they can do is just give them advantages.

Just think about how unrealistic it would be to assume that every war is basically a Pearl Harbor attack that is completely unannounced and unprovoked. And assume how dumb you would look for not asking about the war when you see guys storming your beaches and knocking on your borders. You could say that it would be nice if you could ask for the same thing, but again I think that as humans we should be able to tell. Just have your guys in position to fight or preemptively DOW on them. I don't believe that there are many warmonger penalties as long as you don't take cities.

For the record, I believe that Civ 6 will allow for mini-battles and forgivable attacks (like capturing a ship or a worker or taking out a small group of soldiers that are close to you causing trouble) that escalates conflict, but doesn't require a full DOW.