Still skeptical, but now a Little Hopeful

Well, you must either have some mad diplomacy skills or just get lucky that no one declares war on you while you are at war with another civ. ...or you need to set your difficulty a little higher or something...

Because whenever I play, I almost always get ganged up on.
 
Diplomacy has always been a little on the weak side in Civ (and most any game); it's very tough I'm sure to make a realistic dynamic Diplomacy model. Now it is possible that if Diplomacy was such a huge undertaking and is dramatically different, they may have had to axe some other things in order to get it done on schedule. All assumptions, but who knows what goes on behind Firaxsis/2K doors.

A dynamic, exciting Diplomacy model would not only add depth to that portion of the game, but would increase overall realism feel to the game by tenfold.
 
tom2050 said:
...but who knows what goes on behind Firaxsis/2K doors.
Click to expand...

What urks me is that I would had I been able to get in when I sent my resume in about 2 1/2 years ago. It was for an IT related position, but I still would have had my foot in the door and may even know all of the details Civ V that we are itching to learn (for good or bad). Alas, it wasn't meant to be (at least at that time)! I did get to talk to Sid's wife, though!

Hopefully, I'll be able to start my courses at Fullsail this June (online) for the Game Design degree and that might increase my chance of getting in. If not Firaxis, then maybe Bethesda or Big Huge Games (if they are still around).

Anyway (to bring this back to topic), what I am saying about diplomacy and religion is that it is not right to remove one major factor of diplomacy in order to "improve" it. It may not have been perfect in previous systems, but it would be better to improve it then to completely strip it out.
 
Well, at this point, I think that the initial wave of information is over. I doubt we will get anything more (maybe a couple screenshots and a tidbit of info... or two) until June 15 - 17th. Hopefully, by then, they will have gameplay video, some more full hands-on account (perhaps a video demonstration), much more details breaking down the different systems which will be included, the final list of Civilizations, Leaders, and maybe even the new characteristics/traits of the leaders.

It's going to be a long wait until June!
 
Thorburne said:
Well, at this point, I think that the initial wave of information is over. I doubt we will get anything more (maybe a couple screenshots and a tidbit of info... or two) until June 15 - 17th. Hopefully, by then, they will have gameplay video, some more full hands-on account (perhaps a video demonstration), much more details breaking down the different systems which will be included, the final list of Civilizations, Leaders, and maybe even the new characteristics/traits of the leaders.

It's going to be a long wait until June!
Click to expand...

Sounds like we might get some new information at PAX East later this week.
 
Thorburne said:
Well, you must either have some mad diplomacy skills or just get lucky that no one declares war on you while you are at war with another civ. ...or you need to set your difficulty a little higher or something...

Because whenever I play, I almost always get ganged up on.
Click to expand...

You're still thinking in Civ 4 terms. You have no idea how things are going to work in Civ 5 so it's completely pointless to make any sort of comments like these.
 
The Civ5 strategic AI is supposed to be improved.

I would say that any AI that doesn't choose to target a rival while they are weak (ie at war with another enemy, and with much of their homeland exposed) is not a very good AI.

I don't think its unreasonable to think that (at least some) Civ5 AIs will prefer to attack you when you are already at war, particularly if you're at war with their friend.
 
Willem said:
You're still thinking in Civ 4 terms. You have no idea how things are going to work in Civ 5 so it's completely pointless to make any sort of comments like these.
Click to expand...

So, then, you have inside information that you are not sharing? Come on, buddy! Give it up! Let us in on the secret!

Whatever the case, to me, if the AI is so well done this time around as everyone is claiming (without any proof other than the say so of the developers), then I would think that the AI would be more apt to jump on "Gang up" situations. Otherwise, it would be dumbing down the AI and not improving it.
 
Thorburne said:
So, then, you have inside information that you are not sharing? Come on, buddy! Give it up! Let us in on the secret!
Click to expand...

I don't have more information than you do, which is why I'm not going to indulge in idle speculation as to how the game will play or the AI will react. It would be just a pointless exercise.

Otherwise, it would be dumbing down the AI and not improving it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't have to be the case at all. If Diplomacy has been improved, you might actually be able to form alliances and friendships with your neighbours, rather than have them attack you while at Pleased. So you could focus your aggression on certain select civs and avoid a multi-front war.
 
and if you can make it through a complete game of Civ without an ounce of bloodshed, that's great (though it must be on the Presettler difficulty
Click to expand...

Ahem. This game of TMIT's was bloodless. Not even the AIs fought eachother. This was on the Immortal difficulty.
 
Willem said:
I don't have more information than you do, which is why I'm not going to indulge in idle speculation as to how the game will play or the AI will react. It would be just a pointless exercise.



That doesn't have to be the case at all. If Diplomacy has been improved, you might actually be able to form alliances and friendships with your neighbours, rather than have them attack you while at Pleased. So you could focus your aggression on certain select civs and avoid a multi-front war.
Click to expand...

If the AI tells you it is "Pleased", why should you be able to trust it? One of the biggest flaws in Civ4's AI is that it telegraphs everything to you.

There should be absolutely no way for you to know what the AI really thinks of you.
 
Thorburne said:
[...]after having time to reflect a bit, I can say that while I am still not welcoming Civ V with open arms (given what little we still know at this point), I have settled and I am now hopeful with the potential[...]
Click to expand...

Skeptical but hopeful as well.

I am skeptical that your paranoid concerns based on thin air should be shared with the rest of us, but hopeful that you will stop writing them down sometimes soon.
 
There should be absolutely no way for you to know what the AI really thinks of you.
Click to expand...

That's not really a good idea.

The diplomacy engine has to be transparent to the player. You have to be able to figure out which if your actions make the AI more inclined to be your friend, and which make the AI more inclined to be your enemy. It *has* to telegraph things to you, otherwise you don't know what the effects of your actions are, or what actions you could take to make the AI like you more. You have to be able to understand the implications of your actions in order to be able to make actual strategic decisions based on costs and benefits.

Otherwise all of diplomacy is just a total crapshoot.

This isn't bad AI design, its good game engine design.

Also, you already can't completely observe how likely an enemy is to betray you, because different AI Leaderheads have different parameters for how willing they are to backstab you or start wars.
 
cf_nz said:
What's the rush for information about the game, do you need to make a decision now about whether you think you will like the game?
Click to expand...

Some people are not full of money you know?

Kinda like to save up and buy a game for example.
 
Ahriman said:
That's not really a good idea.

The diplomacy engine has to be transparent to the player. You have to be able to figure out which if your actions make the AI more inclined to be your friend, and which make the AI more inclined to be your enemy. It *has* to telegraph things to you, otherwise you don't know what the effects of your actions are, or what actions you could take to make the AI like you more. You have to be able to understand the implications of your actions in order to be able to make actual strategic decisions based on costs and benefits.

Otherwise all of diplomacy is just a total crapshoot.

This isn't bad AI design, its good game engine design.

Also, you already can't completely observe how likely an enemy is to betray you, because different AI Leaderheads have different parameters for how willing they are to backstab you or start wars.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should remove the AI's "official" opinion of the relationship (Pleased, Cautious etc). I just don't think this "official" position should govern their behaviour.

Another thing I would like to see is a more dynamic method of calculating the reactions the AI has to your actions. For example: some leaders should genuinely appreciate gifts you may give to them while others should perceive them as a sign of weakness.

Perhaps they could even include some form of Pavlovian conditioning. Should you give in to demands for tribute, perhaps your rivals will see you as an "easy mark" and ratchet up their demands to drain you dry.

Civ 4's diplomacy was far too predictable. With a little experience, you could push their buttons and manipulate them to your heart's content.
 
chongli said:
If the AI tells you it is "Pleased", why should you be able to trust it? One of the biggest flaws in Civ4's AI is that it telegraphs everything to you.

There should be absolutely no way for you to know what the AI really thinks of you.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. Does the US eye Canada with suspicion wondering whether we're a potential enemy or not? There's all sorts of way that nations can tell whether another nation is friendly or not. Why should it be any different in the game?
 
chongli said:
If the AI tells you it is "Pleased", why should you be able to trust it? One of the biggest flaws in Civ4's AI is that it telegraphs everything to you.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen a pleased Shakka or Ragnar? Did you trust them?

zeggy said:
Some people are not full of money you know?

Kinda like to save up and buy a game for example.
Click to expand...

LordRahl said:
Wow - I knew things in England were bad, but not THAT bad...
Click to expand...

Well, i also seriously think about spending 50€ for a game.
It's not really "nothing".
 
The_J said:
Have you ever seen a pleased Shakka or Ragnar? Did you trust them?
Click to expand...

Better question did you trust Catherine when she was pleased?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Hi gang - it's been awhile 😊
Replies
3
Views
556
raider980
raider980
A
[vanilla] Leader title changes erratically
Replies
1
Views
218
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
T
[BNW] why AIs feel to be inconsistent?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
A
CIV 5 Cocoa and Bison
Replies
2
Views
848
Actic_Civ
A
T
[BNW] Wonders of the Ancient World
Replies
3
Views
765
Tharkon
T
Back
Top Bottom