Advertisement
Civilization Fanatics' Center

Go Back   Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION V > Civ5 - General Discussions

Notices

Civ5 - General Discussions Forum for general Civ5 discussions.

View Poll Results: If diplomacy and AI is basically unchanged, will G&K be considered a fail?
Yes 117 62.57%
No 70 37.43%
Voters: 187. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Feb 26, 2012, 12:18 PM   #41
Swedish Berserk
Chieftain
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janig View Post
I must agree that the AIs diplomatic decision making is at an all time high. Ive played hundreds upon hundreds of hours and not met any bad diplomacy. Now lots of people complain about ludicrous AI diplomacy without any evidence: where are the bug reports?
Wait! You mean CIV V has good diplomacy? Yeah if you only want to go to war constantly then its ok. But if you want to have allies CIV IV diplomacy system is the way to go.

CIV V remindes me more of CIV REV than of CIV IV and that is not good if you ask me. CIV REV is a good game for a console but on my PC i want more diplomacy actions. I want to have good diplomacy in CIV V but as it is now it aint good enough for many users.
Swedish Berserk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 12:26 PM   #42
Mivo
Warlord
 
Mivo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by dexters View Post
The AI couldn't remember past its current turn in the past, this is probably the first AI we've had that hold grudges for an entire game and make bold face lies.
You are comparing the previous bad AI to the current bad AI and conclude that being bad is better than being bad.

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

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

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

There are colours other than black and white.
Mivo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 12:34 PM   #43
MkLh
King
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 853
Compared to Civ4, "diplo" on Civ5 is super easy to handle. In IV it was rarely possible to be on good relations with everyone. When you wanted to be friends or even trade with some civ, you usually pissed off some other civs, so you needed careful planning. On V it's easy to be on good relations with most or every civs and therefore get lucrative deals with anyone without any real costs. All you need is to not make some obvious mistakes. Of course they will backstab you occasionally and you may lose a research agreement or two, but it's not a big deal. Once you start your conquering spree with superior technology etc, everyone starts to hate you, but it's too late for them.
MkLh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 12:53 PM   #44
apocalypse105
Deity
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mivo View Post

Or differently put: With the AI as it is currently in Civ5 it does not matter what you do or don't do, but in a well-designed game your actual actions should matter.
.
Exactly to be honest why would they add denouncement system and decleration of friendship if the AI is designed to win.

Its pretty obious they screwed up...


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


Most options in the game doesn't matter and if you can bassicly ignore them not a good game design
apocalypse105 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 01:07 PM   #45
Buccaneer
Deity
 
Buccaneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by dexters View Post
And we couldn't predict what it would do before?

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

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

Yes, it changes the tone of the late game. And that's fine.
Once again, I agree. I haven't experienced anything that we couldn't overcome. Being predictably inconsistent is much better than being predictable (ala Civ4). And being inconsistent is much better than an AI being passive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janig View Post
I must agree that the AIs diplomatic decision making is at an all time high. Ive played hundreds upon hundreds of hours and not met any bad diplomacy. Now lots of people complain about ludicrous AI diplomacy without any evidence: where are the bug reports?
I haven't either. Some will remain friendly throughout the game, some will be fake friendly and some will be hostile. Why would anyone going into a game knowing how your opponents are going to play against you. As far as ganging up against you, they don't do that very well and wish they do better. Gives us some challenges as oppose to letting them stand aside and watch you win.
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 01:50 PM   #46
nokmirt
Emperor
 
nokmirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 4,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janig View Post
I must agree that the AIs diplomatic decision making is at an all time high. Ive played hundreds upon hundreds of hours and not met any bad diplomacy. Now lots of people complain about ludicrous AI diplomacy without any evidence: where are the bug reports?
If you declare two wars, your a warmonger and repeatedly denounced, attack and capture a city state, and your an international outlaw. *scoff* It might be ok if there was a real chance one human civ could defeat 16 AI civs at once. However the AI civs can attack city states and declare as many wars as they want on other AI civs or the human player, with no penalty, certainly no warmonger penalty that lasts the entire game. There is your proof the system is broken.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swedish Berserk View Post
Wait! You mean CIV V has good diplomacy? Yeah if you only want to go to war constantly then its ok. But if you want to have allies CIV IV diplomacy system is the way to go.

CIV V remindes me more of CIV REV than of CIV IV and that is not good if you ask me. CIV REV is a good game for a console but on my PC i want more diplomacy actions. I want to have good diplomacy in CIV V but as it is now it aint good enough for many users.
I agree completely.
__________________
No one but a poltroon will boast that he never was afraid.
―Jean Lannes
nokmirt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 02:08 PM   #47
elprofesor
Pluri-editing poster
 
elprofesor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: (hint: I can type "")
Posts: 766
I believe most complaints come from the fact that all relationships decay over the course of a game, and two big empires will rarely stay friendly in the endgame (though it does happen), since both of them are trying to "win", which isn't very immersive.

@nokmirt: it is possible to DoW 2 or 3 times and still keep good relations with most empires. Invading a CS is suicide, unless you are alone in your continent. Note that civs that you haven't met before your dastardly deeds don't know about them, so playing in continents actually eases this problem: you can go medieval on your neighbours before the renaissance and still not suffer that much for your diplomacy. And a couple civs don't care that much about your warmongering, so there's that too.
__________________
"There are 10 types of people in this world:
Those that know ternary,
Those that don't, and those that expected a binary joke"

Last edited by elprofesor; Feb 26, 2012 at 02:13 PM.
elprofesor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 02:22 PM   #48
Gilgamesch
Ancient Alien
 
Gilgamesch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: good old germany
Posts: 2,046
I voted with yes.
But i can handle diplomacy. For sure you can make a friend in one turn to an enemy without threaten them.( but i can live with this system)
But the ai needs some rework.
Hopefully this will be changed.
__________________

Community Call To Power

Now with more then 450 Technologies, 600 Wonders/Buildings, 200 Policies, countless Units/Resources and Beliefs.
Many unique and endless communty features included.
A total conversation that is probably the biggest mod for CiV outthere.
Gilgamesch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 04:48 PM   #49
Gamewizard
King
 
Gamewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 970
I prefer the Civ V diplomatic system to Civ IV's. It does work if you play by the rules.

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

The biggest problem with the game is naval warfare and ridiculous research agreements that turn 300 gold into thousands of beakers.
Gamewizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 07:21 PM   #50
nokmirt
Emperor
 
nokmirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 4,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by elprofesor View Post
I believe most complaints come from the fact that all relationships decay over the course of a game, and two big empires will rarely stay friendly in the endgame (though it does happen), since both of them are trying to "win", which isn't very immersive.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamewizard View Post
I prefer the Civ V diplomatic system to Civ IV's. It does work if you play by the rules.

Civ V diplo being broken is an OPINION, not fact.
The issue is that you should not have to follow any rules to placate the AI. The AI civs certainly follow no rules themselves. On top of that we are humans not automatons. Each game should have its own apparent strategy which unfolds from unseen changes as the game progresses. With the current diplomacy system the AI is simply static and does the same old thing game in and game out. Yes, according to most reviews, it is said it tries to win, but very foolishly. In fact it seems to make such stupid decisions, I wonder if the AI has actually been programmed to lose? The way it acts seems to cause me to think it has no chance to win in the end. In fact going one step further, the AI does not really know what winning or losing is, it simply does with no reasoning at all. This will change in G&K hopefully.
__________________
No one but a poltroon will boast that he never was afraid.
―Jean Lannes

Last edited by nokmirt; Feb 26, 2012 at 10:43 PM.
nokmirt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 09:58 PM   #51
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,773
Well there are a couple interlinked problems here

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

2. The AI is crappy at playing the game.

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

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

The overall goal should be

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

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

So for "realistic" diplomacy, have consequences to acting unrealistically in the game rules rather than in the AI. (Civ 4 had a little of this, you add extra unhappiness in cities of a religion if you attacked a civ that followed that religion)
KrikkitTwo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 03:48 AM   #52
apocalypse105
Deity
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkitone View Post
Well there are a couple interlinked problems here

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

2. The AI is crappy at playing the game.

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

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

The overall goal should be

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

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

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

It would olso help the combat Ai if it doesne't declare war against 4 targets and have to fight a 2 front war
apocalypse105 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 08:48 AM   #53
nokmirt
Emperor
 
nokmirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 4,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by apocalypse105 View Post
It would olso help the combat Ai if it doesne't declare war against 4 targets and have to fight a 2 front war
Hey its just trying to win don't you know? I'll tell you about the AI civs with friends like that, I don't need friends. The philosophy is that its hands down the best diplo system ever, it works they say. But you have to follow certain rules. Ha! Damn if I will!

The poll is in favor more and more for the "yes" choice.
__________________
No one but a poltroon will boast that he never was afraid.
―Jean Lannes

Last edited by nokmirt; Feb 27, 2012 at 08:53 AM.
nokmirt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 09:19 AM   #54
Gamewizard
King
 
Gamewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 970
The question is misleading. "If diplomacy AND AI is unchanged will G&K be a failure?" is a broad question. Like I already said, the diplo already works, so if it stays the same its all good. However, the AIs ability to use gold to try to win and its ability to conduct war in and over the oceans is quite poor. If that doesn't improve I would be disappointed.

I voted no because I thought the question was only about the diplomacy, but I could see how many people would take other aspects of the AI into consideration when voting.
Gamewizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 09:56 AM   #55
Putmalk
Deity
 
Putmalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 2,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamewizard View Post
The question is misleading. "If diplomacy AND AI is unchanged will G&K be a failure?" is a broad question. Like I already said, the diplo already works, so if it stays the same its all good. However, the AIs ability to use gold to try to win and its ability to conduct war in and over the oceans is quite poor. If that doesn't improve I would be disappointed.

I voted no because I thought the question was only about the diplomacy, but I could see how many people would take other aspects of the AI into consideration when voting.
I didn't think the question was misleading at all, and you should be a bit more careful about posting your opinion as fact. (I bolded that bit)
__________________
Mod Creator
Check out Civ IV Diplomacy Features in Civ V!

Check me out on Twitter (@Putmalk) and Reddit (/u/Putmalk)! Feel free to shoot me a message anytime!

Check out my youtube channel here.
Putmalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 10:15 AM   #56
apocalypse105
Deity
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamewizard View Post
The question is misleading. "If diplomacy AND AI is unchanged will G&K be a failure?" is a broad question. Like I already said, the diplo already works, so if it stays the same its all good. However, the AIs ability to use gold to try to win and its ability to conduct war in and over the oceans is quite poor. If that doesn't improve I would be disappointed.

I voted no because I thought the question was only about the diplomacy, but I could see how many people would take other aspects of the AI into consideration when voting.
Really diplomacy works hmm so thats why there are so many threats like this and others that complain or point out major problems with the AI
apocalypse105 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 10:17 AM   #57
dexters
Gods & Emperors
 
dexters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by nokmirt View Post
If you declare two wars, your a warmonger and repeatedly denounced, attack and capture a city state, and your an international outlaw. .

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

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

The higher the number the more they hate you.
Code:
Warmonger (They believe you are a warmonger)
Critical 100  Severe 70 Major 40  Minor 15 None
There are also specific opinion modifiers like capturing capitals +80 enmity, and reckless expansion +35 enmity (though this could also be related to settlement)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quote:
Originally Posted by apocalypse105 View Post
Really diplomacy works hmm so thats why there are so many threats like this and others that complain or point out major problems with the AI
First of all, AI is a broad subject. combat/economic/diplomacy. Thread title is vague and people are generally complaining about everything. And this isn't new. I've been writing about AI since Civ3 days and ways to improve it.

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

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

Last edited by dexters; Feb 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM.
dexters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 11:40 AM   #58
nokmirt
Emperor
 
nokmirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 4,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by dexters View Post
I've heard this before, maybe it was you saying it, but what is your source for the 1 free war thing?
No, its not just me saying it this topic came out ages ago. Along with the understanding that you have to play a certain way. If you declare wars or attack a city state you will gain the envitable "WARMONGER" status, which lasts the entire game. This is common knowledge. Also do not be so keen on the XML. There have been several posts in the past saying it is suspect and remains unfinished. Much of it does not work properly. And I like your example of an on/off switch explaining CiV diplomacy. Yes, you are absolutely right, if you do a certain thing, the switch goes on and you become a dreaded warmonger. However the switch only turns on for the human player, not the AI. It can attack as many city states as it wants, and declare as many wars as it wants too, WITHOUT PENALTY. I have seen it in my games time and time again. And does some pop up come on the screen asking if I want to regard a certain belligerent AI civ as a warmongering menace to the world? NO!!!! Now I ask you is that fair???? Hmmm!!!???
__________________
No one but a poltroon will boast that he never was afraid.
―Jean Lannes

Last edited by nokmirt; Feb 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM.
nokmirt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 12:38 PM   #59
dexters
Gods & Emperors
 
dexters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by nokmirt View Post
No, its not just me saying it this topic came out ages ago. Along with the understanding that you have to play a certain way. If you declare wars or attack a city state you will gain the envitable "WARMONGER" status, which lasts the entire game. This is common knowledge.
IMHO, your giving people the wrong impression that a few wars will ruin them. Since you didn't know about how city states work, I will chalk it up to that causing your problems. But I've declared multiple wars without getting penalized for being a warmonger.

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

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

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

Last edited by dexters; Feb 27, 2012 at 12:49 PM.
dexters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 01:18 PM   #60
Buccaneer
Deity
 
Buccaneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,515
Sigh. More rantings from people who do not understand or know how to play Civ5. Perhaps some just want to believe what they hear and will not listen to reason or real evidence?

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

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

Bookmarks

Go Back Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION V > Civ5 - General Discussions > If diplomacy and AI is basically unchanged, will G&K be considered a fail?

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Advertisement

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is copyright Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com | Amazon UK | Amazon DE | Amazon CA | Amazon FR