What do you think the diplomacy system needs?

I think one of the most frequent complaints from heavy players is the diplomacy mechanics and how annoyingly they dig you into a whole. We see threads pop up by the dozen about this and that with diplomacy.

What would you change for diplomacy?

I personally have 2 big gripes. one the whole way denouncements dig you into where opinions of you get lower and lower with every single denouncement eventually leading to a world hate you won't shake even in a thousand turns.

For a real world example we don't all still hate Germany in the real world and they have a long history colorfully violent history even before WWII. If it was civ 5 they'd be hated eternally by everyone. I don't bigger problem with modern Germany then the rest of the world but even in their initial days it's an interesting history.

Also back stabs are weird and friendships often make doing anything with the AI more risky then it should be.

In a recent game I was friends with russia who was behaving for a long time. Then one day Russia has a change of heard and starting attacking all my city states out of nowhere probably due to lack of room to expand. Everyone started to hate Russia and hating me for an old friendship declaration I had no plans to renew.

I was loosing city states but I couldn't denounce or attack the new Russia because then I'd be a backstabber of someone who was being directly aggressive on my interests but the mechanics don't allow you to unfriend someone who is messing with your interests.

I think the AI needs things to flag it to be ok to be aggressive. For example if someone attacks my ally or protected city states and takes them I should be allowed to declare war in response without the diplomatic penalty to everyone in the world. Right not protection just means I will call someone names if they attack my CSes but it has no allowed force backing it.

Denouncement spirals are poor. Backstabs are ok. The AI's sense of different situations, however, is the thing that needs the most attention.

While breaking a single promise, being of a different ideology or capturing a single City-State can cause the AI to hate the player for the rest of the game, the AI doesn't respond well to the player snatching all City-States or causing unhappiness or city-flipping through tourism. It practically ignores both despite the huge value of each.

They could certainly put more work into diplomacy to make it more Human.

However, your case about Germany isn`t entirely true. Even today, Germany still suffers some stigma for WW2, even though it isn`t Gemany`s fault really, but the system that took it over... It`s a hard one for the world to forget.

Socratatus said:

They could certainly put more work into diplomacy to make it more Human.

However, your case about Germany isn`t entirely true. Even today, Germany still suffers some stigma for WW2, even though it isn`t Gemany`s fault really, but the system that took it over... It`s a hard one for the world to forget.

Click to expand...

but in civ 5 terms they would be constantly denounced and warred on eternally by everywhere by the renaissance, but in the country with as interesting a history as Germany has all we ever think of is WWII and the rest is forgotten. They still rated when polled by Europeans as the most trusted country.

(I again say I don't have any larger a problem with Germany then I do any other country in the world but they have an old pre industrial age history of producing and exporting badasses.)

@ Chiatroll

With a few exceptions, I tend to do well in diplomacy in my games. My response first would be to gift units to your city state buddies who are in trouble. Having them after they're attacked will net you double the influence bonus. Second, don't respond to the denouncements. Your friendship declaration will expire in less than 30 turns. After that, you'll be free to denounce them, which will turn that penalty back around into a bonus. In the meantime, make the most of your alliance with Russia while doing everything you can behind your back to make sure they fail. Gift your CS allies units. Use your units to block enemy approaches so they have to go in one at a time, increasing casualties. And, if you end up going to war with Russia over this, liberating a CS nets you a nice influence increase.

Ceer said:

@ Chiatroll

With a few exceptions, I tend to do well in diplomacy in my games. My response first would be to gift units to your city state buddies who are in trouble. Having them after they're attacked will net you double the influence bonus. Second, don't respond to the denouncements. Your friendship declaration will expire in less than 30 turns. After that, you'll be free to denounce them, which will turn that penalty back around into a bonus. In the meantime, make the most of your alliance with Russia while doing everything you can behind your back to make sure they fail. Gift your CS allies units. Use your units to block enemy approaches so they have to go in one at a time, increasing casualties. And, if you end up going to war with Russia over this, liberating a CS nets you a nice influence increase.

Click to expand...

I don't mean the diplomacy victory type.

I'm saying the interaction with civilization mechanics are bad.

This forum tends to get LOTS of threads on the subject because it's a glaring issue with a great game. I can work with them and I know what to expect with them but they are bad.

I don't particularly care about how "human" they are, I'd just prefer if there were extra coding to accommodate a greater variety of situations. The options are too limited. A few "yes" and "no" flags to try and cover all diplomacy isn't enough.

For example, the old war-monger calculation. If Montezuma decides to be an ass and take Gandhi's capital, the world will hate him. If you try and play the good guy and liberate the city, the world will hate you as well.

New formula fixed part of that, but introduced new issues (taking a city in the ancient era will haunt you will into Industrial).

I think it's manifestly logical that "warmonger" should not be a binary condition. If Genghis goes on a rampage to try to conquer ever city-state he lays eyes on, he should be more of a warmonger than than you are fow DoW'ing him simply because it's the only to check his aggression against CS's you've pledged to protect. But that doesn't seem be to the case.

At the very least, declaring war on a repeat warmonger shouldn't cause you to be declared a warmonger.

"Civ hates me for building cities too fast" should get a fix. I have when AI starts hating me because I got cities during war\peace offering... and it's not my problem that AI sometimes get stuck with his capital because barbs kidnapped his settler.

steveg700 said:

I think it's manifestly logical that "warmonger" should not be a binary condition. If Genghis goes on a rampage to try to conquer ever city-state he lays eyes on, he should be more of a warmonger than than you are fow DoW'ing him simply because it's the only to check his aggression against CS's you've pledged to protect. But that doesn't seem be to the case.

At the very least, declaring war on a repeat warmonger shouldn't cause you to be declared a warmonger.

Click to expand...

This. I especially love when AI tells me "Hey, let's declare war on Mongolia" and when war finally starts, they start denouncing me and tagging me as "warmonger". Or tagging me as "warmonger" for one deceleration of war, while they are best friends with Mongolia who conquered most of the CS and fought against few other civs.

njmfff said:

"Civ hates me for building cities too fast" should get a fix. I have when AI starts hating me because I got cities during war\peace offering... and it's not my problem that AI sometimes get stuck with his capital because barbs kidnapped his settler.

Click to expand...

oh I hate that. the AI spams out 6 cities ASAP and if you have 4 by that time they hate you for expansion when you aren't expanding as much as them.

It needs to make sense. Then it'd be worthwhile. That's it, really.

Chiatroll said:

oh I hate that. the AI spams out 6 cities ASAP and if you have 4 by that time they hate you for expansion when you aren't expanding as much as them.

Click to expand...

yep, really hate that one. "I just want to place my 10th city here, but noooo, you just started your 4th city. You're bad, bad neighbor, I am gonna warn the world you're not to be trusted." Next turn, AI denounces me for "building new cities too aggressively.

I've also noticed that you get the same "tag" if you get cities via peace offering. You get them, burn them, but you still have "building new cities too aggressively" diplo hit. Might be a bug tho.