Annoyed with this game... Well maybe more frustrated than annoyed

U

UFDelt

Strategist
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
121
Location
So Fla
The more I play Civ IV, the more annoyed I get with how relations work. I've noticed it more since I've gone back to Warlords b/c my friend has a Mac and apparently the good people at Firaxis have decided not to make BTS for Macs.

I'm super pissed that being "under the sway of a heathen religion" is such a game changer. I'm annoyed that I can be demanded to do or give anything and receive a negative point from it if I refuse AND that even giving tribute isn't a guarantee for safety. I'm annoyed that two civs from all the way across the world will go to war and one will inevitably ask me to go to war with them and when I refuse, I receive a negative point. I'm frustrated that years of peace is only worth +1 point and years of good trade is also something that doesn't get enough points. Why is it so prohibitive to give enough tribute to make it your worthwhile? Why is it that trade is so rigid that I can only get a lump sum for a tech or gold per turn for a resource? Or that when trading tech, the ai always has to get the better part, even when I'm MUCH stronger. How can a civ be pleased or friendly with me and yet they don't like me enough swap techs that everyone else has or trade resources like bananas? Why is it that civs will randomly go to war with me even though I have more positive points than negative? :mad::mad::mad:

The relations suck for this game. The point system is totally screwed up and unrealistic IMO. Civ V will have to promise big changes in the diplomacy among other things for me to instantly buy it.

Ahh, I feel a little better now that I've ranted. I guess I just want to know if this happens to anyone else and they get this frustrated
 
I have other things that annoy me. Diplo can be turned to the human's favor bigtime, especially if you know what dispositions each leader will declare war or trade with (search for threads started by ori and you'll find it).

Religion as a game changer even makes sense. a TON of historic wars had at least some religion as a factor.

There are lots of cheesy ways to gain diplo +'s, and if you pick sides it doesn't matter HOW MUCH people who hate you do so. They still hate you. And then they die.
 
I often find diplomacy very fun in my games... if only because I have some wierd nack of finding the strongest player in my game, and getting great trades...

If you adopt the main religion, most of your diplomacy things will be set for life. In fact, having a shared religion often gets you pleased, with no extra effort.

If you know how to use diplomacy, then it is really powerful. There are documented cases of civilisations that are STILL FRIENDLY with a civ, even though they are currently in a war!! (Obviously, the war hasn't been going long. The -8 this war spoils our relationship is rather tough).

Alas, the diplomacy system is strongly favored to the AI. Of course, if they didn't do that, the AI would be little better than in-fighting squabbling b****es, who are constantly in a war with each other, and who the Human player could just easily pick of when they want to.

Finally, as long as you don't do anything silly, and pick a civilisation, and stick with them, you can get all but 2 or 3 civs (in a huge map) cautious or above, with 2 or 3 friendly, and 2 or 3 furious... And you don't even need to give in to demands!! (Although that often helps).
 
I don't find the diplo bonuses unrealistic at all, except for when you're asked to help people warring at the other side of the map. Religion plays a massive part in real life, and has been the root cause of countless wars.

That some civs won't trade at pleased, and some will attack even after you pay tribute, is also perfectly realistic and differing personalities enhances the game greatly imo.

I do agree that trading could be improved somewhat.

One of my frustrations, that you haven't touched upon, is how massively strong an early war tends to be. At the highest difficulty levels I find that rushing someone is the only way I can ever win.
 
well ... several persons on the board have succeded deity online without ever warring (seem to remember that Unconquered sun even did one without building any military)

also ... try to name the number of nations which have become great without a single major war?
 
Well, my favourite pet peeve about diplo is when a AI labels us her worst enemy and we see that we are only her worst enemy because we traded with their worst enemy ...... :confused:
 
Yeah that kind of bothers me too, but I've seen less of it lately. Did 3.17 patch affect the odds of that happening, or has constant bad experience just taught me how to avoid having that nonsense happen?
 
You are doing diplomacy with a limited AI, but what do you expect?

You as a human player can attack friendly nations and the ai has no one to complain to
you can decide if you want trade a tech or not, or decide which tech do you give (you trade your music tech when the Ai would need your astronomy for example)

i do agree that it could be better ( i wana see ultimatum feature, or getting casus belli like it was in europe universalis etc), but i still havent seen better system than this yet.
 
I disagree that religion plays a massive part in real life. Those that say that don't truly understand world politics. It plays a part, just like all other facets of real life. Ancient wars weren't so much about religion as it was my god vs. your god. Religion didn't exist in the sense that we know it. Ancient Rome didn't go to war b/c of its religious differences- in fact, they incorporated many of the gods of the conquered land into their state religion! The Israeli/Pali conflict is as much about land and water as it is about religion. World War I and II didn't arise out of religion. Cold War didn't arise out of religion, it was out of an economic and social difference. All I'm saying is that religion shouldn't get SO much sway.

As far as the human attacking a friendly AI, I agree, that's a little messed up & I see that as a BIG problem. When have you seen two nations that were at the best of relations suddenly go to war? Nations that go to war generally as a rule of thumb don't have great relations to begin with, even if it is a surprise attack. You think Poland and Germany were bff's before Germany blitzkrieged the crap out of them?
 
well ... grats for handpicking some of the few wars which doesn't have religion involved

religius wars: all the wars between early islam and christianity in most of middle east and northen africa ... several wars in far east ... tribal wars in africa ... late medival wars in europe between protestants and catholics ... the war between Iraq and Iran ... the intranational civil confict between the muslims in Iraq ... europes "convert or die" politics in their colonies
 
The AI can be reworked in the XMLs to wtfdeclare on you at friendly, and I might just make a scenario for such a thing on the strategy & tips forum soon, featuring AI tendencies modeled after players :p.
 
UFDelt said:
The more I play Civ IV, the more annoyed I get with how relations work. I've noticed it more since I've gone back to Warlords b/c my friend has a Mac and apparently the good people at Firaxis have decided not to make BTS for Macs.

I'm super pissed that being "under the sway of a heathen religion" is such a game changer. I'm annoyed that I can be demanded to do or give anything and receive a negative point from it if I refuse AND that even giving tribute isn't a guarantee for safety. I'm annoyed that two civs from all the way across the world will go to war and one will inevitably ask me to go to war with them and when I refuse, I receive a negative point. I'm frustrated that years of peace is only worth +1 point and years of good trade is also something that doesn't get enough points. Why is it so prohibitive to give enough tribute to make it your worthwhile? Why is it that trade is so rigid that I can only get a lump sum for a tech or gold per turn for a resource? Or that when trading tech, the ai always has to get the better part, even when I'm MUCH stronger. How can a civ be pleased or friendly with me and yet they don't like me enough swap techs that everyone else has or trade resources like bananas? Why is it that civs will randomly go to war with me even though I have more positive points than negative? :mad::mad::mad:

The relations suck for this game. The point system is totally screwed up and unrealistic IMO. Civ V will have to promise big changes in the diplomacy among other things for me to instantly buy it.

Ahh, I feel a little better now that I've ranted. I guess I just want to know if this happens to anyone else and they get this frustrated
Click to expand...

Well that's kinda redundant, that's like saying "how come each level I set the AI higher than noble they get more units and technologies and bonuses?" yes it's kinda unfair, but think how easy it was if it wasn't like that, afterall the AI plays with the same techniques on nobel and above, only gets minor bonuses, this is one of them, and yes I think it scales with level aswell.
 
I was only using a few of the major examples to illustrate a point... That point being that wars are more often fought not BECAUSE of religious differences but for STRATEGIC needs. SOOOOO what I'm saying is just that I don't believe that religion should be such a game changer.
I also don't think it's realistic for a nation that you've got almost no relations with asking me to go with war or stop trading. That would be like Mexico asking Sweden to stop trading with Canada- it just doesn't make sense that Mexico would ask first of all and second of all that Mexico would get so pissed when help is refused. Maybe they should give a negative quarter point; not ideal but better than what it is currently.

I haven't played the game higher than noble in Civ IV yet. But I understand that due to the limitations of AI, you have to give them bonuses for technologies and building stuff at the higher levels to compensate. I don't understand how what I'm saying is redundant...
 
I agree with you UFDelt, but no matter how advanced computers have gotten, the programmers just can't make them perfectly realistic. I think they do try to do a good job with what they have. And it HAS gotten better over the years... the relations from civ 1 were basically non-existent. Dealing with the other civs was akin to working at a psychiatric ward.

Will Civ 5 have perfect AI functioning? Definitely not. But hopefully it'll have some improvements.
 
UFDelt said:
I was only using a few of the major examples to illustrate a point... That point being that wars are more often fought not BECAUSE of religious differences but for STRATEGIC needs. SOOOOO what I'm saying is just that I don't believe that religion should be such a game changer.
I also don't think it's realistic for a nation that you've got almost no relations with asking me to go with war or stop trading. That would be like Mexico asking Sweden to stop trading with Canada- it just doesn't make sense that Mexico would ask first of all and second of all that Mexico would get so pissed when help is refused. Maybe they should give a negative quarter point; not ideal but better than what it is currently.

I haven't played the game higher than noble in Civ IV yet. But I understand that due to the limitations of AI, you have to give them bonuses for technologies and building stuff at the higher levels to compensate. I don't understand how what I'm saying is redundant...
Click to expand...

Religion doesn't cause wars in Civ IV, it just makes them a little more likely. Even today looking at relations between the predominantly Christian West and the Islamic world I'd say a diplomatic minus for different religion is entirely justified.
 
AmazonQueen said:
Religion doesn't cause wars in Civ IV, it just makes them a little more likely. Even today looking at relations between the predominantly Christian West and the Islamic world I'd say a diplomatic minus for different religion is entirely justified.
Click to expand...

Plus it's not like religion is the be all and end all of diplomacy, many leaders aren't very religious and unless they have the holy city (which increases the diplo penalty/bonus) will never really care much what religion you have. With most leaders its very possible to have good friendships regardless of religion or of course be enemies while sharing the religion. (With of course some exceptions such as Saladin or Isabella) And then in the late game its possible for free religion to become dominant and drop the issue altogether.
 
UFDelt said:
Ancient wars weren't so much about religion as it was my god vs. your god.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I fail to see the signifigance. Please explain to me how a war sparked by "my god vs your god" is not religious. Almost all the conflicts you've mentioned are modern ones where religion isn't a factor. And this is represented in the game with the Free Religion civic. If you look at the past though religion played a major role in many conflicts, sometimes exclusively so. Even though the primary motivation for the war wasn't necessarily religious, the justification for the conflict almost inevitably became embroiled in the differing views of the combatants and took on a religious overtone. You can see this as far back as WW1, with both sides claiming that God was on their side and using religion as a propaganda tool.
 
It wouldn't take too much effort to just Mod out all the religious diplo modifiers. That way you could play the game how you wanted. Heck, just goto the modding forum and ask if anyone would be able to do it for you. You might be suprised what a nice bunch they are over there. You should also get the Apiolistic Palace wonder (misspelt, I know) modded out too(If playing BTS), as that can cause wars solely over religion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
CIV4 Handicap Info: iBarbarian Bonus; iAIBarbarian Bonus, no effect? Kmod?
Replies
1
Views
306
MassRiflemen
M
AspiringScholar
Anyone ever have 3 losses at 96% in a row? Just happened to me.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Bibor
Bibor
V
Why should I continue with this game?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Noble Zarkon
Noble Zarkon
RavenousX
Can't return city
Replies
4
Views
349
RavenousX
RavenousX
F
What are the different "types" of games for you, that feel very different and scratch a different itch?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Gumbolt
Gumbolt
Top Bottom