If diplomacy and AI is basically unchanged, will G&K be considered a fail?

If diplomacy and AI is basically unchanged, will G&K be considered a fail?

  • Yes

    Votes: 116 62.4%
  • No

    Votes: 70 37.6%

  • Total voters
    186

snoochems

Prince
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
434
It seems a lot of people find the diplomacy and AI in Civ V a little disappointing.

If diplomacy and AI remains much like it is in vanilla Civ V, will you consider the expansion pack a fail, even if it adds tonnes of new content and depth?
 
Diplomacy is getting fixed from the ways the articles are worded. It will be a "fail" for me but I will still play it for hours.
 
I'd say so.
AI and diplo are broken, and if they just add new features without fixing the game's major flaws the game will still stay broken.
 
No. In a game I play right now, the AI - and that includes the likes of Bismarck, Oda, and Augustus, have been nothing but nice to me the entire game. I played nice with them as well, and we got along just fine. I made a consession or two to my playstyle, but I think that the diplomacy can somewhat work. It worked like a charm for me at least.

I think the problem a lot of people have with diplomacy stems from a 'high up there' notion of how a good diplomacy should function, without taking into account that the programmers tried to make the AI more life like. I hate to break it to those guys, but 'life like' sometimes even means to make irrational decisions. IE, the AI attacks because it wants to attack. You may call it bad diplomacy, I call it very much life like.

The AI otoh is indeed a bit questionable. It works as it is right now, it just does not work very well.

I think the game as a whole suffers if the AI is not fixed, but it is highly unfair to say that the expansion.
 
No. I will stick to multiplayer. Unless G&K make things worse for mp.
 
I can imagine two scenarios: Let's say Hiwa and I both start in forest area and both adopt "forest" religions. Maybe you can build religion specific wonders, like the shrines in Civ IV. Assume you build it.

a) The way the AI is acting now would mean that Hiwa complains that my Totem is bigger than his, and DoWs me. I would consider that a fail.

b) Or the AI would recognize your common religion. Maybe you get shared bonuses from the existence of the hypothetical shrine. It would encourage mutual existence. If religion leads to a more reliable AI, that would be great.

I guess there is a wide range in how leaders will react to religion. Kind of like the difference between Isabell and Victoria in Civ IV. I am fine with that, since it would mean that religion does not dominate everything, but would mean that overall AI allies are more trustworthy.
 
I wouldn't consider the expansion a fail if diplomacy and combat AI aren't improved, but I would be disappointed.

Completely off topic:
Spoiler :
Hiwa complains that my Totem is bigger than his
Certainly nobody would normally recognize that his Totem is smaller...
Gee, I need :help: Sorry for this, I just couldn't resist.
 
I welcome the return of religion and espionage. I am excited by the early reports about these features. However, I will wait a few days after release to see what the reviews from others are before I decide whether to buy.

The diplomacy is already a muddle. If you add two complicating factors (religion and espionage) without improving it, it will become an even bigger muddle. The backstabbing doesn't bother me; aggressiveness doesn't either. It is just too many AI diplomatic actions (including DOWs) are blindingly stupid and self-destructive; they bother me even though they often work in my favor.

I'm not just talking about how the AI treats me; they can't even tell who their major AI enemies are, and they squabble with each other while that enemy swallows them up. Adding more factors without fixing the basics would be a big fail.
 
The diplomacy is already a muddle. If you add two complicating factors (religion and espionage) without improving it, it will become an even bigger muddle. The backstabbing doesn't bother me; aggressiveness doesn't either. It is just too many AI diplomatic actions (including DOWs) are blindingly stupid and self-destructive; they bother me even though they often work in my favor.

I'm not just talking about how the AI treats me; they can't even tell who their major AI enemies are, and they squabble with each other while that enemy swallows them up. Adding more factors without fixing the basics would be a big fail.
This is the most likely scenario, IMO. Yet most of us will buy the expansion and will love it despite all the muddle. We are suckers for this game. :)
 
Well, the new AI (if there is one) will have to be able to cope with the new features and the challenges they present.
 
Its already been confirmed that the diplomacy and AI will be improved.

How much it will improve I have no idea however. I think the AI changes are mostly related to the combat AI, rather then the diplomacy though.
 
Well, even if the combat and diplomacy AI stayed the same, I'd probably play G&K quite a bit, so it'll be worth the money anyway, but I would be disappointed.

I don't think it is likely that we'll go from the current combat AI to something that is on, say, the level of M.A.X. (the first one), so it's probably best to keep one's expectations realistic, but I do believe there is room for reasonable improvement and I'm optimistic that we'll see that.

Diplomatic improvements are much easier and I'm certain of those. It isn't nearly as challenging to make the AI Civs behave in more interesting and less erratic (or predictably inconsistent) ways.
 
Civ5s issue with diplomacy is lack of variety. In the late game, there's not a lot to do other than to constantly scheme against each other. Gods and Kings might improve that by adding city states into the mix, as they will no longer just be a gold dump. There's also been various suggested improvements to the UN that they will hopefully look at.

As for Civ5 AI and how people perceive it, I already talked about it in length here just recently. The AI isn't broken in the sense that it's not working. It's working as intended. But if you come in with expectations of being able to bully, bribe and cajole AI into submissively sititng in their corner while you take over the world, go back to playing Civ4.
 
Civ5s issue with diplomacy is lack of variety. In the late game, there's not a lot to do other than to constantly scheme against each other. Gods and Kings might improve that by adding city states into the mix, as they will no longer just be a gold dump. There's also been various suggested improvements to the UN that they will hopefully look at.

As for Civ5 AI and how people perceive it, I already talked about it in length here just recently. The AI isn't broken in the sense that it's not working. It's working as intended. But if you come in with expectations of being able to bully, bribe and cajole AI into submissively sititng in their corner while you take over the world, go back to playing Civ4.

Exactly. Diplomacy should only be a minor mechanism, primarily for trading. The desire that some wants to control what the AI thinks or do in a game is ludicrous (as it was in Civ4), imo. We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage. But we also need more variety and choices that would entail both positive and negative consequences.
 
Yes. I want Civilization to be less gamey. I would like a bit more realistic diplomacy (no AI suicides into a much larger foe just to prevent him from "winning"), and I want the AI to be able to manage naval units better.

When I'm interacting with civilizations, I want to feel as if I'm interacting with a leader, not with a computer. And right now, I can't say that.

On a less important note, I would love if the gold-per-luxury trades were a bit more randomized (each leader wants a different price besides...240 gold?) It could be like 225 - 255, something like that. I dunno, would be a bit more realistic.
 
When I'm interacting with civilizations, I want to feel as if I'm interacting with a leader, not with a computer.

To what end? The only goal that a "leader" should have is to win or at least prevent the human player from winning by whatever means necessary. The weakness of the AI is that it does not know how to finish games effectively, allowing a human player that is way behind to get a cheesy win. (Or allow the human player to get way ahead because some feel they should step aside through diplomacy :rolleyes: ). The only purpose of having AI opponents is not give the human player a sandbox game but to agressively remove you from the game.
 
To what end? The only goal that a "leader" should have is to win or at least prevent the human player from winning by whatever means necessary. The weakness of the AI is that it does not know how to finish games effectively, allowing a human player that is way behind to get a cheesy win. (Or allow the human player to get way ahead because some feel they should step aside through diplomacy :rolleyes: ). The only purpose of having AI opponents is not give the human player a sandbox game but to agressively remove you from the game.

The goal of the leader should be to ensure the survival and growth of his civilization. Like real nations do. They shouldn't care if another civilization is trying to win unless that civilization is threatening to destroy their civilization. If they feel threatened, then they will actively try to undermine the threat.

I am a firm believer in an AI that does not play to win but to give the player an enjoyable playing experience.

Sure, the AI can have goals to achieve, but those goals should not be "build a spaceship" or "buy all city-states". Rather, the AIs should try to build up their score, secure more land, acquire allies and isolate enemies. Yes, that makes victories obsolete, but I think it will make singleplayer much more enjoyable to play. I for one think that the entire world declaring war on you because you have the highest score in the Modern Era is both mind numbingly frustrating but extremely unrealistic and non-immersive.
 
I can imagine two scenarios: Let's say Hiwa and I both start in forest area and both adopt "forest" religions. Maybe you can build religion specific wonders, like the shrines in Civ IV. Assume you build it.

a) The way the AI is acting now would mean that Hiwa complains that my Totem is bigger than his, and DoWs me. I would consider that a fail.

b) Or the AI would recognize your common religion. Maybe you get shared bonuses from the existence of the hypothetical shrine. It would encourage mutual existence. If religion leads to a more reliable AI, that would be great.

I guess there is a wide range in how leaders will react to religion. Kind of like the difference between Isabell and Victoria in Civ IV. I am fine with that, since it would mean that religion does not dominate everything, but would mean that overall AI allies are more trustworthy.

Actually the correct method would be
c) the fact that we have a shared religion means that if he declares on me OR I declare on him we get a penalty (happiness probably)... both the AI AND the human player must wiegh that factor when going to war.
 
Top Bottom