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
Should they bother to represent differences and tensions between the same religion? I.e. Protestant and Catholicism, or Suni and Shiite (am I getting that right?)? Or just have a straight positive modifier for the same religion?
 
Should they bother to represent differences and tensions between the same religion? I.e. Protestant and Catholicism, or Suni and Shiite (am I getting that right?)? Or just have a straight positive modifier for the same religion?

That's what I hope they might do for the "enhancement" ie your version of Christianity/Islam etc. can either be the "Enhanced" or "Unenhanced" version.

Perhaps the "enhancement belief" is similar to the "founder belief"... the founder belief gives a benefit to the "founder" of the religion. The "enhancement belief" gives a benefit to the civ that "enhanced" the religion. (if a civ chooses to follow the enhanced version)
 
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.

I think most people who play this game are more or less seeking for a sandbox experience. It's quite hard to lose a game against AI on this game, at least on non Deity levels.
 
No, because although neither are perfect right now, the game is still quite fun. Both could be better but they're in a decent state. The AI is still sociopathic at times, and they occasionally launch dumb attacks, but both are better than they were at launch. I've got 276 hours logged right now, and G&K will most certainly add a lot more to that no matter what, unless they really horribly mess something up.
 
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.

While I can respect such a position, I feel that it is diametrically opposite of the purpose of playing games and engaging in competition. To me, the joy and satisfaction of playing comes from earning a well-fought (metaphorically speaking) victory through effective decision-making, wits and intelligence (along with a little bit of RNG luck for variety). A well-fought game in which you lose can also be purposeful if you can learn from your mistakes and what to do better next time. Both applies to games and to real-life.

I've been playing Civ for 16 years now and feel that Civ5 is the best one yet. But it is very frustrating to 1) get a cheesy domination victory via capital sniping (something I and others warned about prior to release); 2) opponents sitting on a pile of money and do not spend it on anything, particularly late-game city-states for diplomacy; 3) having a much more powerful military and watching you build spaceship parts and doing nothing about it; 4) acting like an ATM and making think you are actually earning all that gold; and 5) an AI opponent that can only win by cheating or having poor human opponents.

If the AI can do any or all of these things more effectively, then playing on Prince would be the norm and we would have to come up with more effective strategies and better decision-making in order to move up the difficulty levels. Just like in real-life.
 
While I can respect such a position, I feel that it is diametrically opposite of the purpose of playing games and engaging in competition. To me, the joy and satisfaction of playing comes from earning a well-fought (metaphorically speaking) victory through effective decision-making, wits and intelligence (along with a little bit of RNG luck for variety). A well-fought game in which you lose can also be purposeful if you can learn from your mistakes and what to do better next time. Both applies to games and to real-life.

I've been playing Civ for 16 years now and feel that Civ5 is the best one yet. But it is very frustrating to 1) get a cheesy domination victory via capital sniping (something I and others warned about prior to release); 2) opponents sitting on a pile of money and do not spend it on anything, particularly late-game city-states for diplomacy; 3) having a much more powerful military and watching you build spaceship parts and doing nothing about it; 4) acting like an ATM and making think you are actually earning all that gold; and 5) an AI opponent that can only win by cheating or having poor human opponents.

If the AI can do any or all of these things more effectively, then playing on Prince would be the norm and we would have to come up with more effective strategies and better decision-making in order to move up the difficulty levels. Just like in real-life.

I agree the AI needs to actually Use its money well. (which means not paying for luxuries at all when it is at 20+ happiness)

Now that may mean changing the AIs bonuses (instead of less 'maintenance' costs of Gpt and Happiness, give it cheaper techs, units, and buildings.. so it is just as "big" as you are, but it can do more stuff).. that way me selling the AI a luxury for 8 gpt may actually be a good deal for the AI.. if it uses the extra happiness for extra pop that is "super effective" pop.

But that would be a Major improvement... AIs that actually used their gold to
1. buy units to conquer
2. buy buildings to shoot ahead
3. buy CS (although here the "bidding war" between two AIs is a dangerous possibility).. but if the AI was willing to buy CS away from someone much poorer than themselves.

4. only buy luxuries that they could use effectively (ie not when they have excess happiness)


The goal of the AI paying to win is a good one... the problem is they don't.
[I agree also agree Capitals shouldn't be 'sniped'.. the Domination win needs to be Control of all Capitals, and 50+% of all cities and/or population in the world... for 10 full turns]
 
Fail is not a noun. Failure is a noun, fail is a verb. So there is no way it can be a fail because a fail is not even a thing.
 
Fail is not a noun. Failure is a noun, fail is a verb. So there is no way it can be a fail because a fail is not even a thing.

Cool, but I think you know what the title meant.
 
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.


Trading = diplomacy

In a game where trading is so much important gold is really powerfull making research agreements trading luxury resources away for gold or other luxuries for money.. All strong ideas;


However at a certain point in the game the Ai just doesn't want to trade anymore or even at the beginning so it basicly becomes a cash machine give some goods for gold with gold get research agreements or upgrade units and so on its more a ABUSE other then trading...

Because you know the Ai is going to backstab so why should we care about diplomacy we might as well abuse it as early as possible and thats what all people do at higher difficulties abusing the AI's gold ...

like you said :
But we also need more variety and choices that would entail both positive and negative consequences

If there was a option to maintain positif relationships so the human player has a choise face the diplomatic hit for a action in the game and lose gold bonusses and science or don't...its allready a bit in the game warmonger penalty However....

it doesn't matter what you do the AI just hates because there are so many random negatif modifiers from the start you basicly have no control over it...

Instead if there where diplomatic options in the game where you have to choose get a diplomatic hit and face the consequences and lose some trades like the warmonger penalty then the game would be a lot more interesting..


As the current system stands its more a abuse system then a diplomatic system
 
I completely agree with putmalk. sure the AI should generally play to win, but if they sacrifice the basics like having a powerful army and ability to use it to deter attacks, proper diplomacy to redirect hate and garner trade for a stable economy, i dont see how the AI is playing to win, because they will not be able to survive against another who put emphasis on early domination or landgrabs and cockblock the AI who might flourish late game such as those going for wonders or cultural victory.

settling and improving on lush lands should be the AI's goal, rather than beeline for wonders or cultural buildings, where all that turns wasted could be another 2 warriors and 2 archers that might have defended against a push from its neighbours.

yet with all that said, flavor still must be maintained. let each nation have their own focus only after that have achieve a certain standard with the basic mechanisms(militay, trade, science and general growth of the empire). only then should the AI focus on advanced concepts of victory(wonder spam, utopia rush, UN, space race, domination and so on)

with a good balance, the AI can definitely maintain a substantial defensive force, an economy that doesnt crumble on itself and yet still be able to play to win.
 
A definite yes from me. AI/Diplomacy is one of our biggest gripes in this community. If it still sucks after the x-pansion, there's going to be a huge uproar and revolt about it. Naval AI is the third thing on that list. If these issues are fixed, then the X-pack is worth the 30 bucks in my book, if not, I'm a Civ refugee to Europa Universalis III for good.

-Mark
 
A definite yes from me. AI/Diplomacy is one of our biggest gripes in this community. If it still sucks after the x-pansion, there's going to be a huge uproar and revolt about it. Naval AI is the third thing on that list. If these issues are fixed, then the X-pack is worth the 30 bucks in my book, if not, I'm a Civ refugee to Europa Universalis III for good.

-Mark

The AI has been sucking in Civ since the beginning yet you are still here? Huge uproar?? Revolt??? Give me a break.
 
The AI has been sucking in Civ since the beginning yet you are still here? Huge uproar?? Revolt??? Give me a break.

Take it easy and don't wet your pants in angst yelling at me. :D
 
The AI diplomacy is good, there is nothing wrong with diplomacy. The combat AI reaches a new low regularly.

My two combat AI gripes that Ive encountered are:
Suicidal Great Leaders
Suicidal Embarkation

Ive seen two great leaders in recent games parade unprotected through my vast territory... in wartime. If the great leader wont wait for reinforcements at least start a golden age.

When you declare war on me, and I have triremes flanking a narrow channel within line of sight, dont embark your most powerful units when they are defenseless! This happened at 2 critical moments, 3 units, all in the same map! I ragequit.. Im so insulted by the combat AI I will endeavour to make a bugreport lol, lets hope it gets fixed. Neither yes nor no for the poll.

Additionally I fear the AI hesitates when attacking cities. Ive been in defensive situations where Im sure Im about to lose a city, yet the AI units will stand outside and not attack only to lose momentum.
 
I cant understand why they left out the Diplomacy system that was in CIV IV. The new one doesnt work properly and you dont feel that you have any trustworthy allies beside you because they can change behaviour in an instant an become hostile towards you for no apparent reason. I hope they bring back the +/- system again. Otherwise i will not get hooked to the game like i was with CIV IV.
 
The AI has been sucking in Civ since the beginning yet you are still here? Huge uproar?? Revolt??? Give me a break.

Right in every civ the AI was not that great at combat.

In civ 4 I have seen the AI kill his hole stack just by atacking my city who has longbows :lol:


However diplomacy has been improved at civ 4 and a lot of players liked it and now they have taken a step backwards in thatv regards...
 
A huge resounding yes! Diplomacy is very very bad. The AI is very very bad. The AI naval AI is even worse than the other two. So I do hope they make big strides in the expansion.
 
We need the inconsistencies and randomness of AI actions else the human player would have that much more of an advantage.

There is a difference between an AI occasionally trying to be sneaky or deceptive, both of which would be represented by what may seem random and inconsistent behaviour, and every single AI Civ acting as if it suffered from clinical insanity.

I enjoy being around people with flexible minds who are spontaneous and adaptive. I however do not cherish the company of folks who make a habit of smiling at me while they sit at my house and eat my food, and then randomly try to stab me with the steak knife whether or not there is even a remote reason other than being mentally imbalanced.

You see, the Civ AI isn't merely inconsistent, but predictably inconsistent. You know precisely what it will do eventually; that it will try and stab you with the steak knife.
 
You see, the Civ AI isn't merely inconsistent, but predictably inconsistent. You know precisely what it will do eventually; that it will try and stab you with the steak knife.


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.
 
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?
 
Top Bottom