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
They should set decay values to warmongering - like they did in it Civ IV for all the diplo-relation affecting civ actions
Somewhere in the lines that it decays by 10 on average every 50 turns
 
Something to bear in mind is that most aggressive civs have a higher tolerance for warmongering while more peaceful civs are sensitive to it. So if you're surrounded by Alex, Monty and Napoleon and you declare on someone there's a good chance you won't be labeled "warmonger" but you will be if Gandhi, Rammy and Hiawatha are.

DoFs are no guarantee that the AI is not planning a backstab - every civ has a "deceptive" rating which increases the likelyhood of backstabbing a "friend".

Check out Bibor's Strategy by Numbers thread for details.
 
In my current game I have had two declarations of friendships which I agreed upon. One by the Ottomans, the other Spain. Four turns later the Ottomans starting dogpiling units in my territory, here take a look at this.http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11289813&postcount=17

Then later Spain declares war as well. I am not even the aggressor the Ottomans are. The reason I am showing the thread about my game is to prove that the AI does the things people on here do not believe it does. The other fishy thing is that the Ottomans attacked blatantly. Then all of the sudden they want me to give them peace after they sack my city of Najran. They were saying if I keep fighting them the world will grow to hate me. What else is new? LOL! Its crazy they are the bad guys not me. As for Spain they had no backbone either and asked for peace 4 or 5 turns later and we went on trading as if nothing happened. If you talked to Spain now they would not remember us fighting at all. The current AI remembers everything my eye. I am glad they are fixing diplomacy. What a headache its been.

From the looks of InfoAddict, your empire was twice the size of the Ottomans, yet your army was half his size. His decision to backstab you seems like an easy decision. It is unfortunate that after he takes the first city he can longer sustain an efficient attack and fails. I do hope you denounced him as soon as peace was made to let the other Civs know how you feel about the situation. I'm sure there was another Civ that disliked the Ottomans for backstabbing you and would have appreciated the denouncement. Along with a gift I'm sure you could have made new alliances. I would need to know more facts about Spain before concluding why they decided to attack you too. Did you take Ottoman cities before peace was made? Your empire would have been huge if you did, and that comes off as a huge threat to the AI...rightfully so IMO.
 
Something to bear in mind is that most aggressive civs have a higher tolerance for warmongering while more peaceful civs are sensitive to it. So if you're surrounded by Alex, Monty and Napoleon and you declare on someone there's a good chance you won't be labeled "warmonger" but you will be if Gandhi, Rammy and Hiawatha are.

DoFs are no guarantee that the AI is not planning a backstab - every civ has a "deceptive" rating which increases the likelyhood of backstabbing a "friend".

Check out Bibor's Strategy by Numbers thread for details.

Lol peacefull ghandi rammy hiawatha dow as much as napoleon does at higher difficulties
 
I think he's talking about an xml value, not your anecdotal experience.
 
From the looks of InfoAddict, your empire was twice the size of the Ottomans, yet your army was half his size. His decision to backstab you seems like an easy decision. It is unfortunate that after he takes the first city he can longer sustain an efficient attack and fails. I do hope you denounced him as soon as peace was made to let the other Civs know how you feel about the situation. I'm sure there was another Civ that disliked the Ottomans for backstabbing you and would have appreciated the denouncement. Along with a gift I'm sure you could have made new alliances. I would need to know more facts about Spain before concluding why they decided to attack you too. Did you take Ottoman cities before peace was made? Your empire would have been huge if you did, and that comes off as a huge threat to the AI...rightfully so IMO.

I do not think the Ottomans in this case made the right choice. He had no iron and frankly without it I could clean his chronometers, and did. The AI takes no heed of its real military capabilities compared to those of the human player. Sure, intially, he took a size 1 city from me, but I took that back and returned the favor by taking Ankara. The 2nd largest of his 3 cities along with his horses. He had twice as many soldiers, yet half the quality of troops.

Interestingly enough, after saying that he did have a lone rifleman unit, a village upgrade. A bit of luck that unit and he used it well, when I tried to assault his capital. This game is being played just until the medieval era, so typically there should be no rifles. In this case, my campaign turned into me trying to kill his rifleman and eliminate it from the game. I lost most experienced units doing this. He had it fortified in forest terrain. So I made peace, and have since rebuilt my army. The AI still lost an important city and got nowhere in his little war, which he started. As for me, I can easily replace my losses, and will be in a much stronger position to strike at his capital.

I agree though that I should have denounced him after peace was made. This I did not do. As a player I lack experience. I will keep this in mind next time that happens. At the same time I am not sure about Spain I will look into it next time I play.
 
It would be fail to me, although I'm not sure that diplomacy and AI are the worst game mechanics... But fixing those two would go a long way in improving the game.
 
I voted yes, but you need to understand that these projects are a lot harder than people realize so expectations need to be modest.

Particularly with the combat AI making it competent will be a huge task.

Diplomacy in this game is frankly already the best in the series, so not sure why everyone is so worked up about it. The old system was so broken and easy to game, this is more realistic.
 
@nokmirt - The problem with anecdotes like "I don't think the AI made the right choice" it is not testable, furthermore, the human player on the receiving end have immense advantages, in superior use of units, conservation of damaged units, and the reload option. Based on the infoaddict analysis, the choice was a fair one. You had a large empire with a smaller military. That's a classic case of overstretch and another AI with that confirgration would definately be vulnerable. And AFAIK, the diplo AI is human blind when it is deciding who to attack.

Not saying you reloaded or anything, but it's not really useful in a discussion about the AI to introduce that sort of subjective anecdote.

Where did you get the information that warmonger hate is related to capturing cities because a other poster on this forum posted a big post that warmonger rate is only related to 2 things:

Did I say that? I said capturing city states count as wiping out a Civ, and that the old exploit of turning a defensive war into a world conquering spree without having to DoW yourself is no longer diplomatically free.

The .XML values doesn't provided a flat penalty for capturing cities that are not capital cities or a city state, but then again it doesn't have to. The AI looks at a bunch of other factors as well, some of which we don't know about. This isn't related to 'warmonger' penalty per se, but it's not uncommon previously friendly AI become guarded or denounce you when it looks like your pulling away. And it could be any number of factors under the hood. Like score differential growth, or simply owning tiles they want that you had recently captured, so envy of the vanquished civ's land transfers to you.


this is the post :

Thanks for finding the post citing the 1 free war thing. As I noted, I didn't doubt it's something they would do, but the post is only an observation. Though It seems like a sound observation.

That said, it is worth noting it was made in July 2011, so it was probably based on the April 2011 patch. There was another big patch in August. I do not think the diplomacy got a huge upgrade in August but they did add another modfier "We have traded recently" which is a positive relationship modifier if you've given the AI a good deal. This can include free gifts, discounting lux for gold prices, and taking less than what the AI is willing to give up during peace negotiations.
 
I voted yes, but you need to understand that these projects are a lot harder than people realize so expectations need to be modest.

Particularly with the combat AI making it competent will be a huge task.

Diplomacy in this game is frankly already the best in the series, so not sure why everyone is so worked up about it. The old system was so broken and easy to game, this is more realistic.

Totally disagree. I'm winning Immortal easily without paying any attention to diplo at all. I'm just trading with everyone, making DoFs with everyone etc. without paying any attention who is hating who and so on. On BtS Immortal, diplomatic planning was an important aspect of the game. It's diplo on CiV that is easy to game, or to be more accurate, it doesn't exit at all.
 
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?

New content and depth will really renew my interest for Civ V. However, if the AI/diplomacy is not improved my interest will be gone soon.

It's actually the first time I consider pirating a game. Just to see if it has really improved, then buy it if it has. If it hasn't improved I'd probably not want to play it for long anyway.
 
Totally disagree. I'm winning Immortal easily without paying any attention to diplo at all. I'm just trading with everyone, making DoFs with everyone etc. without paying any attention who is hating who and so on. On BtS Immortal, diplomatic planning was an important aspect of the game. It's diplo on CiV that is easy to game, or to be more accurate, it doesn't exit at all.

You probably got lucky and scraped by the early game without being picked on. I've ended many games, even on emperor, just because I couldn't catch a break diplomatically. Most posters naturlaly would prefer not talking about that or how many false starts they've had before finding that winning game. Lo..

Civ5 has the most inconsistent starts in the last 3 entries of the franchise primarily because the the AI personalities are very strong and the diplomatic mechanics cater to the insider/outsider early diplomatic game. If you're in, you're ok, if you're out, well, hope you survive to brag about it. Also who you start next to or close to matters. If you're surrounded by warmongers, you better hope they are fighting each other.

Early DoF isn't 'easy' as you noted, it's a sign that you fell in the right clique likely due to your position on the map, immortal difficulty ensuring you're bottom of the pact in the early game maning none of the peaceful AI civs saw you as much of a thread, and random luck in who you drew near you. Nothing to do with your skill at all. And they protected you.

I have to wonder how many playthroughs you have had or if you're playing on modded games, specialty maps, or on settings you selected yourself to favour consistent easy starts to not clue in to the strong bias towards varied starts in Civ5. and for me, that is part of the challenge. I easily fail 4-5 in every 10 on my games ( random civs , pangea, large world ) due to bad breaks diplomatically or just a bad starting location.
 
To the OP: What a question???

Reminds of those old reporter questions: If you had to name the worst person in history, would you have a hard time naming somebody other than yourself? :lol:
 
@nokmirt - The problem with anecdotes like "I don't think the AI made the right choice" it is not testable, furthermore, the human player on the receiving end have immense advantages, in superior use of units, conservation of damaged units, and the reload option. Based on the infoaddict analysis, the choice was a fair one. You had a large empire with a smaller military. That's a classic case of overstretch and another AI with that confirgration would definately be vulnerable. And AFAIK, the diplo AI is human blind when it is deciding who to attack.

Not saying you reloaded or anything, but it's not really useful in a discussion about the AI to introduce that sort of subjective anecdote.

IMO it did not make the right choice. It simply thought just because it had a larger force, it could win. As you said just as subjectively, "His decision to backstab you seems like an easy decision." Seems and think pretty much mean the same thing. Neither are absolute in this case and both are based on subjective opinion. However, the fact remains the AI made its decision from a tactical point of view. It can not see the big picture.

Lets break down its war plan for attacking me.

Objective 1- Take small city of Najran from enemy with overwhelming force. Success

Objective 2- March on to Baghdad, but retreat if confronted by enemy forces. Success

Objective 3- Begin to send overtures for peace. Success

Objective 4- Defend newly acquired city of Najran with one archer. Unsuccessful

Objective 5- Try to hold Ankara an important home city with negligible forces to protect valuable resource of horses. Unsuccessful

So after looking at its plan what did it gain by attacking me? Absolutely Nothing! And it lost an important city, which will cause the AI later to lose its capital. Not a good plan in a domination game. Not a good plan period. So lets get past the load of codswallop you are trying to lay down on me shall we? The AI has simply, like it or not, taken itself out of the game by invading me. Plays to win my eye! Thats a laugh.

I have seen the AI make this kind of forlorn choice time and time again. In game after game. This is why I hope they make it better in G&K. The AI has to simply be able to think from more than one angle, or from more than one dimension. (It should assess not only strength of the enemy, but their military potential. Does the enemy have the ability to fight a prolonged war? Does it have a strong economy? What strategic resources do I have that it does not? Are we comparable in tech? Things like that. This is why I believe that adding espionage to the mix will help it to collect and assess information to help it win.) At least be able to take more than one thing into account. Maybe with G&K it can begin to formulate better plans for military decisions. It should not step into a big pile of S, everytime it attacks an SP.
 
IMO it did not make the right choice. It simply thought just because it had a larger force, it could win. As you said just as subjectively, "His decision to backstab you seems like an easy decision." Seems and think pretty much mean the same thing. Neither are absolute in this case and both are based on subjective opinion. However, the fact remains the AI made its decision from a tactical point of view. It can not see the big picture.

Lets break down its war plan for attacking me.

Objective 1- Take small city of Najran from enemy with overwhelming force. Success

Objective 2- March on to Baghdad, but retreat if confronted by enemy forces. Success

Objective 3- Begin to send overtures for peace. Success

Objective 4- Defend newly acquired city of Najran with one archer. Unsuccessful

Objective 5- Try to hold Ankara an important home city with negligible forces to protect valuable resource of horses. Unsuccessful

So after looking at its plan what did it gain by attacking me? Absolutely Nothing! And it lost an important city, which will cause the AI later to lose its capital. Not a good plan in a domination game. Not a good plan period. So lets get past the load of codswallop you are trying to lay down on me shall we? The AI has simply, like it or not, taken itself out of the game by invading me. Plays to win my eye! Thats a laugh.

I have seen the AI make this kind of forlorn choice time and time again. In game after game. This is why I hope they make it better in G&K. The AI has to simply be able to think from more than one angle, or from more than one dimension. (It should assess not only strength of the enemy, but their military potential. Does the enemy have the ability to fight a prolonged war? Does it have a strong economy? What strategic resources do I have that it does not? Are we comparable in tech? Things like that. This is why I believe that adding espionage to the mix will help it to collect and assess information to help it win.) At least be able to take more than one thing into account. Maybe with G&K it can begin to formulate better plans for military decisions. It should not step into a big pile of S, everytime it attacks an SP.

The problem is it DOES assess that "data".. it just can't assess it for a human player, who can actually use the units effectively.
(It seems reasonably successful at dealing with other AIs)

The terrible inability of the tactical combat AI makes the strategic AI overestimate its military strength compared to a human.
 
Indeed your right. Why did they unlearn what they learned from the last game? There was a thread saying that when they developed CiV, it stated that they left a lot out that was supposed to be added to the game, because of time constraints. This happens to games time and time again. Money is the deciding factor, not quality. All of this has been speculated over time on here. Its hard to say what is true or not. I remain skeptical about all these rumors. I do know there is an expansion coming out and some basic details. At least that I can depend on. Your point is certainly valid and well taken however. :)

The way I see it, Civ4 BtS left out more things that were critical - like hexes instead of tiles, 1upt instead of combat stacks, social policies instead of civics, better leader traits instead of the generic ones and the elimination of religion, espionage and corporations. :D
 
The problem is it DOES assess that "data".. it just can't assess it for a human player, who can actually use the units effectively.
(It seems reasonably successful at dealing with other AIs)

The terrible inability of the tactical combat AI makes the strategic AI overestimate its military strength compared to a human.

I agree with you. Time and time again, I have seen an AI opponent do very well in methodically and relatively effectivally take over other civs. It would never do as well against a human player unless such player has left him/herself quite vulnerable. However, am I the only one that remembers the PC-based traditional wargames (finite stacks, hex-based movements, leader influence, zone of control, etc.) from Avalon Hill, SSI, Battleground Series, John Tiller and so on? Civ5's hex-based 1upt AI has done a far better job than those real wargames ever done (which were best played PBEM), given the greater complexity than Civ4's massive combat stacks (which even at that level of simplicity, it couldn't even do that well!).
 
Top Bottom