Diplomacy Sucks, example #247

animalguy said:

I'm fine with the way diplomacy is right now, except for the fact that modifiers appear to be permanet and never disapere. This means that if a civ turns guarded on turn 100 say goodbye to any friendly relations. If relations could fluctuate then diplomacy would be much more enjoyable

Click to expand...

They can. I've had civs go from hostile to friendly and stay there. Usually happens if political situations change, like you finally denounce their worst enemy etc.

To the OP: Remember, its almost impossible to be liked by everyone. If they don't want your help/support...on their own head be it

Well what i`m hearing here sounds good to me. Factions should never be easy to please or roll over in diplomacy, and like real Humans, just because you`re nice to them doesn`t mean they`ll open their borders to you just like that. And if a Leader doesn`t like you so you get a - modifier, remember that`s just from his point of view. It doesn`t mean you did anything wrong. You can`t stop every single person from not liking you.

Part of the reason we`ve had so many troubles in the real world is because of distrust. Two sides could be happy and get along, but because one is so paranoid it makes things worse for itself.

Look at Stalin with Churchill. Stalin just didn`t trust Churchill thjinking Churchill wa sup to all sorts of things, but look how much he trusted Hitler and tried to please him- Until Hitler invaded him! And after that Stalin trusted NO ONE!

Roosevelt didn`t trust the Brits that much and for a while shunned Churchill more for Stalin! And both were worse with degaulle!

You`d be amazed at the real life examples of dumbness from real life leaders!

The_J said:

Moderator Action: Ingame examples please, not real world examples. This is not a politics forum.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, Sir. I was just stating a real world historical diplomatic situation that is an interesting comparison to the game`s. It is not the same as stating my or anyone`s politics. It is entirely valid to the subject of the thread.

Moderator Action: You're not allowed to comment on moderator actions in public. If you want to say something regarding an action, then do it please via private message.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The big issue I have is through random changes in diplomacy, even though nothing has changed.

I was just playing a game with 22 civs so this came out a lot. Sweden was friendly the whole game with me, then out of the blue denounced me. Nothing had changed, though you wouldn't be able to tell that because modifiers that weren't there before were now there.

There would then be random times when out of nowhere, someone that has hated me all game goes to friendly...just for a few turns though then goes back to guarded and denouncing me. They even still have the same negative modifiers when friendly and not...so why the difference?

I just wish there was some order to it. Its very hard to form diplomacy blocks when it seems everyone will end up hating me at one point.

I also dislike the denouncing mechanic. Denouncing does nothing except for further detriments the AI's opinion of you. After all one of the diplo modifiers is "they denounced you!". So they denounce me because they don't like me and then dislike me more because they denounce me...its a never ending loop it seems once you get stuck in it.

I think we should change the denouncement mechanic to something like sanctions. Sanctions could be done for the same reasons of disliking someone, however it has more of a diplomatic effect. Sanctions would mean that you can not do any trade deals with the player. This makes it actually a penalty for both groups. Too many times in my previous game did I have the AI denounce me only to ask to renew the deal where I was giving them free luxuries to keep them friendly! No! They slap me in the face and then still expect me to do the nice things I was doing when they were allies of mine.

It just seems screwy.

Yzman said:

I was just playing a game with 22 civs so this came out a lot. Sweden was friendly the whole game with me, then out of the blue denounced me. Nothing had changed, though you wouldn't be able to tell that because modifiers that weren't there before were now there.

Click to expand...

The negative modifiers were probably there already, but were likely obfuscated by the friendly relations (this is especially true if you have a DoF. AI's you have a DoF will overlook A LOT of things but if the DoF expires, all those negatives will pop up).

There would then be random times when out of nowhere, someone that has hated me all game goes to friendly...just for a few turns though then goes back to guarded and denouncing me. They even still have the same negative modifiers when friendly and not...so why the difference?

Click to expand...

Some of the more deceptive AI's will turn Friendly right before they DoW you.

Alternatively, it could also be the political situation of that AI. If he is involved in lots of wars with other players, he may be Friendly with you for the time being, but as soon as he negotiates peace, he may revert to Guarded/Neutral/Hostile.

I just wish there was some order to it. Its very hard to form diplomacy blocks when it seems everyone will end up hating me at one point.

Click to expand...

It's not inevitable. I have had games where I had DoF's with every AI in the game (9). You will have the "Friends with one of my enemies" penalty so you really need to load up on the positive modifiers.

I also dislike the denouncing mechanic. Denouncing does nothing except for further detriments the AI's opinion of you. After all one of the diplo modifiers is "they denounced you!". So they denounce me because they don't like me and then dislike me more because they denounce me...its a never ending loop it seems once you get stuck in it.

I think we should change the denouncement mechanic to something like sanctions. Sanctions could be done for the same reasons of disliking someone, however it has more of a diplomatic effect. Sanctions would mean that you can not do any trade deals with the player. This makes it actually a penalty for both groups. Too many times in my previous game did I have the AI denounce me only to ask to renew the deal where I was giving them free luxuries to keep them friendly! No! They slap me in the face and then still expect me to do the nice things I was doing when they were allies of mine.

It just seems screwy.

Click to expand...

One flaw of the AI is that it isn't able to put two and two together.

It seems to treat different diplomatic events in isolation instead of figuring out how they are related. (e.g. *why* you are denouncing them, or that you aren't going to give them something for free any more after they denounced you).

I was never declared on by any of the AIs in the entire game. The whole friendly thing was very bizarre and I have been playing this game since it came out...only difference is I usually don't have the max amount of players. I think having more players just leads to more bizarre circumstances because the AI treats everything separately, instead of a grand strategy.

I also think that wars should be given some perspective, instead of blanketed together ( which I believe they currently seem to be). For example, if I declare war from the spying screen, do I get a different modifier than if I just declared war normally? I think more things in the game should give the option of war, so that you can possible have a justified war.

Another example from my last game was I was protecting a lot of city states. I would have the AI ( most notably Atilla and Genghis) come and tell me every 10 seconds that they demanded tribute or attacked them, what was I going to do about it. I told them they would pay, but thats all. Why? I didn't want to have the war declaration count against me. Cases like this should be considered justified especially if there was an option like (desist or this means war!) similar to espionage. These should not count as acts of aggression, or at least not as highly. Currently wars are stuck to you forever it seems.

I love this game, but sometimes I wish the AI would act more realistic in certain regards. It hurts my rping experience.

GAGA Extrem said:

There is one thing I would suggest that should fix a lot of the diplomacy problems:
The AI should never convey a player's capital.

Being angry when the player spams cities and blocks AI expansion is okay. Rushing is okay from time to time. But to denounce me on turn 6 because they convey land of my capital is silly.

Click to expand...

Yes that one bugs me too, especially when it takes me a while to find Ramsses II far away, I haven't built another city and he wants my less than ten hexes in the entire world

Sherlock said:

I have done nothing wrong all game. Defensive war against Germany and I let him keep two cities.

THAT'S IT.

China hates me. 'They covet your lands'. 'They wanted to build wonders you built'. That's not about me. That's about them. They are coveting. They are jealous.

You shouldn't get negative modifiers so easily for things you did that WEREN'T WRONG TO DO. I mean, you're supposed to build wonders, yes?

Click to expand...

"The AI is behaving irrationally because they are valuing things that only a human player should value and they should not become irritated with me for doing things that conflict with their goals."

Rome is a monster in this game. Attacking China. I keep asking China, 'do you want to be friends?' 'Do you want defensive pact'? 'Will you let me have open borders (so I can help with the country that is ATTACKING HER'?

No, no, no, no, no. China has a damn death wish. I've never been anything but nice to China and she won't let me save her from Rome.

Click to expand...

"The AI is behaving irrationally because they are roleplaying their hatred of me, instead of behaving the way a human player would and accept any help they can get when their chance at achieving their goals and thereby winning the game is threatened."


...am I reading this right?

I hate how primitive the suing for peace system is with the AI. After capturing an important city from Isabella near my borders, I have been defending it with a chokepoint of gatling guns and riflemen. For 30 years (playing on Epic) her army has been slowly being destroyed trying to capture the city, yet even though she's being attacked by America and Germany on the other side of her civ, when she sues for peace she demands all my gold and 75% of my cities. Why? Because the AI only looks at your number of units instead of her number of losses and the fact she's in a really bad position to continue the conflict.

She has a slightly bigger land army, but it's filled with outdated units, and her numbers are coming from a gigantic navy that isn't doing anything and is very far away from my cities. Because of her pointless ships she thinks she can wipe out my entire civilization. Very sloppy.

Yzman said:

There would then be random times when out of nowhere, someone that has hated me all game goes to friendly...just for a few turns though then goes back to guarded and denouncing me. They even still have the same negative modifiers when friendly and not...so why the difference?

Click to expand...

Possibly attempted deception.

Yzman said:

I also dislike the denouncing mechanic. Denouncing does nothing except for further detriments the AI's opinion of you.

Click to expand...

I can't quite parse that but denouncing an AI can improve your relations with its enemies.

Yzman said:

After all one of the diplo modifiers is "they denounced you!". So they denounce me because they don't like me and then dislike me more because they denounce me...its a never ending loop it seems once you get stuck in it.

Click to expand...

I agree that is illogical but in some ways realistic. Some cultures/nations seem to hate each other because, well, they've always hated each other.