I am really bummed about the lack of relationship modifiers information

Louis XXIV said:
If you trade iron to an AI, it isn't saying "+1 because you traded with me", it's saying "I like Iron, so I won't attack you." In this context, modifiers are less than helpful, overall.
Click to expand...

I don't see much difference.

Case 1: you have +2 and need +3 for the AI not to attack you. You give a resource and get +1 so he wont attack you

Case 2: like you say he likes iron so he is happy and won't attack you.

Isn't it the same? In the first example we just know the details. (+1 in both cases for the gift and what you need for not beeing attacked)
 
Case 1 is incredibly gamey though.
 
craig123 said:
Case 1 is incredibly gamey though.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't mind if it's numbers or whatever. But I want to clearly see that gifting something is achieving something. You can make his mouth become more of a smile if you do something that improves relations, if you prefer, or whatever. But I don't think doing things blindly is more fun.
 
kaltorak said:
I don't see much difference.

Case 1: you have +2 and need +3 for the AI not to attack you. You give a resource and get +1 so he wont attack you

Case 2: like you say he likes iron so he is happy and won't attack you.

Isn't it the same? In the first example we just know the details. (+1 in both cases for the gift and what you need for not beeing attacked)
Click to expand...

The difference is, if he gets iron from some other source, it wouldn't hurt your relationship in Civ4, but it does hurt your value to him in Civ5.
 
I could go either way really. I don't consider the number access too gamey. I just see it as an abstraction of information a nation would be able to get in real life. Most countries aren't ignorant about the things that affect their relationships with neighbors.
 
VitalyB said:
I loved in Civ4 the fact that I could easily see the relationship between me and other civilization and what caused it to be that way. That answered a lot of answers I had on "Has that thing I did angered/pleased them?" Moreover, I could see the relations between various civilization and decide upon them who I should ally/denounce.

Now it seems all that data is gone. Aside of active pacts and such, it is impossible to know who thinks what of you and what your relations are.

Is there any data or info that helps me out there with that?
Click to expand...

In the real world, you don't get a numerical breakdown of someone's relationship with you (not to say anything of an accurate one). All you have to rely on is how someone has acted toward you, what they have done for you, what history of exchanges have been made. It's a lot more like a multiplayer game.
 
kaltorak said:
Well, I don't mind if it's numbers or whatever. But I want to clearly see that gifting something is achieving something. You can make his mouth become more of a smile if you do something that improves relations, if you prefer, or whatever. But I don't think doing things blindly is more fun.
Click to expand...

I agree there should be some way to know roughly what the AI thinks of you. But it shouldn't be possible to say, "If I gift the AI some gold then I know it won't attack me." The AI should remain somewhat unpredictable: I don't mean your ally should nuke you to stop you winning; but if you try to become friends with Napoleon by trading your iron with him, don't be surprised when his army arrives at your border.
 
VainApocalypse said:
In the real world, you don't get a numerical breakdown of someone's relationship with you (not to say anything of an accurate one). All you have to rely on is how someone has acted toward you, what they have done for you, what history of exchanges have been made. It's a lot more like a multiplayer game.
Click to expand...

But in real world all this things count. In a game you don't know what things the developers thought important and which don't.

In civ4 if you gifted things you improved relations or not, it depends. But you could see it. You could also reach a cap and know, ok now I stop gifting.

I don't want to be gifting 100 things without realizing "oh, the developers put a cap at 3", because it isn't displayed.
 
In the real world, you don't get a numerical breakdown of someone's relationship with you (not to say anything of an accurate one).
Click to expand...
This argument drives me nuts.
In the real world, leaders most certainly have a detailed breakdown of their relationships with other powers. They know which issues are important, which of their actions are pissing other countries off, which of their actions the other guys like, what actions might improve relations, and most importantly, whether the other country is likely to go to war with you.
They have diplomats, foreign affairs departments, and intelligence services.
They read each others' newspapers and talk to the elites.
Its not just two guys talking, who don't know anything about each other's countries. That's not Great Power Diplomacy.

There have never been truly unexpected wars between sedentary nation-states. (There are some unexpected wars when a bunch of nomads or migrating tribes show up on your doorstep).
 
Ahriman said:
Please explain how the player is supposed to tell the difference.


Please solve the following mathematical system for me:
2x + y = 7
x + 3y = 5

You might think the answer is:
x = 16/5, y = 3/5

But nope, the second equation was hiding its true feelings, and said 5 instead of 11.
The true answer is x = 2, y = 3.

If A implies B, and B implies C, does A imply C?
Nope. B implies C was a bluff.
Click to expand...

Exactly.... Civ diplomacy can no longer be 'solved' the same way you solve the economy or combat.

You CAN still solve City-State Diplomacy.


The idea is that for Civ diplomacy you solve it by changing the 'facts on the ground'.
To make Civ X not invade me, I have to make it more costly for them to invade me than beneficial.

It is more beneficial for them to invade me if I have cities near them. (especially if they asked me not to)
It is more costly for them to invade me if they believe I might give them gifts in the future
It is more beneficial for them to invade me if I am high on the score boards (a threat to their winning the game)
It is more costly for them to invade me if I have a powerful Military capability.

etc.

Essentially there are ways that 2 civs can play so that there is a minimum of interference between them (ie invading you now will divert me from my win path more than it will divert you from yours... so I won't invade you)


I think that is the purpose of the pacts of cooperation, etc.

You give a Pact of cooperation to civs that you are friends with (letting them know that invading them is jut too much bother for you right now... so why not work for some mutual benefit.)
 
Exactly.... the AI civ diplomacy can no longer be 'solved' the same way you solve the economy or combat.
Click to expand...
And you're left twisting in the wind without any idea of which diplomatic actions really matter.

This is not a good thing.

But my point was that having the AI say things it doesn't mean totally destroys your ability to interpret the system, or to understand what is going on.
 
Anyone who substitutes a bunch of equations for dialogue will never understand
Click to expand...
I substituted a bunch of equations and a logical statement in response to a poster who specifically said that "Reading a situation and an opponent's reaction and guessing at intent is a skill just like math or logic." while simultaneously arguing that the game should provide you incorrect information (bluffing or hiding true feelings).

I was pointing out how ridiculous that was; there is no skill in interpreting incorrect data.
 
Ahriman said:
And you're left twisting in the wind without any idea of which diplomatic actions really matter.

This is not a good thing.

But my point was that having the AI say things it doesn't mean totally destroys your ability to interpret the system, or to understand what is going on.
Click to expand...

You interpret the system the same way human beings deal with each other...

What would I do in their shoes.

Add in some of their 'flavor'/personality and use that for prediction.
 
Txurce said:
Anyone who substitutes a bunch of equations for dialogue will never understand... which is why I love the new diplomatic system. You don't get to "game" it.
Click to expand...

If a dialogue is reflective enough, then yeah, it is a decent substitute. E.g, in Alpha Centauri it was just dialogue but it was relatively good:

Upon initial meeting the leader would greet in either friendly, courteous, annoyed or angry mode. Same with giving gifts: Upon giving a gift he would say a dry thanks for giving a few credits or you would get a long appreciation about a real gift.

Also, if you bugged the other leaders too much and they didn't care much for you they'd just say "We have no time to talk with right now". You figured then that you better tiptoe around that leader.

So yeah, it had no numbers at all but the various reactions made me understand what they think about me, sometimes they bluffed (ugh @ Sister Miriam) but most of the time they were true to their visible emotions.

In Civ3/4, however, the speech and the responses are less flexible and more mechanical so the numeric relations were a must. I hope that the removal of the relation values means they actually redid the speech to be as humane (or MORE humane) as Alpha Centauri.
 
Having not played yet, it's too difficult to say whether relations are easy to gage yet.

From what I've heard/read, they want the AIs to play like players. Players don't tell you "hey, if you give me open borders that gives you +4 brownie points and I promise I won't change my mind all of a sudden and pounce on your juicy undefended city" or "you built a city near my borders, that's a 50 DKP minus!"

kaltorak said:
I think they decided it's better if we don't have that data. I disagree. I hope it can be modded in
Click to expand...

It would be kind of lame if a major design decision could be "overturned" via modding. If diplo is no longer exposed as a math exercise, I'm sure there's a good reason for it. Altering major design decisions would seem to be like cheating.

I don't use many mods, so I guess it wouldn't matter to me, much like it doesn't matter if people use world builder or cheat code kind of things.
 
Ahriman said:
I was pointing out how ridiculous that was; there is no skill in interpreting incorrect data.
Click to expand...

There would be a high degree of skill in interpreting incorrect data, although I don't think you meant to say that. More precisely, there is a great degree of skill in interpreting modifiers that go beyond "me like shiny beads, we friends." Like factoring in the possibility of dishonesty, weighed against (possibly) a long history of mutually profitable trading (good reason not to expect war tomorrow), and common sense (unlike a city-state, a civ is ultimately out for itself). But utter predictability? Boring. And apparently, swept away into the dustbin of history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_J
Can you make an anti-imperial empire game? The 4Xperts behind Civilization, Syphilisation and Victoria 3 discuss eXperimental 4X design
Replies
5
Views
2K
martindo
M
K
Top 10 setting I liked about civ 6
Replies
1
Views
236
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
B
Wonderful game, but some diplomacy oversights break immersion and logic
Replies
3
Views
708
Behner_Civ
B
King Phaedron
Not living in America is a Denouncible Offense!
Replies
4
Views
2K
Quintillus
Quintillus
Boris Gudenuf
Visions of the Seventh Civilization
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
7K
dripyanim
D
Top Bottom