The diplomatic twerkings of M'banza-Congo

funkymunky

Warlord
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Messages
112
Location
Louisville, KY
Greetings fellow despots, comrades & prime ministers,

I'd like to share a strange and interesting experience I have had in a current game of Civ 5 BNW and see what people think, because I'm convinced that this situation is from some buggy diplomacy, although I think I understand how this situation came about. But before I begin, I should provide a bit of history.

I start my story as Theodora of Byzantium, who led a ragged band of wanderers to establish our capital on an isolated peninsula on the continent we call Adriatica. We soon discovered that this peninsula was well protected to the south by a range of mountains, protecting us from the savagery of Carthage who lay beyond, and Egypt, who fell to Dido's merciless onslaughts fairly early in the game. However, despite her multiple attempts, Dido was never able to invade over the mountains north of her, and her only other option was through a small but forested peninsula far to the east, south of my city of Nicaea. However, as I had discovered the strategic value of that area very early and used one of my generals to establish a very well positioned citadel, Dido was never able to effectively invade me until the current modern era.

In any case, as I try to make a long story short, we also discovered an island to the south west where the Japanese realm lies, and to the west we found another large island/continent we call Westalia, where a bunch of city-states used to be, and westward beyond that is the continent I call Peloponesia, where the Greeks have spread their disgusting empire like a plague. On that continent also lie the Moroccans and the Venetians.

At this point I take you to the modern era, where we now have three blocks of power between myself and Japan (the Bastion of Order), Greece and Carthage (the Iron Hand of Autocracy), and Morocco & Venice (Free Peoples Alliance). Many years ago, before the industrial revolution began, Japan had built a couple of cities on Westalia, and so we contested that continent by building alliances with the several citi-states of Ormus, Panama City, Ife, & M'banza-Kongo. I also was contesting the favor of these small nations with Greece, who had allied with Panama City and Ife, and which eventually fell under my control during our first Greco-Byzantine war. However, we Byzantines were also contesting the Japanese for this continent, and so ended up waging another war with Japan where we destroyed their two colonies on Westalia. This eventually left Byzantium with nearly complete control of the continent, with the exception of M'banza-Kongo, who remained a free state for quite some time later.

So here we get to the crux of my story. I believe that M'banza-Kongo's ownership of silk played a big part in the diplomatic intrugue that played out in our history, as their allegiance kept shifting between myself, Japan, Greece and Carthage. Eventually Japan managed to keep M'banza-Kongo under their wing for quite a while and inevitably pledged protection to them. This seemed quite fine with me since we were becoming better friends after we both adopted Order, and I wished to keep them as my ally while Carthage and Greece strengthened their alliance.

Well, as history played out, the Moroccans asked me to join them in a war against Greece. I had a small colony on Peloponesia to harvest some sugar & other resources, and I saw a nice opportunity to stick it to Alexander's WC delegation as well by conquering the bordering city state of Belgrade, who was allied with the Greeks, so I joined Ahmad al-Mansur's assault and flanked Alexander from the east and while Morocco attacked from the west.

And, not surprisingly, Dido apparently saw this as another opportunity to hit me, so she soon declared war on me, and with Japan soon after attacking Venice, it seemed like we had our first world war in full swing. And so this is where the strange diplomatic events begin with M'banza-Kongo.

Because, you see, soon after Dido declared war on me, she managed to get an alliance with the state of M'banza-Kongo, which quickly declared war on me as well. And seeing this as an opportunity to grab the silk that many of my own cities had grown to desire, and after a very bloody and savage war between myself, the Greeks and Carthage, I managed to wrest M'banza-Kongo (as well as Dido's capital) from the hands of the villainous Carthaginians and bring it under my own rule, which I thought was wonderful. That is, until Odo Nobunaga denounced me the next turn, even though we had declared friendship just a few turns earlier!

As you might imagine, I was initially shocked by this turn of events, and I wasn't thrilled by it, because with Japan having the second largest military on the globe, and having developed quite good relations since we both turned to Order, I wanted to keep them on my side. Also, I wondered why this happened at this point, since it was Carthage who was allied with Kongo, but the best I can figure is that because Odo had declared to protect them some time ago when they used to be allied, Odo must have thought that my recent conquest of Kongo was an attack on them, ignoring the fact that they were now allied with Carthage (who they did not like any better and in fact had denounced a while earlier).

So, I was wondering if anyone else has seen strange diplomatic behavior like that and had any advice on how to avoid the diplomatic hit when city states turn their allegiances on a dime like I mentioned and end up declaring war on you because of it. I suppose I could have not taken M'banza-Kongo, but the silk was too tempting, plus, it seemed to be a very strategic territory for me, being in the middle of my expanding empire. I figure in any case, it was worth taking the city despite the denouncement, but it seems to me that if Japan had lost their alliance to Carthage, their protection should have gotten revoked. I'm sure that didn't happen, as Japan was probably still friendly with the city, but it seems like either those protection pledges should only be made when you are allies (kinda like how defense pacts can only be made when you are friendly with another civ), or there should be some checks to revoke it if someone else allies with the state (and force the AI to deliberately renew it again). However, I guess my first suggestion somewhat defeats the diplo gain you get from the pledges, so maybe we need the second fix. So, has anyone else seen similar events play out in their games and also share my suspicions, convictions, and also think perhaps there should be a fix?


P.S. I attached a screen shot of the area near M'banza-Kongo to give some idea of the political & geographic map. I really like the was the map generator did this world. :)
 

Attachments

  • Civ5-Theodora-1.jpg
    Civ5-Theodora-1.jpg
    310.6 KB · Views: 542
Speaking personally (and not as an AI), I get annoyed when any civ captures almost any city-state, regardless of whether or not they're allied, friendly, pledged-to-protect, utterly neutral, or even at war with me. That's because I lose immediate or even just potential benefits down the road for food/faith/culture/happiness/units. If it's a city-state with which I didn't previously have good relations, and a civ with whom I have poor relations, I look at the capture as an opportunity to liberate the city-state, gain a new ally, and lessen my warmonger penalties all at the same time.

If Japan was friends with M'banza-Kongo, then they were getting units every 20 turns or so, and now they don't. For that reason I think the only times that I capture city-states is when I'm on my way to a domination victory and I'm so powerful (economically and otherwise) that the game is assured.
 
Conquering city states is never worth it imo. Not only does it upset other city states (permanently increasing your influence decay with them), but it instantly leads to chain denunciations and/or DOWs from every civ around. I once, err, persuaded Warsaw to join my nascent Soviet Empire, to straighten my borders and ensure the strategic balance of the world powers (ahem), and to say that other nations did not take kindly to this rightful acquisition would be the understatement of the millennium. A full 7 civs declared war within the next 3 turns. Some bothered to denounce me first, some didn't. After that I resolved to delete the Warsaw settler with the World Builder, to remove that blight from within my natural Empire borders... And to never capture city states on randomly generated maps.

Needless to say, this is totally idiotic and should be changed. The diplo hit for taking a city state needs to be cut down to size, so that only the allies/protectors of the CS care about its demise. And even they should forget it after a while. As for other CSs, make them be upset for 30 turns (or the like), then go back to normal status. If you take more than one CS, there could be escalating penalties, so that taking more than two or three would rarely be worth.

Some may cry about imbalance etc... But imo there is already a significant disincentive for taking CSs: losing their benefits (via Consulates/allying). There's no need for the ridiculous diplomatic hobbling if you make a logical acquisition within your natural territory. :D
 
I don't think there should be a fix. I think Japan's turning on you made your roll to victory more difficult thus enhancing gameplay. It also appears to be in Japan's interest to turn on you.

Civ 5 AI has an AI challenge in terms of Diplomacy. At one level, players want the AIs to simulate human behaviors and act like world leaders with real personalities. Religious and Ideological bros watch each other's backs and historical slights/insults between nations are remembered. At the same time we want the AI not take actions that are against it's own individual interests. Losing the game is against the AI's individual interest. And no one wants an AI that can't compete for a win.

Thus develops a problematic tension. Does the AI play the personality or play the game? Both are valid answers and I think the Civ 5 does "ok" with this balance. Basically, the AI goes about trying to win the game not with optimal play but lensed through a "personality" configuration. To me, the difficulty levels attempt to manage this balance the wrong way. If the current AI personality vs. gameplay balance is too simple for a player, he/she must ramp up the difficulty level and give the AI bonuses. There isn't an option to scale up optimal play vs. personality.

Ideally, there would be no diplomatic penalties or bonuses. In fact, there weren't any visible ones when Civ 5 was released. But players hated not understanding why the AI was engaging in certain inexplicable behaviors. Thus we got more transparency in the overall process and players are, by and large, happier with this transparency.

If Japan were played by a human rather than an AI, you would get angry at the player for backstabbing, but you would understand that the person made their decision based on their perception of optimal gameplay lensed through their own emotions. They might be an idiot or a d-bag. But you wouldn't necessarily be calling for a fix to the game.

To answer your original question, yes, I frequently find the AI doing confounding behavior. I am currently playing a game with many modded civs, and they act absolutely unhinged. The Vandals denounce me, offer Friendship, denounce me, offer Friendship, endlessly, over and over. I love it. Half of the AIs are insane. I prefer insane AI to both rational world leader and optimal game player.

Optimal Game Playing AI
Pro: Understands the game so well that it can beat the best players.
Pro: Knows the best strategies and doesn't do stupid stuff with their military units.
Pro: Provides a real challenge to Civ vets.
Con: A game that is constantly patched/tweaked/expanded inherently lacks consistent optimal gameplay. Optimal gameplay changes as the game itself changes.
Con: Optimal game playing AI crushes new and inexperienced players. These players don't have fun.
Con: Optimal game playing AI will need to incorporate human playing behaviors that "won't make any sense" to human players. Why did the AI just give me all of his resources so I would attack his neighbor? Oh, he just DOW me next turn and I just lost everything ... #$%@!

Rational Simulated AI
Pro: Behaves like a world leader in charge of his millions of digital subjects. It's immersive.
Pro: Actions have a logical cause and effect. I did this and thus angered the AI. Makes sense and builds a sense of story.
Con: Terrible at winning games. Makes decisions based on personality that may or may not make sense.
Con: Easy to manipulate. The AI is completely reactive in this mode. Players can "game" the AI into defeating itself.

I suspect most players prefer an AI that falls somewhere on a spectrum between these two types. What I would like to see next in the Civ series are more advanced AI options. Such as:

* Learning AI - Imagine every game of Civ keeping a background log of all AI and player decisions. This log is beamed back to Firaxis when a game ends. The AI mines these data logs for optimal situational and strategic play in real time as the game is played. Could provide "profiles" for downloading when players want a "tougher" AI. Optimal play through brute force.

* Human Personality Emulating AI - This type of AI would emulate a human player. Sometimes, that hill between us holds emotional importance over any strategic or tactical importance. I want that hill. It's mine. Imagine an AI telling you that it's going to take that hill even if it costs the AI the entire game. An epic, unforgettable game unfolds as you vow to teach that AI a lessen. That hill, with no luxuries, bonuses, or strategic resources becomes absolutely unforgettable. Because despite 4000 years of endless warfare, you kept the hill.

*Challenge Scaling AI - While both of the above would be fun AIs to play against, the most lucrative AI would be one that scales during a game. Fun in a game is quantifiable. Players want to be challenged in a game, but they don't want to be left feeling hopeless. A challenge scaling AI would sit on top of the individual game playing optimizing AIs. If a player was doing poorly, the scaling AI would make the other AIs do poorly. As the player improved, the AI game playing would improve. The game would work behind the scenes to prevent a "runaway" player so that the end of every game was always a nail biting photo finish.

Just my 2 cents. :)
 
Thanks Jake, that was a very well thought out and insightful post. I never actually thought about the distinction between those two types of AI. I always wanted an AI that acts "realistically", without ever thinking that I myself don't play "realistically". I'm quite content to backstab my 5000-year long ally Isabella if I perceive that she's on her way to a cultural victory. But if Isabella DoWs me right as I'm about to gain influential status on her, I angrily protest, "WTH Isabella, that was uncalled for!" and I complain that it's unrealistic (before proceeding to crush her). On the other hand, if she's sitting there with 6,000 gold in the bank and I'm about to win a diplomatic victory, I'm complaining, "WTH are you saving all that money for, Isabella? Buy some city-states before I win the game!" It's a double standard that I wasn't even aware of until now.
 
Well, I found it confounding because I didn't declare war on the M'banza-Kong, but rather they declared war on me, because I was already at war with Carthage, and Carthage allied with them during the war. I don't know if I explained that well, but it would seem to me that if allegiances switched that suddenly, then Japan (in a realistic world) ought to be mad at them for backstabbing them by allying with Carthage (who they denounced) rather than at me for taking out their backstabbing 'friend' afterwards.
 
Wow, you have been a member for a ~very~ long time. Have you been regularly checking the forums since you joined?
 
Well, I found it confounding because I didn't declare war on the M'banza-Kong, but rather they declared war on me, because I was already at war with Carthage, and Carthage allied with them during the war. I don't know if I explained that well, but it would seem to me that if allegiances switched that suddenly, then Japan (in a realistic world) ought to be mad at them for backstabbing them by allying with Carthage (who they denounced) rather than at me for taking out their backstabbing 'friend' afterwards.

Look at it from this perspective: Carthage declared war on me playing as Japan, and was allied with Florence. You were friends with Florence though, so you were getting a decent amount of culture from them. Furthermore, Florence had been your ally for significant parts of the game, and you had received gobs of culture throughout. Carthage had just passed your influence recently, so you needed to just save up 500 gold to surpass the 20 influence lead that Carthage had. In the meantime, I capture Florence. Wouldn't you be mad, and say that I should've gone and taken one of Carthage's main cities instead of one of your long-standing allies?
 
Yeah, that's a continent map, and I tried to snap the area around the city state and couldn't help but get a lot of ocean, so it doesn't show so well (wish they kept the globe view like in Civ 4), but you can see the land masses on the minimap. It did turn out to be a very interesting game, and I tried for a culture victory but didn't get it. I think I need to learn to tech better because because game ended still in the atomic age, although I was about 5 techs ahead of everyone else. I did get a time victory, ranking as Hammurabi on the scoreboard.

I'm sure that Japan had their own ends for M'bana-Kongo, but I still think that when you have a lot of friendliness with a civ, they shouldn't be quite as ready to denounce and break that friendship. I shoulda got a pic of the diplo bonuses on Japan, but I had DOF, same ideology, open borders, trade route & luxes, plus we denounced same leaders, and I voted them for WC leader & won it, so I think at that point there should've been some forgiveness. Plus, they DOW on one of my city allies (Antinanavaro) and took it, and I forgave them for it, so it's a total backstab on their part. And I know Civ is famous for backstabbing and all (I've played every version since the first) but I thought they were supposed to be making the AI better, as now you can see the reasons for friendly & hate, but obviously great AI is not an easy thing (although Galactic Civs seems to do a very good job of it). Anyways, it was a very fun game. Much more fun than my newest game with Romans (can't seem to get that economy working in early game as I expand this time for some reason, too much unhappiness keeps spawning rebels, and now Greece is beating me down too).
 
Sounds like a fun setup, and very well played by AI both from immersive and game play perspectives. Japan should be pissed at you for taking out their friendly CS, and since he is usually all about conquest, fought with you before, lost and should be denouncing your behaviour. If you need silk just take it with GG and get target practice on the CS but don't conquer them if you don't want negative consequences.

I had similar fun turn of events where I kept fighting Byz in my current game (Europe Assyria one in my tag) and fought them longer than strictly necessary just to liberate Bucharest. I was of course hoping for a bunch of goodies and culture and extra two votes in a crucial upcoming WC vote, but instead got DoWed by Bucharest as soon as I liberated it. Turns out they were allied with Alex before and obviously his influence was still higher. As we were at war they sided with their old ally. I thought it was neat, after initial WTF moment of course ;)

Solution: Kill Alex off get his CS allies back cheaper.
 
Top Bottom