Diplomacy is back to vanilla again broken?

kaspergm said:

That's how you look at it, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it is. If you have any solid evidence from the game to show that your belief is actually how things are I'd love to see it, but I'm quite sure you are wrong.

Their overall status to you - i.e. whether they are friendly, "friendly", hostile, neutral, guarded, etc. works that way - hence they will frequently show the "friendly" label and then in the next minute denounce or DoW you - but I'm quite sure the modifiers show just what modifiers are currently affecting your relationship.

Click to expand...

explain why modifiers will appear and disappear from the modifier area then if it isn't a question of the ai deciding which to show and which to conceal?

example: ai is in hostile mood towards me, in the modifier screen it tells me because i used a great general on them, i declared war on them, i picked order while they picked freedom. a few turns later, they are suddenly friendly with me, in the modifier screen it shows only the positive modifier of 'have had trade deals in the past', while all of the negative modifiers have disappeared. fast forward to a few turns in the future, again they are hostile towards me, all the old negative modifiers reappear. this all taking place without the relevant diplomatic actions taking place to incur those modifiers reappearing mind you. so.. whether this is some weird buggy programming or specifically programmed to be under ai control, i choose to believe the latter as it makes more sense. why for a game in which people complain so much about it not having realistic simulation would anyone ever want a diplomacy based upon the ability to psychically look into the opposing leaders mind and read their thoughts and emotions? the ai can't see into my brain, so why should i see into theirs.

Ikael said:

And this is why I hate with passion the whole design philosophy behind this Civilization, and hope that Firaxis take the very opposite route with Civ VI, fires the previous designer or whatever.

If I would like to play a boardgame that pitch me against humans, I just go and buy a freaking boardgame and play it with my friends. Catan, Republica or 7 Wonders are great boardgames that tries to be... boardgames instead of videogames, go figure.

It is not a question of realism VS gamification, since the Civ series have always been a mixture of both, but rather a question of knowing what your series is about: building a civilization that pass the test of time. Not merely "winning". Civ is beautiful because it mirrors human history, which is not a "sum zero" type of game, mind you. This title, a civilization game is not. It is just a board game. And an unfunny one at that, because it has eschewed real world logic (aka: the only logic that truthly exist) in order to push an internal "competitive sum zero game" type of logic that only belongs to boardgames such as chess, which has paradoxially, turned the game into a more boring, predictable ordeal.

Click to expand...

I don't like either the whole focus upon victory-types, i always saw civ as more of a sandbox type game, no specific goal to strive after, just roleplaying your way through a civilizations history. you might conquer the world but it wasn't the point of playing, nor was building a spaceship or having amazing culture. so in that respect i agree it would have been nicer if other civs were similarly programmed in a more roleplaying aspect, rather than from turn 1 deciding they want to build a spaceship in 50,000 years to 'win the game' or to conquer the entire world etc.

Adjuvant said:

It's predictable to me because I play a new single player game on emperor or immortal almost every other day. I "know" when I need to put myself in debt building archers for an anticipated attack. I "know" if I can rush with 3 spearmen and 5 archers. I "know" when/if I should found religion or am wasting my time. I "know" when my empire or military size are going to make me a target.

I bought the game and the expac at their respective releases. I've seen the unit advantages wax and wane. Hell, I can tell at any given time practically what the AI's hiding in the fog. Very little surprises me. Play 300+ games to their ends and you will, too.

Click to expand...

Agreed, reading the 'mood' and the 'modifiers' is a crutch, but a broken one at that, because it misleads more than it accurately informs. Once youve played enough games you can predict things very well, an intuition develops and you can sense when someone is going to attack you or turn on you. Spies are also useful, because unlike modifier screens they give you a good idea about how an AI actually functions. When your spies tells you "Theodora is plotting against you" despite her showing friendly towards you with all positive modifiers, you realize there is more to this game than the modifier screen.

I'm not entirely convinced diplomacy was ever really fixed

The current diplomacy is more bearable for me since I play a large percentage of warmongering games. However, with few exceptions, it really does feel like every leader is a greedy two year old that you have to appease completely to get them to like you and they'll hate you eventually. The only leaders that I've found I can really truly count on to be semi-reasonable and mentally stable are Darius/Sejong/Askia. Basically everyone else I can think of right now is real lunatic a significant portion of the time. Okay, I want Monty to be a lunatic, but not every leader should be that way. Right now, I KNOW that when I put that second city down, it better be with some Archers and Walls/on a hill, because I AM getting DOWed. That's kinda of nuts. Every leader basically does "build giant army, murder city-state or player" now. This REALLY hinders their later game. I don't remember ever consistently being #1-2 in tech on Deity in the mid-late game of warmonger games before this patch as someone like the Aztecs.

Also, I still get ridiculous amounts of hate from AIs for doing far less than they did. I steal a worker from a City-state. This makes Siam hate me. That's how it should be...except Siam just WIPED ONE OUT about 10 turns before that. Who is he to call me a warmongering menace?

As people have said, if I wanted to play against humans, I would just play multiplayer. The actual gameplay is far different than multiplayer, so why shouldn't the diplomacy be?

All opposing civilizations are your enemies; all city states are potential allies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the only time the word "ally" is used in this game is in the context of city states. You can only have friendships and defensive pacts with other civs.

Also, city states actually offer a hell of a lot more as allies than other civs offer as friends. So why do people care about being allies with their opponents? If the developers allowed some sort of dual victory mechanic, then the game would probably allow alliances with other civs. I imagine the next expansion will add more diplomatic features to the game, such as vassal states, colonies, trade agreements (e.g., trade routes with foreign states) and non-aggression treaties. I think what everyone is looking for is that last option, but there is really no point to it in a game that doesn't have war weariness. Hopefully, that is exactly what the developers realize.

For now, make city states your allies and don't declare friendships with anyone else unless you are trying to puff up your chest to Alexander.

ReeDill said:

All opposing civilizations are your enemies; all city states are potential allies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the only time the word "ally" is used in this game is in the context of city states. You can only have friendships and defensive pacts with other civs.

Also, city states actually offer a hell of a lot more as allies than other civs offer as friends. So why do people care about being allies with their opponents? If the developers allowed some sort of dual victory mechanic, then the game would probably allow alliances with other civs. I imagine the next expansion will add more diplomatic features to the game, such as vassal states, colonies, trade agreements (e.g., trade routes with foreign states) and non-aggression treaties. I think what everyone is looking for is that last option, but there is really no point to it in a game that doesn't have war weariness. Hopefully, that is exactly what the developers realize.

For now, make city states your allies and don't declare friendships with anyone else unless you are trying to puff up your chest to Alexander.

Click to expand...

yes to vassal states, yes to cultural conversions, yes to a bunch of stuff actually.. lets just pray they dont try to package the next expansion with corporations

apocalypse105 said:

I understant diplomacy in Civ 5 Is all about forming pacts denouncing the one who they don't like and forming a mutal interest..

Click to expand...

That's only the beginning...

Instead of beeing assertive and give a reasonable argument why diplomacy isn't broken? you are atacking me dirreclty saying I don't understant it?

Click to expand...

I didn't need to, Adjuvant and Woodshadows had done so perfectly in the previous posts, I quoted one, and said that I agreed with the other... I did not mean to cause offense, or be personal, that's why I said "sorry". I was addressing the OP.

and the Ai isn't playing as a human even on multiplayer people don't turn on their friends withouth any reason did you ever see a human player declare war on someone who is on the other edge of the map in the medieval era? Its just not working as intended thats what is happening.

Click to expand...

That's not what I meant... AI is not a human mind, it has nowhere near the capabilities... however, the AI tried to interact "as if it were human". Humans are devious, and have been throughout history.

I' dont mind the AI beeing deceptive deceptive means : hiding you're true attitud towards someone in the case of diplomacy.
bUT THE PROBLEM WITH CURRENT PATCH EVERY SINGLE AI IS DECEPTIVE

Click to expand...

I disagree with this... some are, i.e. Monty, Alex, etc, most are not, unless they are bribed to be by the likes of Monty, Alex, etc.

my biggest point is why did they have all those positif modifiers and efforts to get positif modifiers like forgiving them if they bully you're city state , giving them a luxury if they needed it , DOF , and so on...
IF it doesn't matter?

Click to expand...

They do matter... mostly they work normally; however, just like you can bribe someone to denounce or DoW someone, so can they. When they are bribed to go to war with you, often the war is short, and they accept peace turns fairly quickly. They then normally to go back to friendly again.

Why did the developers of gods and king said in their interviews that they wanted to make diplomacy more meaningfull when it currently isn't? because as I said before If every single AI is going to backstab you while should I put effort in getting good relations?

Click to expand...

Most people who have posted in this thread would disagree with your statement here... and every single AI doesn't backstab you... however, if you are seen as a threat to them, they might. If you're way ahead of them, you're a threat, just as any runaway is.

There are basicly 2 options here :

1 Like I said it isn't working as intended BROKEN

2 firaxis is lying to their customers what they are selling. If they told that the AI is playing head to head with the human player to win the game . I wouldn't be that dissapointed.

Click to expand...

I recognise your right to hold that view, but I disagree with you completely. Please also recognise that I and others here, are entitled to ours too... The game is not perfect, by a very long way, but it's nowhere near as bad as you paint it. I don't believe anything major, including Diplomacy is broken... just misunderstood by some.
I don't understand why you think the AI is not playing head to head against the human player to win the game, unless you always play on a low level. It's an AI, it will make mistakes, but it is still trying to win. That's why on the higher levels, the AI gets bonuses.

The_Quasar said:

That's only the beginning...
That's not what I meant... AI is not a human mind, it has nowhere near the capabilities... however, the AI tried to interact "as if it were human". Humans are devious, and have been throughout history.

Click to expand...

Its a good idea however it doesn't work in gameplay because this means that there is no benefit on making friends with diplomacy because they all backstab you... You're only ally is the city states.

The_Quasar said:

I disagree with this... some are, i.e. Monty, Alex, etc, most are not, unless they are bribed to be by the likes of Monty, Alex, etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah you can disagree that people didn't walk on the moon but they did I'm just posting facts here. Even ghandi is deceptive in this game.

The_Quasar said:

They do matter... mostly they work normally; however, just like you can bribe someone to denounce or DoW someone, so can they. When they are bribed to go to war with you, often the war is short, and they accept peace turns fairly quickly. They then normally to go back to friendly again.

Click to expand...

Again there is no proof that a Ai bribed washington. Even worse his money got down before he denounced me so he couldn't get bribed.

And washington stayed hostile , So its clearly that he suddenly decided to hate me.

And if they accept to go to war or denounce me thats means they don't like as a result the modifiers have no meaning... If you remeber in civ 4 only a few AI would accept bribes for wars against their friends

The_Quasar said:

Most people who have posted in this thread would disagree with your statement here... and every single AI doesn't backstab you... however, if you are seen as a threat to them, they might. If you're way ahead of them, you're a threat, just as any runaway is.

Click to expand...

Really? The AI will hate you and will backstab you if : you have wonders, have low military , has a higher score , have a higher military , you are a threath, you are friends with a city state, they settle close to you and so on...

There are so many negatif modifiers that you might as wel just not play the game;

The_Quasar said:

I recognise your right to hold that view, but I disagree with you completely. Please also recognise that I and others here, are entitled to ours too... The game is not perfect, by a very long way, but it's nowhere near as bad as you paint it. I don't believe anything major, including Diplomacy is broken... just misunderstood by some.
I don't understand why you think the AI is not playing head to head against the human player to win the game, unless you always play on a low level. It's an AI, it will make mistakes, but it is still trying to win. That's why on the higher levels, the AI gets bonuses.

Click to expand...

Damn right I have the Right to be mad, Firaxis promising to fix diplomacy but in reality this was never the intention because the AI is trying to win and is playing head to head.

However before the release with gods and king they told they wanted to make diplomacy more meaningfull and more debtfull. BUt non of this is happened. Because the philosopy isn't changed.

They implented a AI who is acting like a human in a sandbox game .

Like previous members pointed out in this topic : the Single player of the civilization series is so different then the multiplayer because it has diplomacy it is a important part of it because single player games of the series where intended as sandbox games where the human player could decide how to win.

Firaxis is just lying to their customers making commercial videos about the developers saying they wanted to make diplomacy more meaningfull ?

like you said, the only ally you have in the game is citystates, so long as you can afford their loyalty

make a defensive pact with someone, have someone declare war on you, bringing your ally into the war, then watch your ally decide 'eh, this war isn't what i wanted, screw this' and make peace two turns later. i hate to say it, but 'it is what it is' haha. just have to accept that this is how the ai works right now and adapt and play with it. it's not so bad though, once you learn to predict the psychotic behaviour of the ai things no longer come as a surprise and you can learn to use it to your advantage. would it be nice if diplomacy were a little more 'friendly'? sure.. but i think the devs are trying to encourage a very cutthroat style of gameplay with civ V, which wasn't as overtly present in the previous iterations of civ. if you really want more opportunity for some peaceful relations however, i suggest you try archipelago maps, not sharing land borders seems to really tone down the ai's aggressiveness so theyll honour the modifiers far more when deciding who to be friends with or not.

another thing to point out - remember how much complaining you'd hear about how predictable alliances were in civ iv? based almost exclusively upon sharing the same religion. so, i think that may have factored into the devs decision as well, trying to avoid overly predictable diplomatic relations. they probably went a bit too far in the opposite direction however. some fun experiences are being on an island all to yourself, having an ai sail over with a settler, grab a one tile tundra city on the coast then immediately message you complaining about your expanding into their territory. i think the thing that bugs me most with diplomacy is the way in which the human player seems to not be on a level playing field with other ai's. the ai for instance, is able to declare war on another ai, both of them at around equal strength, then you decide to jump in the fray against one of those ai's to double team it, but then those two initial ai's fighting make peace. meanwhile for the human player getting peace terms so early into a war is almost unthinkable unless you somehow kill a dozen units or so really quickly. or.. like in my current game, everyones making dof's, backstabbing eachther left and right, but no one denounces anyone. finally i see an opportunity and backstab ramses and the entire world denounces me like im the spawn of hell and this unifies them into some crusader logic vs me. (i knew they would do this based on past experience, so it came as no surprise, but it's one of those quirky things this game offers).

In vanilla I was frustrated to no end, because of dogpiles. Then I used what we like to call 'ignore diplomacy'. No DoFs, no nothing except trade/RAs with other civs. Now you cannot do that if you like to sign RAs, because you have to have a DoF. I think that is the right course. Although, I have not had time to play as much. So I may change my mind later.

nokmirt said:

In vanilla I was frustrated to no end, because of dogpiles. Then I used what we like to call 'ignore diplomacy'. No DoFs, no nothing except trade/RAs with other civs. Now you cannot do that if you like to sign RAs, because you have to have a DoF. I think that is the right course. Although, I have not had time to play as much. So I may change my mind later.

Click to expand...

DoF is key and had been key with the build right before the patch. It's further reinforced in GnK. Early DoFs sets the tone of the game. The renewable aspect does allow both parties to re-align, and most players do treat the first round as a kind of freebie to avoid early wars, but I've routinely kept DoFs for entire games especially with empires that are not directly next to me.

Ignoring it is like refusing to use a key part of the game's features and I can't support any complaint coming out of it.

I recommend you really use it.

dexters said:

DoF is key and had been key with the build right before the patch. It's further reinforced in GnK. Early DoFs sets the tone of the game. The renewable aspect does allow both parties to re-align, and most players do treat the first round as a kind of freebie to avoid early wars, but I've routinely kept DoFs for entire games especially with empires that are not directly next to me.

Ignoring it is like refusing to use a key part of the game's features and I can't support any complaint coming out of it.

I recommend you really use it.

Click to expand...

I recommend you really use it as well. However, the thing is you have to be smart and keep track of diplomacy. Do not take DoFs early unless you know they will not backfire on you before you are prepared. That is my advice to you.

I ignored DoFs in vanilla and it worked out quite nicely. In GnK though it is a completely different game. So I am back to signing DoFs. First, I find out who is sticking together against who. Choosing the right side is very important to gaining an advantage in the game.

I blame the AI is trying to win concept.

Until Civ IV, the AI was created to simulate "the real world". They just want a better empire and went to war because of that. I need space, I need resources...so I go to war. The AI were obstacles to the human victory, not contenders. Of course sometimes you lose a game, but thats because the AI gets so powerfull that he wins even without racing against you.

On CiV, the AI is not simulating nothing, they are just another player. All the programing is direct to make the AI chase this or that victory condition. Theres no real concern about deals or treaties, they just throw away a 1000 years friendship if you are getting on their way to victory.

Some pleople liked this change, I dont. If I want competition, I go play online. I love roleplay on civilization games and this is more difficult now than it was before.

I still like several aspects of CiV, but diplomacy is not one of them.

Sry the poor english.

Fabiano79 said:

I blame the AI is trying to win concept.

Until Civ IV, the AI was created to simulate "the real world". They just want a better empire and went to war because of that. I need space, I need resources...so I go to war. The AI were obstacles to the human victory, not contenders. Of course sometimes you lose a game, but thats because the AI gets so powerfull that he wins even without racing against you.

On CiV, the AI is not simulating nothing, they are just another player. All the programing is direct to make the AI chase this or that victory condition. Theres no real concern about deals or treaties, they just throw away a 1000 years friendship if you are getting on their way to victory.

Some pleople liked this change, I dont. If I want competition, I go play online. I love roleplay on civilization games and this is more difficult now than it was before.

I still like several aspects of CiV, but diplomacy is not one of them.

Sry the poor english.

Click to expand...

It makes you thinx why they added all those diplomatic options. If it doesn't have any effect.

I also disagree about diplomacy being broken. As many others have said, the AI in Civ V is trying to ultimately "win" the game. Its ok if you don't like it, because you don't have to play it.

I rarely get back-stabbed anymore, but thats because I do things like gift my "friends" gold or resources, even when they aren't asking for them, or give back their captured citizens and cities. Going to war against a common enemy is a good one as well, but just because you were asked to go to war doesn't mean your "friend" wants you to commit genocide on the enemy. Also, keeping your military above the average size but below the highest will give your "friend" little reason to back-stab. Don't be a wonder-monger either as this will inflate your score too much (I play immortal mostly so this one is just a natural occurrence).

Like others have said, if you get back-stabbed and are left scratching your head "Why, why did he do that to ME?!?!", then you haven't played enough or just aren't learning from your mistakes.

woodshadows said:

explain why modifiers will appear and disappear from the modifier area then if it isn't a question of the ai deciding which to show and which to conceal?

Click to expand...

Most diplomatic modifiers are time dependant - they will stay in effect for 30 or 50 turns and will gradually lose importance, first go from major to minor and then disappear.

woodshadows said:

example: ai is in hostile mood towards me, in the modifier screen it tells me because i used a great general on them, i declared war on them, i picked order while they picked freedom. a few turns later, they are suddenly friendly with me, in the modifier screen it shows only the positive modifier of 'have had trade deals in the past', while all of the negative modifiers have disappeared. fast forward to a few turns in the future, again they are hostile towards me, all the old negative modifiers reappear. this all taking place without the relevant diplomatic actions taking place to incur those modifiers reappearing mind you. so.. whether this is some weird buggy programming or specifically programmed to be under ai control, i choose to believe the latter as it makes more sense. why for a game in which people complain so much about it not having realistic simulation would anyone ever want a diplomacy based upon the ability to psychically look into the opposing leaders mind and read their thoughts and emotions? the ai can't see into my brain, so why should i see into theirs.

Click to expand...

Don't have new patch. Haven't experienced this prior to patch. It sounds like a fault to me, but like I said before, if it is intentional, in my oppinion it is extremely poor game design.

Form a, my word, coalition to attack Caesar after 10 turns. Me(France), India, Mongolia, and Austria all prepare(by that I mean only I prepare to fight) and after 10 turns we all DoW. I am denounced by all except Mongolia for being a Warmonger.

Yes, it's broken.

Bechhold said:

Form a, my word, coalition to attack Caesar after 10 turns. Me(France), India, Mongolia, and Austria all prepare(by that I mean only I prepare to fight) and after 10 turns we all DoW. I am denounced by all except Mongolia for being a Warmonger.

Yes, it's broken.

Click to expand...

Immediately denounced? Denounced after taking a city? How many wars did you initiate prior to this one? How many cities do you own from conquest? How many cities do you own total compared to the number of cities the other AIs control? How large is your military compared to the others? What is your score compared to the others?

Gamewizard said:

Immediately denounced? Denounced after taking a city? How many wars did you initiate prior to this one? How many cities do you own from conquest? How many cities do you own total compared to the number of cities the other AIs control? How large is your military compared to the others? What is your score compared to the others?

Click to expand...

Only one war when attacked by Austria during the Medieval period, and as soon as war was declared. 0 from conquest from defensive war, around the same number of cities. Caesar, Attila, Khan have more. I led score by about 80ish...

Greizer85 said:

Gotta love the diplomacy in this game... I just took *one* lousy city state to, ahem, straighten my borders (sorry, Warsaw ), and after my rightful acquisition three civs declared war on me and the WHOLE WORLD except two faraway civs denounced me! "Well, bring it on, douchebags, I've had worse!" quoth Stalin.

Click to expand...

So first you declared war (on a City State). There is no "free DoW." Some of the AI's (mainly warmonger/aggressive types) have a higher threshold and so they won't care about a single DoW but there are some civs where even a single DoW pisses them off.

Then you compound the situation by eliminating another player (city state) from the game. This has a fairly significant diplomatic penalty. If you are on *very* Friendly terms with an AI (especially with a DoF), they will be willing to overlook a couple of eliminations (but eventually they will also denounce you). For civs you are on less friendly terms, this contributes significantly to the "You are a warmongering menace to the world" penalty.

I've killed two of the transgressors now and sent their families to the gulags for good measure, but the denunciations keep on coming

Click to expand...

So you compound the situation by eliminating another two players. It shouldn't be surprising that "the denunciations keep on coming." Even your DoF partners have a fair chance of denouncing you at this point.

Fwiw, I greatly preferred the Civ IV diplomacy AI. You could actually have meaningful foreign relations in that game.

Click to expand...

I liked Civ IV. I also liked the Permanent Alliance option, though I rarely bothered with it since you got the diplomatic baggage of the other civ. However, many have correctly pointed out how Civ IV diplomacy too often centered around religious blocks. I like the shifting DoF blocks A LOT more.