Oh come on...so I broke a promise 3000 years ago.

Cymsdale · Jul 16, 2013

VainoValkea said:
Why exactly?

Different language, different looking people, different customs, different architecture, etc.

Also, from a pure gameplay perspective, the human player can easily tell just by the city name, so it's fair and reasonable to allow the AI to know as well.

kaspergm · Jul 16, 2013

Cymsdale said:
Different language, different looking people, different customs, different architecture, etc.

Also, from a pure gameplay perspective, the human player can easily tell just by the city name, so it's fair and reasonable to allow the AI to know as well.

I don't necessarily agree. How many centuries does a city have to be a part of another empire before it is sufficiently assimilated into that culture, so that you can't anymore tell whether it actually once belonged to another civ? Surely, after a millennium, cultures will have blended, and grudges will have healed. Can we blame today's Italians that they sacked Constantinople some 800 years ago? Can we hold a grudge against the Germans because the Vandals raided Rome some 1500 years ago?

If you want to even the field for AI vs. human, make it so that AI will rename captured and annexed cities to be part of their own city list. That way, human player will not be able to tell who originally owned the city. I don't really think the name is an argument in itself to stay with a game mechanism if it makes the game worse.

Cymsdale · Jul 16, 2013

I don't really care about roleplay reasons. I just think that AI and player should have as equal game knowledge as possible, and I'm not arguing that the AI should "hold a grudge" over it.

kaspergm · Jul 16, 2013

Well if that's your angle, then answer me this: If we go back to the original topic, how on earth would you know that a civ sitting on another continent broke a promise to another civ sitting on that continent some 2000 game-years ago, at a time where you didn't even know them? There's absolutely no way you will know that, and for the same reason, it doesn't make sense that every AI knows that you did so.

Cymsdale · Jul 16, 2013

kaspergm said:
Well if that's your angle, then answer me this: If we go back to the original topic, how on earth would you know that a civ sitting on another continent broke a promise to another civ sitting on that continent some 2000 game-years ago, at a time where you didn't even know them? There's absolutely no way you will know that, and for the same reason, it doesn't make sense that every AI knows that you did so.

You seem to think I'm advocating something that I'm not.

bcaiko · Jul 16, 2013

This mechanic exists in order to prevent exploits by the human player on the AI. If the AI Civ was being played by a human in multiplayer, you can bet your Civ buddy would notice you gearing up for an attack. The AI doesn't have that kind of intuition, so it has a mechanic (generally when 2 units from a potentially hostile Civ are on its immediate borders) to ask the player if it's going to war. It's a bit crude, but if you continue to try to exploit the AI (by setting up your armies up perfectly long after a human player would have noticed them), you deserve a massive penalty.

I agree with the OP that it's immersion-breaking to have other AIs you've never met somehow know you were deceptive thousands of years (a hundred turns) ago. I'm not sure that's a good thing. But I do understand why that feature's there.

Yzman said:
There has to be a method to this then, since we are getting different results. CS did not matter in my game, there were many CS that witnessed me exterminate the whole continent. I wonder if the broken promise has something to do with it. I try to never break my promises.

Maybe for some reason the broken promise ignores the rule of meeting and this causes the warmonger penalties to apply as well?

Maybe someone can shed some light on this.

This is off topic, but the reason for the discrepancy is in the AI's personality flavors. Some Civs just care less when you wipe out a Civ they have nothing to do with, and some are really offended when ANY Civ is wiped off the map.

kaspergm · Jul 16, 2013

Cymsdale said:
You seem to think I'm advocating something that I'm not.

Perhaps I do?

Socratatus · Jul 16, 2013

Loucypher said:
In my current game as Poland, me and Spain were all alone on a rather big island, with ocean all around us. No other civs. At all. And no Kamehameha in game, either (I make a point of turning that DLC off >.>). So anyway, at 2000 BC or so, I have a few archers setting up around Madrid as well as two Spearmen. This force (4 archers, 2 spears), Isabella sees as highly threatening despite none actually AT her border and tells me to pull back. I kindly refuse, and attack her five turns later. Taking out both Madrid and Barcelona.
Now, not only was our little continent ocean-blocked, Madrid happened to be surrounded by Ice, and Barcelona was landlocked. And with her entirely wiped out of the game, nobody would know, right?
Fast forward to the Rennasaince, where I send out a few Caravels to find some potentional trade partners (thank god for city states...) and I run into a continent with Shaka, William, Dido, Maria I, Maria T and Boudicca.
Each of them have the negative diplo modifier "You have broken a promise you made to another Civ".

HOW THE HELL DO THEY KNOW?! I mean, BNW punishes warmongers enough as it is, but even punishing warmongers when there's no way for the other civs to even KNOW what happened? Sure, they'll know I wiped Spain off the map by checking my city list, but...this should really be fixed. Come on Firaxis.

Your title`s a bit misleading. You really meant, `how could they know?` Not `so I broke a promise 3000 years ago`.

I had a whole response ready until I read your post in detail... :rolleyes:

andrewlt · Jul 16, 2013

bcaiko said:
This mechanic exists in order to prevent exploits by the human player on the AI. If the AI Civ was being played by a human in multiplayer, you can bet your Civ buddy would notice you gearing up for an attack. The AI doesn't have that kind of intuition, so it has a mechanic (generally when 2 units from a potentially hostile Civ are on its immediate borders) to ask the player if it's going to war. It's a bit crude, but if you continue to try to exploit the AI (by setting up your armies up perfectly long after a human player would have noticed them), you deserve a massive penalty.

The problem is that the AI loves settling cities right up next to yours, even against your capital. In a multiplayer game, it's the settling one that will be branded as an aggressor by the rest of the players, not the player who razed the offending city. The AI complaining about your troops inside your capital's borders being next to his city will be the one that the rest of the human players thinks is going for a sneak attack.

bluetrin · Jul 16, 2013

Like someone said it is not about realism, it is about the mechanics of the game. The same player will be behind the civilisation for the duration of the game. Human players even have an advantage because they know the traits and personality of each civilisation before they even commit the deed.

Although AndrewLT made a very good point just above. Settling too close should be an act of aggression ?

glenjen75 · Jul 16, 2013

kaspergm said:
Well if that's your angle, then answer me this: If we go back to the original topic, how on earth would you know that a civ sitting on another continent broke a promise to another civ sitting on that continent some 2000 game-years ago, at a time where you didn't even know them? There's absolutely no way you will know that, and for the same reason, it doesn't make sense that every AI knows that you did so.

My take, FWIW, is that I actually find it VERY likely (as in real life) that they would know of your betrayal. With each game turn lasting several "months" at minimum, any new civ you'd meet would have plenty of time to review the highlights of your history with willing narrators and find out why you're called "perfidious" Albion or about those Pizzaro-esque tactics you undertook to capture a civ on another continent.

But I also agree that it's a bit odd to to have the same hit to your reputation whether it occurred 3K years ago or 1 year ago. I guess I just chalk it up to a gameplay choice by the Civ5/BNW team.

Oh come on...so I broke a promise 3000 years ago.

Cymsdale

Prince

kaspergm

Deity

Cymsdale

Prince

kaspergm

Deity

Cymsdale

Prince

bcaiko

Emperor

kaspergm

Deity

Socratatus

Emperor

andrewlt

Prince

bluetrin

Chieftain

glenjen75

Chieftain

Similar threads