'They believe we are building new cities too aggressively!'

blackcatatonic

Queen of Meme
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
3,423
Location
UK
No, I'm not trolling. But is it just me, or are the AIs which make this complaint about the player always the ones who are overexpanding themselves?

In my current game (Mongolia, Emperor) Suleiman instantly went from Friendly to Hostile when I built my fourth city not far from his borders. At that point, he had six cities already and very quickly built a seventh. He complained that I was building too close to him and I promised not to do it again, so I know the modifier didn't come from that.

Also, it seems to relate more to ownership of cities rather than just building them per se. In my previous Emperor game, Washington, who had city-spammed everywhere, wasn't too pleased when I conquered three Korean cities. Again, he had always been Friendly before that.

I only ever seem to get the 'expanding too rapidly' modifier from Civs which have been city-spamming. It seems a bit broken to me, especially when it scuppers what had previously been a solid trading relationship. Unless of course what the AI really means is 'you have stolen a good city location I was eyeing up' or 'you have captured a city I wanted to take'...
 
Building new cities agressively is indeed total number of cities you have, so conquering territory could trigger it.

Yes; some AIs care more about large number of cities built than others. Given that there is a negative modifier if they think you are trying to win the same way it wouldn't surprise me if the civs that do found cities faster are exactly the same ones that care the most about someone else doing so.

Actually, this is the sort of hypocracy I'd expect from a human player on the internet.
 
The 'trying to win the game in the same way' modifier is really irritating. The only victory type I can think of that requires a specific strategy from early on is culture, and I generally get the modifier when I'm not going cultural. I hear they're getting rid of it in the expansion, though, which is welcome news.
 
The 'trying to win the game in the same way' modifier is really irritating. The only victory type I can think of that requires a specific strategy from early on is culture, and I generally get the modifier when I'm not going cultural. I hear they're getting rid of it in the expansion, though, which is welcome news.

You build a monument, and they also build a monument, so logically the both of you are heading the same victory track!
 
To be honest I thinx the " you are building cities to agressivly " is basicly the same as " you are trying to win the game "
Its the AI trying to act like a human a bad human player Not really fun if you ask me.


If they still keep this ideology that the AI acts like a human player in the expansion then diplomacy will not be improved
 
The AI basicly wants you're land that you are settling however this is way to sensetive just like the "covet you're land modifier"

Even if the AI has a lot of land to expand theirself they still want to expand near you.

Because you are a potential runaway, and as our good Deutsche friend says when he DOWs:

"I cannot wait for you to grow stronger, therefore you need to die."
 
Because you are a potential runaway, and as our good Deutsche friend says when he DOWs:

"I cannot wait for you to grow stronger, therefore you need to die."

Then why make positif modifiers? if the AI acts like a human player you can basicly ignore diplomacy


Its like the AI in civ 5 is acting like a human player but olso conduct diplomacy and act as a role moddel.
Its one of the 2 not both Thats the problem with civ 5 !!!!
 
But it's perfectly alright for the A.I to settle as many cities, with cities right beside your capital.
 
But it's perfectly alright for the A.I to settle as many cities, with cities right beside your capital.

AI also develops land envy against neighboring AIs just as much as it does against the human.

But when it's playing, it doesn't really care what the other players (AI or human) think and will happily plant a city next to another AIs capital as well.
Basically, the Civ V AI acts like a stovepipe system. The military commander has no interaction with the diplomat.
 
Then why make positif modifiers? if the AI acts like a human player you can basicly ignore diplomacy


Its like the AI in civ 5 is acting like a human player but olso conduct diplomacy and act as a role moddel.
Its one of the 2 not both Thats the problem with civ 5 !!!!

You realize that even in multiplayer people also do Diplomacy, even if its temporary?

It gets modifiers because otherwise it'll be a black box system you can't totally interact with.
 
Personally, I don't understand why the diplomacy gets bashed so much - I find it to be fairly sensible. AI hates you for expanding too much? Good. If I saw Siam expanding all over the place I think I'd be giving off a bit of animosity as well, so why can't the AI do the same?

We should take a closer look at ourselves in-game. We're rascals! We're out to win the game and we'll do ridiculous things, betray our closest friends, and exploit the quietest and most docile civs for our own game. How can we not expect the AI to do the same?

Yes, there are smarter things that the AI can do. Perhaps it is better for an AI to butter up to the player to buy time rather than antagonizing him. But the diplomacy AI, as it stands, is passable, and most certainly better than the combat and economic AI, which should be the primary focus of Firaxis, and in the future, modders.
 
Personally, I don't understand why the diplomacy gets bashed so much - I find it to be fairly sensible. AI hates you for expanding too much? Good. If I saw Siam expanding all over the place I think I'd be giving off a bit of animosity as well, so why can't the AI do the same?

Expansion is a pretty damn important part of the game. Being punished diplomatically for playing well is just stupid.

We should take a closer look at ourselves in-game. We're rascals! We're out to win the game and we'll do ridiculous things, betray our closest friends, and exploit the quietest and most docile civs for our own game. How can we not expect the AI to do the same?

The game is meant to be fun to play, and the way it's implemented is not fun. The AI's also extremely poor at playing to win, so it's failing in every possible respect.

Yes, there are smarter things that the AI can do. Perhaps it is better for an AI to butter up to the player to buy time rather than antagonizing him. But the diplomacy AI, as it stands, is passable, and most certainly better than the combat and economic AI, which should be the primary focus of Firaxis, and in the future, modders.

I disagree. In a game I was playing the other night, I was attacked by the Incans and their city states. I repelled them, and to teach them a lesson I killed their city states. Over the next 20 turns, 6 of my 7 opponents decide they hate me because I'm expanding too much (not even the biggest civ), I'm a warmongering menace (haven't declared a single war), I'm trying to win the game (what a ridiculous diplo modifier), and I've been denounced (not a clue why). It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
 
Personally, I don't understand why the diplomacy gets bashed so much - I find it to be fairly sensible. AI hates you for expanding too much? Good. If I saw Siam expanding all over the place I think I'd be giving off a bit of animosity as well, so why can't the AI do the same?

I agree, I like the way diplomacy works now. It is still a bit sloppily presented - I occassionally see weird things like an AI that is "Afraid" of me, but still contacts me every 10 turns to insult me, which makes it seem insane. But I think the diplomacy system is basically ok. Usually if I end up hated by everyone I can at least understand why :)


Over the next 20 turns, 6 of my 7 opponents decide they hate me because I'm expanding too much (not even the biggest civ)

Well if you conquered a bunch of city states then your number of cities has suddenly shot up. Just because someone else has more cities, doesn't mean the AI will ignore what you are doing. However, if you give them enough reasons to like you (be friends with all their friends, denounce all their enemies) they will overlook your expansion at least for a while.

I'm a warmongering menace (haven't declared a single war)

If you completely eliminate a Civ from the game (including city states) you will earn warmonger hate. Makes no difference who started the war. You might not think this is a good design but it is certainly understandable and to some extent manageable once you know what triggers it.

I'm trying to win the game (what a ridiculous diplo modifier)

Agreed, this one is just stupid.

and I've been denounced (not a clue why). It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

If you have conquered several city states, the warmonger hate alone is probably enough to get you denounced by most Civs.
 
Well if you conquered a bunch of city states then your number of cities has suddenly shot up. Just because someone else has more cities, doesn't mean the AI will ignore what you are doing. However, if you give them enough reasons to like you (be friends with all their friends, denounce all their enemies) they will overlook your expansion at least for a while.

I don't really care that they hate me, they can't do crap to me because the AI is so incompetent at war. It's just an annoying diplo modifier that doesn't make sense. A negative diplo modifier for expanding into their lands is reasonable. A negative diplo modifier for expanding full stop is just stupid.

If you completely eliminate a Civ from the game (including city states) you will earn warmonger hate. Makes no difference who started the war. You might not think this is a good design but it is certainly understandable and to some extent manageable once you know what triggers it.

If I was attacking their friends, it'd be understandable. But I get attacked by civ A, who's the enemy of civ B, and suddenly civ B hates me because I'm killing off civ A. It's completely illogical.
 
I don't really care that they hate me, they can't do crap to me because the AI is so incompetent at war. It's just an annoying diplo modifier that doesn't make sense. A negative diplo modifier for expanding into their lands is reasonable. A negative diplo modifier for expanding full stop is just stupid.

If I was attacking their friends, it'd be understandable. But I get attacked by civ A, who's the enemy of civ B, and suddenly civ B hates me because I'm killing off civ A. It's completely illogical.

Even if you aren't the initial aggressor, if you kill of an entire civilization you wont be know throughout the world as a general nice guy but rather 'the one that killed x'.
Beating a civilization to an inch of his life is generally enough to ensure they wont win the game anyway. They end up being just a minor country.

I do agree that the diplomatic modifier 'you killed x' should be heavier or lighter depending on the situation.
People that disliked him should consider you a hero if anything.
 
Expansion is a pretty damn important part of the game. Being punished diplomatically for playing well is just stupid.

The AI does not punish you for expanding, it challenges you. This makes perfect sense, as the AI sees you as the most dangerous opponent and wants to eliminate you before you get a strong economy. Would you rather have the AI sit back and do nothing while you took a huge lead unchecked?
 
The AI does not punish you for expanding, it challenges you. This makes perfect sense, as the AI sees you as the most dangerous opponent and wants to eliminate you before you get a strong economy. Would you rather have the AI sit back and do nothing while you took a huge lead unchecked?

Yeah the only problem is the modifer stays for the entier game SO they stay mad ad you for expanding ...

They say it will fade way in the expansion we will see
 
Yeah the only problem is the modifer stays for the entier game SO they stay mad ad you for expanding ...

They say it will fade way in the expansion we will see

I agree that diplo modifiers should not stay the entire game...however, some actions, like nuking an opponent, should have lifetime consequences. Nuclear warfare should have a price.
 
The AI does not punish you for expanding, it challenges you. This makes perfect sense, as the AI sees you as the most dangerous opponent and wants to eliminate you before you get a strong economy. Would you rather have the AI sit back and do nothing while you took a huge lead unchecked?

I am punished diplomatically for playing well. This does not make sense when I'm not even the biggest civ, let alone a runaway superpower. Diplomacy has just taken a mssive step backwards with the completely irrational AI that attacks its allies completely out of the blue.
 
Top Bottom