How does Diplomacy work in G&K?

The diplomacy system seems so confusing.

1) I would form an entrenched relationship with one of the Civs (embassy, defensive pact etc....) only to be denounced randomly for no apparent reason.

2) Civ A is in a war with Civ B. I would ask Civ A to join me in the war against Civ B and CivA would decline...How does that make any sense...

3) Best friends become enemies without any warning signs.


How should I tactically utilize the diplomacy system to my favor? It seems immensely convoluted.

I wish civs would not denounce so randomly. Also, best friends becoming enemies all of a sudden is VERY annoying.

One practical request for the developers would be that you could "turn off" diplomatic interaction with certain civs temporarily. For example, if I don't want any more DOF/DOW or trade requests from a certain civ or several different civs or all civs for that matter, you can just block them. This would really speed up the game in the later stages. Sometimes it can take up to 10 minutes waiting for the next turn and the stupid AI requests (99% are lame DOF/DOW, open borders renewals, etc.)

Also, open borders and trade deals should just be permanent until canceled by one party with a 10 turn advance notice. Having to renew these all the time with 20 other civs is annoying and needless.

And finally, there should be a chance that a civs discovers that you asked another civ to go to war against it. Hiring "mercenary" civs for proxy wars should have a possible penalty.

Well, it`s not that random.

1.For instance, a Civ might denounce you to get favour with a CS that asked for it.
A Civ might denounce you for expanding into its area, especially whe you said you wouldn`t.
Declaring war and beating the crap out of a Civ and refusing peace terms.
And possibly just to make you look bad (even if you`re innocent) to get other Civs on its side and start a war because it wants your cities and lands....

2. You can`t ask a Civ at war with another Civ to join you since it`s already at war with that Civ. Just join the war against it.

3. The warning signs are there.

Hints: I would not play too short games as they seem to make things go too fast. Try Epic.

I`m not going into detail here but you can sometimes tell when things are heating up. for instance, a Civ looking for war might start contacting you to belittle you over your economy or sad people or it might Denounce you. Also, it might start trying to take over CS` near you.

Also, keep scouts near its cities, watch if his troops head in your direction or building up on borders. If you can put a SPY in the Capital and sooner or later that spy will tell you if that Civ is sending an army on a surprise attack.

Try to keep good relations with someone. Give or agree freebies to at least one good neighbour (I do it all the time). Make Defensive alliances if you feel weak. Give back units captured by barbarians, don`t keep them. Try to stay out of wars if they don`t benefit you and be neutral until it suits you to start a war or get involved in one.

As in reality, the AI does stuff behind your back. It is not transparent- Nothing is when dealing with different Nations. part of it is simply using your strategic wisdom. You won`t predict right all the time and sometimes you will be surprise attacked, but no one even in reality can be sure what another nation is going to do.

It`s a judgement call.

Finally, a Civ might attack you simply because he wants to HAVE what you have; your lands, your cities, your economy, your resources. The Civ might just want power, no matter how nice you are. He might see a weak spot (small army, rich lands) and just want it all. Just like sometimes happens in real life.

siredgar said:

Also, open borders and trade deals should just be permanent until canceled by one party with a 10 turn advance notice. Having to renew these all the time with 20 other civs is annoying and needless.

Click to expand...

Let's take this one step further, and make all deals work this way. Any deal can be cancelled at any time (provided 10 turns have passed since the initial agreement). Resources and GPT do not stop being exchanged until 10 turns after cancellation.

Of course, DOWing still instantly ends any deal between two civs.

Socratatus said:

1.For instance, a Civ might denounce you to get favour with a CS that asked for it.
A Civ might denounce you for expanding into its area, especially whe you said you wouldn`t.
Declaring war and beating the crap out of a Civ and refusing peace terms.
And possibly just to make you look bad (even if you`re innocent) to get other Civs on its side and start a war because it wants your cities and lands....

Click to expand...

It may not be *random* as such, but there are certainly some very small reasons that will lead someone to denounce you even if you are friends. Examples include you building a wonder that they also want (sure, it's alright to make the annoyed, but how can they come out an "tell the world what a bad person you are" for building the Eifel Tower ... when they wanted to build the Eifel Tower themselves? That's just nonsense) or if they suddenly decide they want to be allies with a CS that you've been allied with entire game, so they coup you and then you buy it back, and suddenly you're an awfully bad person and the whole world needs to know it. Seriously?

And what's worse, the system is a completely in-transparent. I don't think there is a random number generator deciding who will denounce who (I certainly hope there isn't!) so obviously there must be some underlying reason, but what it is is often not clear at all! Sure, if you bully a CS that may be the reason, but other times a friend will just denounce you out of the blue if you didn't do anything. Maybe another civ bribed them to do it, but if a third party who's hostile to you can easily can easily bribe your friend to denounce you there's something wrong with the system!

On the bottom line, I'll said what I've said many times before that denounciations really need to be changed so that you can only get a denounciation for doing a specific set of actions that are well defined - such as breaking a promise (not to spy/settle/spread religion), razing a city or whatever conditions one puts on a list. And then, when you get denounced, there should be a specified reason - we denounce you because you broke your promise not to convert our cities, for instance.

kobe2clutch said:

The diplomacy system seems so confusing.

1) I would form an entrenched relationship with one of the Civs (embassy, defensive pact etc....) only to be denounced randomly for no apparent reason.

2) Civ A is in a war with Civ B. I would ask Civ A to join me in the war against Civ B and CivA would decline...How does that make any sense...

3) Best friends become enemies without any warning signs.


How should I tactically utilize the diplomacy system to my favor? It seems immensely convoluted.

Click to expand...

To try to answer your original questions, as for #2, it may seem poorly worded, but my guess is if A is already in war with B, they will decline your request to join them in war because they are already in war.

As for how to work the diplomatic system in general, best advice is to learn who are notorious backstabbers and otherwise look at what the relationships are between the other civs. If players A and B dislike each other, don't for a DoF with both of them. Chose one side, and be ready to be disliked by the other (you might even go out and denounce him outright if the one you are friends with did so in order to strengthen your friendsship). Try to build alliences so that your friends are friends with each other and you dislike the same people.

It will not be foolproof because AI players in your alliance will form random friendsships with enemies of your "alliance" (huge flaw in diplomatic system) and AI in your alliance will denounce other members of your "alliance" for often unknown reasons (another huge flaw), and furthermore UI has a huge flaw that when someone asks you to form a DoF, you can't see what their relationship is with other factions (something that will hopefully be fixed), which is something they will hopefully fix (or someone can mod in).

They'll denounce you if
1) You denounce them
2) You are competing for something, usually CS, land, wonders and their flavours are strongly aligned to one of those.
ie: Rameses once denounced me because I built too many wonders. That is very extreme however. Most civs are not like him. You might see 'covet wonders' penalty in the diplo screen, but many will remain your friends.
3) You break a promise
4) Your friends denounce you
5) Their friends denounce you
6) They see you as a threat (score competition/common borders) - this becomes the big driving force as the game nears the end. AI civs near your score or share a common border who aren't friendly will very likely be plotting against someone and you might be one of their targets.

It's actually fairly easy to keep DoF chains going, but you can't keep it going forever as things start to get messy with more than 2 civs in the mix and as many have shown, Diety play is all about manipulating DoF, bribing Civs who are already predisposed to go to war to in fact go to war, and watch them denounce.

The easiest way outside of bribing is to follow denouncements of your neighbours closely in the early game. If you see a Civ denounce someone you deem to be a threat (ie: Strong AI civ that will cause you problems later); Denounce the Civ too. Instant power block. I've carried multiple early game relationships like that all the way to the end.
Geography is also important. It's best not to share borders with a friend in the ealry game or their expansion instincts will clash with yours and they could end up backstabbing you to grab a border town.

That said, if you play fairly, don't break promises and don't DoF everyone making you look flakey, Creating blocks is super easy in Civ5 simply following basic rules of friendship. But the game does also have inflection points. It starts off fairly easy. Most every wants to be friends. DoF chains are very easy to make and maintain early.

The first inflection is around turn 100 when AI core is set and they are pushing for ring 2 expansion. Early friends may not like each other any more, so you'll have to adjust.

After renaissance, it becomes hard to keep DoF chains of more than a few Civs, because the Civs in your block will often not like each other, and if you DoF them all, you'll get hit with the 'you friended my enemy penalty' This is when you really pare down your block to 1-2 Civs that aren't tangled in hatreds.

That doesn't mean you can't have big DoF chains in the late game, but a realignment is necessary. You'll probably keep 1-2 of your best friends, plus pick up several new Civs who don't hate your friends. You'll have to ditch Civs who will cause you trouble.
That said, I've run power blocks where I have in my mix 1 or 2 civs who hate each other. I do get hit with the 'friended my enemy' penalty, but because I only did it to one Civ both ways, it's not a diplo breaking penalty and the Green items on my list far outweigh the red ones and only 2 of the civs are affected.

I really need to finish that article in the academy.

kaspergm said:

furthermore UI has a huge flaw that when someone asks you to form a DoF, you can't see what their relationship is with other factions (something that will hopefully be fixed), which is something they will hopefully fix (or someone can mod in).

Click to expand...

I do not agree with your assment of the diplo system, and none of the things you've said are true flaws, aside from being different from what you're probably used to in previous Civ games, but this item is indeed a flaw.

InfoAddict (mod) does let you check relations before you agree to accept. I had a lot of trouble for a long time, because someone would call me up and I would have no clue if I can friend them on that. However, as I played more games and grew more confortable with the diplo system, especially post G&K when diplomacy is significantly more stable I've actually learned to just pay attention to the notifications and not click through 'next turn' like a madman. I've pretty much mapped the relationships in my head as I play. It's actually a lot of fun that way. It's more personal than having to refer to a chart every time you do diplomacy.

Though I feel not everyone can or is willing to do that. I'm personally quite satisfied with my own solution

If you really need it, get InfoAddict. It also gives you lots of graphs and tools not in the base game. Some consider it a cheat because you know so much information, including the exact relative military strength of each Civ. My advice for you though is to just play more games and pay more attention to the notifications and to global politics. Civ5 does away with a lot of microing on the economic level, but it does expect you to micro diplomacy by paying attention. I think that's the paradigm shift a lot of people who don't get Civ5 hasn't learned yet.

Sadly, you have to consider the leaders as chess players, instead as real civilization leaders. So, they will react anyway that makes them think is better for winning the game, unlike civ4 where they acted with personality.
Then, add in that they are just an AI, that even trying to win the chess game still makes many mistakes that seem to make no sense, and you get the diplomacy system we have.
After many patches, it's almost the only thing I still miss from civ4. I think diplomacy and science depending on population are they only 2 things left I don't like about civ5

dexters said:

They'll denounce you if
1) You denounce them
2) You are competing for something, usually CS, land, wonders and their flavours are strongly aligned to one of those.
ie: Rameses once denounced me because I built too many wonders. That is very extreme however. Most civs are not like him. You might see 'covet wonders' penalty in the diplo screen, but many will remain your friends.
3) You break a promise
4) Your friends denounce you
5) Their friends denounce you
6) They see you as a threat (score competition/common borders) - this becomes the big driving force as the game nears the end. AI civs near your score or share a common border who aren't friendly will very likely be plotting against someone and you might be one of their targets.

It's actually fairly easy to keep DoF chains going, but you can't keep it going forever as things start to get messy with more than 2 civs in the mix and as many have shown, Diety play is all about manipulating DoF, bribing Civs who are already predisposed to go to war to in fact go to war, and watch them denounce.

The easiest way outside of bribing is to follow denouncements of your neighbours closely in the early game. If you see a Civ denounce someone you deem to be a threat (ie: Strong AI civ that will cause you problems later); Denounce the Civ too. Instant power block. I've carried multiple early game relationships like that all the way to the end.
Geography is also important. It's best not to share borders with a friend in the ealry game or their expansion instincts will clash with yours and they could end up backstabbing you to grab a border town.

That said, if you play fairly, don't break promises and don't DoF everyone making you look flakey, Creating blocks is super easy in Civ5 simply following basic rules of friendship. But the game does also have inflection points. It starts off fairly easy. Most every wants to be friends. DoF chains are very easy to make and maintain early.

The first inflection is around turn 100 when AI core is set and they are pushing for ring 2 expansion. Early friends may not like each other any more, so you'll have to adjust.

After renaissance, it becomes hard to keep DoF chains of more than a few Civs, because the Civs in your block will often not like each other, and if you DoF them all, you'll get hit with the 'you friended my enemy penalty' This is when you really pare down your block to 1-2 Civs that aren't tangled in hatreds.

That doesn't mean you can't have big DoF chains in the late game, but a realignment is necessary. You'll probably keep 1-2 of your best friends, plus pick up several new Civs who don't hate your friends. You'll have to ditch Civs who will cause you trouble.
That said, I've run power blocks where I have in my mix 1 or 2 civs who hate each other. I do get hit with the 'friended my enemy' penalty, but because I only did it to one Civ both ways, it's not a diplo breaking penalty and the Green items on my list far outweigh the red ones and only 2 of the civs are affected.

I really need to finish that article in the academy.

Click to expand...

This is good stuff. And I play very much like this. A lot of it is common sense since I don`t know the intricates, and I don`t want to really. I like the `not sure` aspect. I just act like I think I would in real world. I try to avoid wars and keep peace unless I know everything is in my advantage. In fact, I often find that I`m quietly ignored except for the odd `freebie` trade request, bceuase I play a very `straight` game. I try to keep out of trouble, so I do a lot to upset no one. Everyone one else is declaring war or denouncing each other as if I don`t exist. In my game at the moment, Thedora and Dido hate each other- it`s funny. Several other Civs banded together to attack Bluetooth, but I refused to get involved -Bluetooth got wiped out, sadly.

So you can keep out of things, if you try.

Sometimes though, a Civ will notice you being all quiet and attempt to pick on you. Attila the Hun declared war out of the blue and attacked. I assumed the reason was because he`s a mean son-of-a- and he just wanted to take the land and resources of the weakest looking Civ. However, I blunted that attack and we made peace. I even returned a worker to him that had been captured and since then he`s been quite good.

I also try to denounce almost no one unless they`re a real pain. Now Songhai has been steadily criticising me and calling me to say how crap my Civ was, then he denounced me. So I denounced him. Almost immediately, every other Civ joined me to say they agreed with MY denouncement of Songhai. I was rather pleased with that.

A simple rule in civ 5 : to become great at diplomacy :IGNORE DIPLOMACY

dexters said:

furthermore UI has a huge flaw that when someone asks you to form a DoF, you can't see what their relationship is with other factions (something that will hopefully be fixed), which is something they will hopefully fix (or someone can mod in).

Click to expand...

I do not agree with your assment of the diplo system, and none of the things you've said are true flaws, aside from being different from what you're probably used to in previous Civ games, but this item is indeed a flaw.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but having to decide on something in a tactical game without having access to the premises on which you have to make the decisions is either extremely poor game design or just a serious oversight. Either way, I do think it's fair to call it a flaw. The fact that you mention that you either have to map it out manually turn by turn (and do you really think that was what they intended?) or play with info-addict mod just proves my point.

kaspergm said:

Sorry, but having to decide on something in a tactical game without having access to the premises on which you have to make the decisions is either extremely poor game design or just a serious oversight. Either way, I do think it's fair to call it a flaw. The fact that you mention that you either have to map it out manually turn by turn (and do you really think that was what they intended?) or play with info-addict mod just proves my point.

Click to expand...

The AI olso ask for DOF to early and if you decline you have to wait a long time to ask it you'rself and they will proparly decline...


It would be more usefull if they asked for DOF in the mid game when you actualy know who hates who... Now its just a gambling machine

The whole 'if they turn you down, or you turn them down, you can't ask for a while' thing is very much of a nuisance. Particularly if you want to ask them for a DoF, because there is absolutely no way of knowing if they will accept, and if they decline, you have blown the chance where they might have accepted if you gave them something first or whatever.

apocalypse105 said:

The AI olso ask for DOF to early and if you decline you have to wait a long time to ask it you'rself and they will proparly decline...


It would be more usefull if they asked for DOF in the mid game when you actualy know who hates who... Now its just a gambling machine

Click to expand...

Umm no. Diplomacy is always important from Turn 1 in every Civ game. Previous games allow you sleepwalk through it most of the early game because you can assume everyone is busy expanding, or you are busying warring them and no one will care yet. Civ5 requires more attention because DoF matter. G&K's stable diplo model in particular allows for game-long DoFs that is renewed pretty much until the game ends.

If you're not setting alliances and scoping out who you can ally with early in the game and changing the landscape to your benefit by bribing AIs to go to war early and finding 'common interest' (such as denouncing an AI with your friends) with AIs you have no plan of taking down and working with them, you're going to struggle for the rest of the game.

As far as I know there are no diplomatic penalties for declining a DoF, and if you play well below your skill level, it won't matter. But Civ5 is such that the diplomacy is 'active' rather than 'passive' so if you opt out for a good size of the game, the game will chug along and you'll be left behind. This is the essential different in Civ5 diplo many of its critics fail to grasp.

If you don't have DoF chains before the medieval era, you'll run into a lot of problems especially when you rush for the easy DoFs when RAs open up.

- Friending the wrong Civs that is hated by most everyone.
- Falling for the DoF honey traps by some AI who really have no intention to be your friend. They may already be planning to attack you, but because they have a 'deceptive' approach, they will trade as if they're friendly


Then you come here and rant about broken dilpo

Edit: AI will accept DoF after you decline them initially. If they decline you the 2nd time, it means you're probably not in their favour/not doing things to help them.
Gotta move past the 'this game is all about me' mentality. AI civs have motivations. They're fairly easy and simple ones. Not being a dick to everyone you have no intention of warring is a good start. And the game gives you plenty of opportunity to butter up an AI so they will like you. And it is also true some AI civs are easier to get along with than others.

There will be games where you're just in a 'bad' neighbourhood. Those are challenging games.

But it's not all free. If you denounce an AI civ to get friendly with another Civ or several others, it's gotta be in your interest to do so because you are unlikely to have a friendly relationship with the Civ you denounced for the rest of the game.

AI who are your friends, especially the junior partners in your alliance will often ask free stuff. Declining once or twice isn't the end of the world. But hoarding everything and selling a 240 gold lux for 100 gold to your most hated enemy who is hostile to you instead of giving it to the small buffer alliance next you is not the way to play.

Those two are probably the big newbie mistakes

dexters said:

G&K's stable diplo model ...

Click to expand...

Good thing I wasn't drinking anything, because then this statement might have been the end of me. There are a lot of things to be said about CiV diplomacy, and I could throw in many good things myself, but 'stable' is very down on the list of words to descripe how diplomacy is in G&K.

Moderator Action: Please explain why you think G&K diplo is not stable or make your point by talking about why. This post is not furthering this discussion and lacks in civility due to the opening sentence.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

kaspergm said:

Good thing I wasn't drinking anything, because then this statement might have been the end of me. There are a lot of things to be said about CiV diplomacy, and I could throw in many good things myself, but 'stable' is very down on the list of words to descripe how diplomacy is in G&K.

Click to expand...

This adds nothing to the conversation kasper.

I understand your complaints are likely replicable if I play Civ5 like I'm playing an older Civ game or some other game, but as my post above outlines, it seems like other people's problems with Civ5 diplomacy has a lot to do with playing the game like it's still older Civ games. I wouldn't doubt you're on the same boat.

I'm trying to help by explaining how diplo works. Constantly being contrarian and making sweeping statements about this or that being broken when I know they are not is just trolling.

Moderator Action: Please simply report the post and let the mods handle it. Calling someone a troll is, in itself, an act of trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

dexters said:

Umm no. Diplomacy is always important from Turn 1 in every Civ game. Previous games allow you sleepwalk through it most of the early game because you can assume everyone is busy expanding, or you are busying warring them and no one will care yet. Civ5 requires more attention because DoF matter. G&K's stable diplo model in particular allows for game-long DoFs that is renewed pretty much until the game ends.

If you're not setting alliances and scoping out who you can ally with early in the game and changing the landscape to your benefit by bribing AIs to go to war early and finding 'common interest' (such as denouncing an AI with your friends) with AIs you have no plan of taking down and working with them, you're going to struggle for the rest of the game.

As far as I know there are no diplomatic penalties for declining a DoF, and if you play well below your skill level, it won't matter. But Civ5 is such that the diplomacy is 'active' rather than 'passive' so if you opt out for a good size of the game, the game will chug along and you'll be left behind. This is the essential different in Civ5 diplo many of its critics fail to grasp.

If you don't have DoF chains before the medieval era, you'll run into a lot of problems especially when you rush for the easy DoFs when RAs open up.

- Friending the wrong Civs that is hated by most everyone.
- Falling for the DoF honey traps by some AI who really have no intention to be your friend. They may already be planning to attack you, but because they have a 'deceptive' approach, they will trade as if they're friendly


Then you come here and rant about broken dilpo

Edit: AI will accept DoF after you decline them initially. If they decline you the 2nd time, it means you're probably not in their favour/not doing things to help them.
Gotta move past the 'this game is all about me' mentality. AI civs have motivations. They're fairly easy and simple ones. Not being a dick to everyone you have no intention of warring is a good start. And the game gives you plenty of opportunity to butter up an AI so they will like you. And it is also true some AI civs are easier to get along with than others.

There will be games where you're just in a 'bad' neighbourhood. Those are challenging games.

But it's not all free. If you denounce an AI civ to get friendly with another Civ or several others, it's gotta be in your interest to do so because you are unlikely to have a friendly relationship with the Civ you denounced for the rest of the game.

AI who are your friends, especially the junior partners in your alliance will often ask free stuff. Declining once or twice isn't the end of the world. But hoarding everything and selling a 240 gold lux for 100 gold to your most hated enemy who is hostile to you instead of giving it to the small buffer alliance next you is not the way to play.

Those two are probably the big newbie mistakes

Click to expand...

The only things that boters me is that the AI ask for Decleration of friendship at the start of the game at turn 10 While if you asked them at that turn they say we don't know you enough. .

You're statement that you can ask for a DOF after you declined is falls because you have to wait more then 60 turns and maybe after that they allready made a opinion about you.
Olso there are not enough positif modifiers in the early game , so if you decline the AI will proparly don't accept any more because she or he doesn't like you..


But the most biggest problem with this early DOF is the civ 5 diplo moddel itself.
Civ 5 Is al about forming pacts against someone, Forming a Alliance against a other alliance or player.

But here comes the problem the AI usaly will form opinions and denounce at the start of medieval... This is olso when you will see a lot of dogpiles dows thats how you can see who is working together against someone...

Because you have to make a DOf early you can have the bad luck of ending on the wrong side withouth knowing it So it really isn't a bad decission..

A strategy game shouldn't be based on luck but on a making bad or good decissions.


Diplomacy would be a lot easier for the player and the AI values friendships a lot more and just didn't asked for it in the beginning...( So you had to work for it )

dexters said:

This adds nothing to the conversation kasper.

I understand your complaints are likely replicable if I play Civ5 like I'm playing an older Civ game or some other game, but as my post above outlines, it seems like other people's problems with Civ5 diplomacy has a lot to do with playing the game like it's still older Civ games. I wouldn't doubt you're on the same boat.

Click to expand...

The point I'm trying to make is that Civ5 diplomacy has some flaws. I'm not playing Civ5 like I played the previous games, because I wasn't really paying much attention to diplomacy at all in previous games, and I do actually think I'm quite adept in working the Civ5 diplomatic system work - because I'm aware of those flaws, and know how to navigate around or through them. But that doesn't change the fact that it has these flaws which makes the AI play out like they are all either schizophrenic, bipolar or both.

The Civ5 diplomatic system is build around a set of actions and events that will give you positive and negative modifiers with the AI, and that is a fine basis, even if one may disagree with some of the choices made for applying those modifiers (and there are enough examples of that to chose from, but that's a different story). However, when the AI repetedly acts against the core of this principle - forming friendships with those that it used to hate, and denouncing those that it used to form friendships with - the whole system collapses, and sadly, this tends to happen more often than not.

Well no Ai is perfect and I`ll bet when it is, people will still complain. The AI can`t win because people are SUBJECTIVE about what is good AI and what is good diplomacy.

For instance I saw someone whining that dip was bad because the AI refused to give him the only available resource no matter what he offered- that`s good AI. Why give something that gives an advantage just to him? A Human would do the same.

However, I do see faults in Civ 5`s dip. For instance if I beat an Ai to within and inch of its existence and it has one city left, then I make peace... Next turn it DENOUNCES me. My troops are even still nearby! Does that make sense? If you were soundly defeated by an enemy but he let you live, wouldn`t you keep quiet for a good few years before even saying anything?

So that`s where the AI needs to be tweaked to keep its mouth shut after a sound defeat to ensure its short-term survival.

Also, I think the wording in diplomacy could be better phrased to be understood. For instance, when a Civ bullies my CS and he tells me, how was I supposed to know that the option of `I hope this won`t create a rift between us` actually cancels my protection with that CS? I was doing that for ages until the red writing eventually popped up.

Socratatus said:

Well no Ai is perfect and I`ll bet when it is, people will still complain. The AI can`t win because people are SUBJECTIVE about what is good AI and what is good diplomacy.

For instance I saw someone whining that dip was bad because the AI refused to give him the only available resource no matter what he offered- that`s good AI. Why give something that gives an advantage just to him? A Human would do the same.

However, I do see faults in Civ 5`s dip. For instance if I beat an Ai to within and inch of its existence and it has one city left, then I make peace... Next turn it DENOUNCES me. My troops are even still nearby! Does that make sense? If you were soundly defeated by an enemy but he let you live, wouldn`t you keep quiet for a good few years before even saying anything?

So that`s where the AI needs to be tweaked to keep its mouth shut after a sound defeat to ensure its short-term survival.

Also, I think the wording in diplomacy could be better phrased to be understood. For instance, when a Civ bullies my CS and he tells me, how was I supposed to know that the option of `I hope this won`t create a rift between us` actually cancels my protection with that CS? I was doing that for ages until the red writing eventually popped up.

Click to expand...

THis is not complaining but giving tips on how to improve it.

And it makes sence they ydenounce you if you conquered them to let his friends know that he doesn't like you and they shouldn't work with you...