I am really bummed about the lack of relationship modifiers information

MkLh said:

In real world, countries have (and have always had) quite good knowledge of what other countries think of them, and what country A thinks of country B. It may not be exact, but it's much more than nothing. Black box AIs are utterly unrealistic and take away the immersion.
.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not exact. There are ways to let you know what another country thinks of you without assigning it a number.

"I can do that for you, sure," enthused the computer, punching out more tickertape. "I can even work
out you personality problems to ten decimal places if it will help."

Click to expand...

Not a totally appropriate quote, but it makes me happy anyhow.

Honestly, I want this information too. You can do a lot to try and pretend that the AI isn't just a game system, but the truth is that it IS just a game system. You will get ahead against this AI by figuring out what factors contribute to its decision-making and emphasizing those. The only way around that would be a good dose of randomness, but why would you even want to do that? That's just saying that you can't learn how to get the AI to cooperate/trust you, which is just bad - relationships between leaders in this game are important.

You can't make the AI play like a player, because it's NOT a player. You're missing whole elements from it that you really can't simulate. There's no metagame; the player can learn how a given AI will approach the game (and how trustworthy they are) over many games, but the AI can never learn that about the player. That's an important part of interacting with other players in multiplayer - learning how trustworthy they are. That whole factor takes place outside the context of the game.

For that matter, it isn't clear that players who prefer SP over MP even WANT a metagame imposed on them. I'd bet there's a decent number of players who would vastly prefer being able to play a game of Civ based as much as possible only in the knowledge provided within that context.

Another problem - players read a variety of cues off each other - far more than the AI is going to be able to present. There are subtleties of tone and meaning which players have access to (even in text) which the AI simply isn't going to be able to present.

Third issue - many players are not acting ruthlessly self-interestedly in a game of civ. If you create an AI which is "like a player" in acting ruthlessly self-interestedly, it is acting UNLIKE much of the player base, in a way which will be frustrating to those players.

I'll draw an example from holy trinity MMOs. An Everquest or WoW designer can easily design an encounter that prioritizes killing healers, "like a player would." They've tried it. The result is - inevitably - that players end up frustrated with that kind of encounter. It can be fair (appropriately geared, skilled players can beat it), but the truth is that players who have chosen to play a healer just don't want to spend fights running for their lives. It doesn't matter if that's the 'smart' choice for the AI; it matters that it doesn't meet player expectations and is frustrating to play against. In Civ, for some number of players, having an AI that will always invade when it sees an opportunity might be 'smarter', but would also be frustrating and make the game less fun.

As for realism, it's a wash. Neither playing like an AI nor playing like a player has much of anything to do with the historical behavior of empires. One is not better than another.

Ahriman said:

This argument is ridiculous and insulting.

Its like saying: if you didn't get to move any of your units (the AI moved them for you) then the game would be harder, because you couldn't use superior tactical combat decisions to improve your performance.

Therefore anyone who wants to be able to move their own units is not in favor of having a tough strategy game.

Click to expand...

Total non-sequitur right there. Taking away the ability to move your own units would make the game be totally different.

kaltorak said:

That makes no sense at all.

If in starcraft 2 all units you build would have a random attack value, it would make the game more difficult, but absolutly not more strategical. It's the oposite, it would make it hard due to luck beeing involved.

The game should be hard by other means, not by removing strategic layers making them random.

Click to expand...

False analogy. Diplo modifiers are not the same thing as attack values. A better analogy would be for the Starcraft 2 AI to display a number indicating how likely they are to attack and allowing you to modify this number in order to chose the exact moment when you are prepared to fight the battle on your terms.

This sort of "feature" makes the game easier and gives the human player an advantage because the AI player does not have this ability.

chongli said:

A better analogy would be for the Starcraft 2 AI to display a number indicating how likely they are to attack and allowing you to modify this number in order to chose the exact moment when you are prepared to fight the battle on your terms.

Click to expand...

Nice example... for me. Since starcraft 2 has no diplomacy at all and we want civilization to have a big diplomacy.

Ill quote again

and allowing you to modify this number in order to chose the exact moment when you are prepared to fight

Click to expand...

That's the diplomacy strategic gameplay that civ offers. Trying to delay a war by diplomatic ways is part of the gameplay. If you want to turn it into sc2, by hidding this and having no way to change it, don't count me in. Or maybe sc is too different, but you may prefer panzer general

There are does who want the game to play like an RPG. So you can manipulate the IA and it try to simulate the fact that they are realy Napoleon and that they have a personal grudge against you for whatever you did in the past. And for whatever reasy you want numbers to be sure.

Then there are those who want a more fair game, where you can't realy know if the IA will stay true to it's words... Or will he backstab you because you are taking a lead in the game even after a long alliance like a real player would. They wanna win, that's the only reason they are around. If you want relation with someone who don't want to win... then go for the city state.

Personaly I hated those number telling me how the AI felt, it was plain stupid... It was giving an edge to the player by giving him information the AI couldn't have about him. The player will always be the first to try and manipulate the AI with those number in mind and it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm very glad it's gone.

krunsh said:

There are does who want the game to play like an RPG. So you can manipulate the IA

Then there are those who want a more fair game

Click to expand...

It's not about roleplay, its about strategy. But seems you think strategy is limited to moving units. There are other levels of strategy, like diplomacy. And if you remove that aspect, sure, it will be more of a war sandbox, but thats not a good civi game in my opinion.

It's not a question of getting/not getting needed information. The information is there, you need to learn it more traditionally. When you play a human player that you've never played before, you don't know what they will do, but as time goes on you will begin to learn their play style and adapt to it. When you play a CPU player, it's the same thing, playing napoleon will always feel like playing napoleon even with the slight randomness factor. As you "get to know" the computer AIs you will know how they react. The game just doesn't tell you to begin with.

Edit: To expand upon this, in Civ IV, we all know that Montezuma was a prick. Even when he had a bunch of plus modifiers with your civ he would attack you jsut because you were nearby. Personally, I found the modifier numbers to be bad, because even knowing monty I'd think "surely with all these +s he won't attack" but he always did. without the "numbers" telling me how he feels, I will be more liekly to understand how he really works and be ready for his "sudden but inevitable betrayal".

kaltorak said:

Nice example... for me. Since starcraft 2 has no diplomacy at all and we want civilization to have a big diplomacy.

Ill quote again


That's the diplomacy strategic gameplay that civ offers. Trying to delay a war by diplomatic ways is part of the gameplay. If you want to turn it into sc2, by hidding this and having no way to change it, don't count me in. Or maybe sc is too different, but you may prefer panzer general

Click to expand...

The way I view diplomacy in a strategy game like Civ 5 is no different from the table talk in a game of Risk or the chat feature in a 4-, 6- or 8-player game of Starcraft 2. It is a metagame that is unbounded by the rules of the actual game. You can make deals with the other players and ask them to do certain things or ask them what they are thinking, but they are under no obligation to tell the truth.

This makes things more challenging because you can never assume that you are safe and you must adopt a cautious attitude or you may end up losing the game.

kaltorak said:

But seems you think strategy is limited to moving units. There are other levels of strategy, like diplomacy.

Click to expand...

But saying that not knowing the numbers remove the strategy is just wrong. There is still strategy involve, it's just more based on bluff wich is more realistic in my opinion... Nad realy more fun in a game.

The change is that AIs don't evaluate your relationship in like/dislike, they evaluate it in what will get me what I want.

This is where I think espionage could be put in. If you can (with sufficient espionage..not a whole separate thing like BTS, but something you could pour money into) look at the other empire, see what is in their cities what they are building, researching, their happiness balance, expenses, etc.

Then you can get an idea of what their "Interests" are, and you know what they want, and you can think of ways to approach them so that 'what they want' and 'what you want' coincide.

That is what diplomacy is about figuring out ways for both parties to get what they want.

The AI doesn't want to 'like you' they want to get real game benefits from you, either by warring v. you and taking your cities/setting you back or trading with you.

That can't be summarized in a 'number' The best you can have is a Diplomatic adviser that acts like an AI does and says.. they look like they are going for territorial expansion, you might want to prepare for war, or your large military is a threat to them, if they had more money in their coffers they might feel more secure.

Krikkitone said:

The change is that AIs don't evaluate your relationship in like/dislike, they evaluate it in what will get me what I want.

This is where I think espionage could be put in. If you can (with sufficient espionage..not a whole separate thing like BTS, but something you could pour money into) look at the other empire, see what is in their cities what they are building, researching, their happiness balance, expenses, etc.

Then you can get an idea of what their "Interests" are, and you know what they want, and you can think of ways to approach them so that 'what they want' and 'what you want' coincide.

That is what diplomacy is about figuring out ways for both parties to get what they want.

The AI doesn't want to 'like you' they want to get real game benefits from you, either by warring v. you and taking your cities/setting you back or trading with you.

Click to expand...

While the AIs ARE playng the game to win, I have not seen it stated that they don't still use some sort of like/dislike modifier base don what you've done in the past and how it meshes with their personality. From what I've seen this is still a factor, the AI is just smarter.

There is nothing historically realistic about having visible numerical modifiers. Nor is there is anything "strategic" about something that makes the game easier. It's like playing checkers with a five-year-old.

Anyone who watched Greg's game and didn't know how to read every one of the AI leaders every single time (neutral, friendly, hostile) is going to have a hard time with Civ5, and will pine for the cheat sheet of Civ4.

That all of the AI's in Greg's game were capable of stabbing the human player regardless of their relation, if they determined it to be in their best interest, is the icing on the cake that makes them potentially worthy adversaries, rather than dead men walking. This isn't remotely a random variable... just too fuzzy for those who want everything to add up like 2+2.

There is a big difference between "totally random" and "hidden" information. If you are playing poker, and the AI is showing you his hand, that makes it simple math to know what to do. But playing Hold 'em, when the AI is hiding his hole cards, and you yours, but all the shared cards are out, you have some information to plan your strategy, just not all of it.

Based on what we have seen so far, you WILL get some feedback from the AI players, just not perfect information. If you settle too close to an AI, he will let you know he doesn't like that. Do that again, you may get an option to A) promise not to settle near him again, or B) tell him to "roll that up and smoke it". You will get the idea that he is not too happy with you being so close. He thinks you plan to grab the land he wants for himself.

On the other hand, if an AI agrees to a "cooperation" pact, then a "research pact” and you both see it though, then work on a war together with a common foe, it should be clear you have good relations with that AI. If that was Monty, I'd still keep an eye on his troop movements, but I'd probably be less worried if that was Gandhi.

edpovi said:

There is a big difference between "totally random" and "hidden" information. If you are playing poker, and the AI is showing you his hand, that makes it simple math to know what to do. But playing Hold 'em, when the AI is hiding his hole cards, and you yours, but all the shared cards are out, you have some information to plan your strategy, just not all of it.

Based on what we have seen so far, you WILL get some feedback from the AI players, just not perfect information. If you settle too close to an AI, he will let you know he doesn't like that. Do that again, you may get an option to A) promise not to settle near him again, or B) tell him to "roll that up and smoke it". You will get the idea that he is not too happy with you being so close. He thinks you plan to grab the land he wants for himself.

On the other hand, if an AI agrees to a "cooperation" pact, then a "research pact” and you both see it though, then work on a war together with a common foe, it should be clear you have good relations with that AI. If that was Monty, I'd still keep an eye on his troop movements, but I'd probably be less worried if that was Gandhi.

Click to expand...

This. Relationships will be judged by actions, not predetermined modifiers. Not "random", but no more perfect information, which made Civ 4's diplomacy ridiculously easy to 'solve'. Once you assume that the AIs are mostly going to act in their own self-interest (With varying levels of irrationality like Monty), then it becomes easy to understand their motivations and get an idea of how they feel about you. I also agree that diplo modifiers probably don't exist any more, and AIs will be making diplomatic decisions based on past experience and their personalities.

Ahriman said:

This argument is ridiculous and insulting.

Its like saying: if you didn't get to move any of your units (the AI moved them for you) then the game would be harder, because you couldn't use superior tactical combat decisions to improve your performance.

Therefore anyone who wants to be able to move their own units is not in favor of having a tough strategy game.

Click to expand...

Ahriman, you are much better at equations than you are at analogies.

Txurce said:

There is nothing historically realistic about having visible numerical modifiers. Nor is there is anything "strategic" about something that makes the game easier. It's like playing checkers with a five-year-old.

Anyone who watched Greg's game and didn't know how to read every one of the AI leaders every single time (neutral, friendly, hostile) is going to have a hard time with Civ5, and will pine for the cheat sheet of Civ4.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with easiness. Try Civ4 deity and tell how easy it is with all the "cheats" human has.

kaltorak said:

Stop using the "it would be too easy" argument against displaying the mods. Turning the game into a guessig game isn't making it harder, it's just making it more luck based.

Click to expand...

It should be a guessing game up to a point, just as it is playing against a human. Otherwise it's too easy. It should not be totally random. And as abundantly evidenced in Greg's game, it's not.

Krikkitone said:

Well in that case the AI should be coded to never liberate a human player's capital (have the Human player buy it off of them for several hundred gold per turn)

Or perhaps that can be an explicit deal.... we will give you your capital, if and only if you promise to support us for diplomatic victory.

Click to expand...

I could see the former being practical. If you need the AI to rescue your capital, you probably have other problems. But I feel these are such rare circumstances that it won't matter much.

MkLh said:

In real world, countries have (and have always had) quite good knowledge of what other countries think of them, and what country A thinks of country B. It may not be exact, but it's much more than nothing. Black box AIs are utterly unrealistic and take away the immersion.

Click to expand...

If you can't see that the Civ5 diplomatic AI is not even remotely a black box, then I can see why you're upset. I hope someone can mod the game down for you.

MkLh said:

This has nothing to do with easiness. Try Civ4 deity and tell how easy it is with all the "cheats" human has.

Click to expand...

Poor correlation. How easy or hard Civ4 Deity is overall has nothing to do with how easy it is to exploit the Civ4 AI due to its transparent modifiers.