The ONLY 2 Ways to Improve Diplomacy in Civ

NOTE: this is a LONG post. If you're going to vote in the poll, have the respect of at least reading this once. If you don't have time to read this, just click back in your browser and ignore it altogether.

This is a spin off from the "how to make a more competitive AI" thread.

RECAP: REALISTIC DIPLOMACY IS NOT COMPETITIVE

In the other thread, I stated that you can have a realistic AI, or you can have a competitive AI, but you can't have both. Not under the current Civ 4 rule set.

• A realistic AI would fight the person who disagrees with them the most. A competitive AI would pacify the strong, and feed off of the weak.
  
• A realistic AI would reward you for your years of help. A competitive AI would backstab you.
  
• A realistic AI values friends with a common religion. A competitive AI understands there are no friends, just people you haven't had to backstab yet.

Let me sum it up:

It's a game where there's only one winner. If you're not backstabbing, you're not winning, or you need to jack up the difficulty level.

Click to expand...

We don't want to have an AI so realistic with its diplomacy that it forgets how to win. But we don't want an AI so concerned with winning that there is no diplomacy (like a multiplayer game). So Civilization 4 "chases two rabbits and loses them both". We need to stop trying to triangulate between these two choices and break out of this false dilemma.

There are only two ways to improve diplomacy. I will tell you what I think they are. One or the other will do, but an ideal game of Civ would do both, in my opinion.

SOLUTION ONE: CHANGE THE VICTORY CONDITIONS

It comes down to victory. If "first passed the post" wins, then the AI would be smart to nuke you as you approach victory. But if the game gives you a REAL way to negotiate victory, then the backstab is only one tool of many that you can choose from.

From the other thread:

I think one answer is to pull victory apart into several different broad goals. 5 points for being voted secretary general, 5 points for having X% of the world's land -- with an additional point for every Y% more. 5 points for each legendary city. 5 points for winning the space race.

This would actually encourage diplomacy. I'll vote for you for secretary general if you pass a resolution to enforce my war against Spain. Let's make an alliance: you help me out towards my conquest victory, and I'll let you build the space ship.

In the closest games, you still have big backstabs, yes. If you're about to win the space race and nudge me out 15 points to 10 points, I might just have to nuke you. But a new avenue would open up. Again, if you're about to win the space race, I might be able to negotiate a shared space race with the third place civilization and score myself half the points: 2.5 between me and my ally. I would have stopped you from winning the space race without backstabbing you! And moreover, it wouldn't be cheap, since I'd have scored fewer points than if I had done it myself.

Click to expand...

This is fundamentally similar to Mastery Victory created by Sevo. But there would need to be key differences. Rewarding micro-points for anything that wavers from one turn to the next (such as one point per tile, or one point per population) will lead to gamey and unrealistic behaviors to maximize score on the last turn. Points would need to be rewarded for BIG accomplishments. And the victory scheme would need to reward realistic pursuits -- like stopping genocide, or liberating friends, or fighting global threats -- with an AI that understands it. Not just culture, tech, or land.

Moreover, it would be nice to have a ranking system that recognizes playstyle, rather than just cold victory. "Most space ships launched". "Average number of victory conditions won per game". "Number of wars started". Who is the better player: the one who wins an average of 3 victory conditions per game, or the one who wins the most games without starting a war? That's part of what allows diplomacy to work: the idea that different players have different ideas of what the best victory is.

I'm not saying that you have to go with multiple victories added up with a points system. But yes: if you want realistic diplomacy, you HAVE to change victory away from "first passed the post". HAVE to. ... with the next solution as the only possible exception:

SOLUTION TWO: TWO DIFFERENT AIs

A player that is competitive does not maintain realistic relationships. A player that maintains realistic relationships is not competitive. The answer is to have two different kinds of AI: one realistic, one competitive.

Let's call the less competitive civs "Type Bs". The vast majority of civilizations will be "Type Bs". They will have realistic relationships. They will love gifts, and love civilizations with similar religion and civics. They hate the most dangerous civilizations, and players who just seem different from them. There will also be room for the most quirky of real diplomatic interactions: some superstitious Civilizations might believe you're a God, some might bend over backwards if you have a cool culture, and some might just be such a pain that they always end up making enemies. None of these are smart things to do, but they're all quite realistic. They add fun to what would otherwise be cutthroat competition.

The competitive civs will be "Type As". They will do whatever it takes to win. Not that they'll declare war on everyone, but they will see every relationship in purely strategic terms. They'll be friends with you to get some key techs, but they'll backstab you if they realize it's the best way to surge into the lead. "Type As" will choose its religion and civics purely on their strategic merits. Understanding that type B cares about sharing a common religion, they'll generally work to convert the type Bs rather than undergoing a revolution themselves. They'll even pawn the type Bs off into wars against other type As.

It's the best of both worlds. You get tough competitors from the A's. You get fun interaction with B's.

And moreover, B's don't have to eat up nearly as much processing power trying to calculate the best way to win! If the current hardware can support a game with 12 players, then the same hardware could support a game with 48 players: just that only 6 will be playing to win (type A), while the other 42 will be pawns in their schemes (type B).

(Some fluidity is important. If 3 type A civilizations get bad starts, competition flies out the window. In order to ensure competition, Type As should be able to collapse, and make room for a better-positioned type B to step their game up.)


DIPLOMACY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WON'T WORK

These won't help the diplomatic picture by themselves:

- Adding new diplomatic options in a game where backstabs rule.
- Adding penalties for backstabs. That's like adding penalties for winning the game. We want to add new choices, not penalize existing choices.
- "Just" focus on making the AI more realistic with its diplomacy. That's asking for an AI that can't win the game.

Don't get me wrong, this short list of things can be done too. But done alone, they add nothing to the game. Civ 4 tried adding an AI that cared about religion, and even added a vassal mechanism. Diplomacy still falls short. So does competition (although it is still far better than its ever been).

These are the ONLY two ways to make diplomacy work in an otherwise competitive game. (I'm humble enough to be open to a third way, but I haven't heard it yet.)

I don't think its fair to throw in random AI that would play realistically or competitive, rather based on personalities of the leaderhead, which Firaxis has done. It's not a bad system at all, however, the AI itself is not the best (which is being reworked by Blake). Taking out specific victory conditions is overkill. Unless you can develop a revolutionary diplomacy/AI, I think it is not worth it to remove the victory flavors.

I read and liked both solutions. I'd think #1 is the true path, but I'll settle for #2 since most civ players wouldn't go for #1.

I think that the first option actually holds a lot of promise, but it still has a few flaws. The biggest, however, is that it doesn't really seem to solve anything. Sure, it makes Diplomatic Victory something you can vote "Yes" on without throwing the game away, but why bother when you can still backstab with no reprecussions? Nobody's going to be getting very many victory points if they're gasping for breath under the heel of your boot. Furthermore, diplomacy still involves plenty of unrealistic treachery: You can agree to help your opponent towards one victory, sure, but you're still just making alliances of convenience. Religion, for instance, is still worthless unless you've got the Apostolic Palace.

The second option makes a very interesting variant, but it's still pretty unrealistic. I have to admit that the idea of being a global superpower manipulating all the little puppets beneath me is quite appealing (and would make for a good Cold War scenario), but as a solution to AI this idea appears to be one of those compromises that leaves everyone unhappy. I suppose the competetive crowd would be satisfied since the minor civs are just "nameless NPCs" so to speak, but in the end the ubercivs will just backstab, vassalize, or otherwise annex the weak ones until all is set for a global war of the superpowers. Again, that's a pretty cool concept, but it's just not realism.

I believe that it's necessary for the game itself to encourage realistic play. In the linked thread, for instance, I posted a comment about unrest (unhappiness) showing up in cities that trade with "heathen" civs. Such a change would require you to convert to the popular religion, convert everyone else to your religion, or cut off trade with those of other religions lest your best cities be drowned in unhappiness. Another possibility would be granting your citizens "opinions" on things. For instance, lucrative trades and business deals (from the diplomacy screen) could bring nations closer together by altering a variable representing how much your citizens "like" that nation. If you've been trading with Ghandi for the past four thousand years, your cities could end up practically shut down with protests if you declared war on him (consider it like War Weariness, only faster and more drastic). You'd still be able to mitigate the effects with propaganda (likely abstracted into espionage spending--We've already got enough sliders already) or Police State (which would probably be able to lessen this type of unhappiness as well as regular WW), but it would always hurt you to attack your friends.

Anyway, those are just examples, but my point boils down to this: The game has to reward people who play realistically. Right now, the only thing that really gets rewarded is owning a lot of cities.

I agree very much about the inherent dilemma that Civ has with its victory conditions. However, honestly, I don't like either of your solutions. I did not vote for your 6th option though because I don't believe Civ 4 is any better at the moment either. ie. my vote was "Other".

Your first idea I don't like because it makes winning too complicated or micromanagey. If I want to conquer the world, there shouldn't be any reason for me to want to get some legendary cities. That would be an unnecessary distraction. IMO first to the post is the best way to determine a winner. If a person wants to play a fun game with no sole intention of winning, then they can play as normal, and play past the post anyway. Having a tangeable victory in sight makes setting goals easier.

Personally whenever I play Civ 4, whether it be single player or multiplayer, it's for one of two reasons:

• To win, and possibly develop better strategies.
• To have fun.

... or sometimes both.

My suggestion would be to have two different types of AIs as you suggested, but have competitive AI as a game option rather than just particular players in the standard game. Most of the time I want to see an AI that would try to stop me from winning as best it could - that's how I like to play the game. But I understand entirely that some want diplomacy to be realistic and that is a fair request, and so they could be given the option to play with realistic AI instead. It'd be much like the current Aggressive vs. Normal AI distinction.

Your second suggestion I don't like because it seems like a half-way compromise that doesn't solve either problem. If I wanted competitive AIs, I'd want them all to be competitive. Isn't that fairly obvious?


Also,

dh epic said:

Who is the better player: the one who wins an average of 3 victory conditions per game, or the one who wins the most games without starting a war?

Click to expand...

As you noticed, this question is very subjective already, but I don't agree that a person who satisfies 3 victory conditions is any better than a player who satisfies 1. It depends on the play. In terms of skill, a better player is a player who can win the game from a more difficult position. For example, a player who survives a crippling dogpile war and survives to later build up and take vengeance, conquering the world. In multiplayer, honour contributes as well. It sucks to play against a player who quits when he sees an army on his doorstep.

Anyway, I think it's good that this discussion has been raised because it definitely concerns me too. But I would like to see more suggestions before I commit to any.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Since you guys are coming at me from all angles, here's a variety of responses.

WHY THE CURRENT SCHEME DOESN'T WORK

thenooblet22 said:

I don't think its fair to throw in random AI that would play realistically or competitive, rather based on personalities of the leaderhead, which Firaxis has done. It's not a bad system at all, however, the AI itself is not the best (which is being reworked by Blake). Taking out specific victory conditions is overkill. Unless you can develop a revolutionary diplomacy/AI, I think it is not worth it to remove the victory flavors.

Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree with the "personality" approach because it always means the AI is playing below standard. Don't get me wrong, I think variety is necessary, if only for strategy: predictable AI is bad AI. But a lot of personality stands in the way of good strategy: like an AI who loves a civic so much that they ignore what might be best at the time. Or an AI that constantly isolates itself by being really pushy about religion. Or an AI that forms its alliances around religious lines at all. An AI that is more diplomatic is necessarily an AI that is less competitive.

That's where the two proposals come from. Changing the AI alone does nothing. Splitting the AI into two different approaches, though, would allow some AIs to play hard, while still giving you the diplomatic experience with other AIs. Changing the victory conditions will allow a player to win a close game without a sudden and strange backstab.

Improving the AI to understand this will be a necessary piece of the puzzle. But improving the AI alone can never work, because you are eventually forced to choose between having good diplomacy or good competition. Civ 4 tries to do both and achieves neither.

PieceOfMind said:

I agree very much about the inherent dilemma that Civ has with its victory conditions. However, honestly, I don't like either of your solutions. I did not vote for your 6th option though because I don't believe Civ 4 is any better at the moment either. ie. my vote was "Other".

Click to expand...

If nothing else, I want to convince people that Civilization is trapped in this dilemma.

I agree that the worst thing about the first proposal is that it makes victory more complicated. I still think it would work, but heaven knows that Firaxis doesn't go for complicated ideas. Still, I'd like to think that "10 points if you control 25% of the world's land" is not much more complicated than "total victory if you control 50% of the world's land and population".

As for the second proposal, about the two different AIs... I think you're assuming that there are two different kinds of players: players who want cut throat competition (let me play 'aggressive player mode'), and players who want more diplomacy (let me play 'diplomatic player mode'). The reality is the same players want both diplomacy and competition at the same time.

Multiplayer games give me the "aggressive player" mode. That's the cutthroat competition I desire, but there is no diplomacy to speak of. Single player games offer some diplomacy, but not good diplomacy because the AI understands that he is my opponent. Real diplomacy can't occur where there is only one winner.

If the AI doesn't care about winning, then diplomacy can take place. I can buy their support with gifts, common religion and civics. They can even offer their eternal loyalty if you liberate one of their cities. That's realistic, and even fun. The problem is you can't have a competitive game if all the AIs are like that. Hence having the two types of player in one game: one realistic, and one competitive.

A NEW VICTORY SCHEME MAKES DIPLOMACY POSSIBLE

Mewtarthio said:

I think that the first option actually holds a lot of promise, but it still has a few flaws. The biggest, however, is that it doesn't really seem to solve anything. Sure, it makes Diplomatic Victory something you can vote "Yes" on without throwing the game away, but why bother when you can still backstab with no reprecussions? Nobody's going to be getting very many victory points if they're gasping for breath under the heel of your boot. Furthermore, diplomacy still involves plenty of unrealistic treachery: You can agree to help your opponent towards one victory, sure, but you're still just making alliances of convenience. Religion, for instance, is still worthless unless you've got the Apostolic Palace.

Click to expand...

If there are any flaws, it's that my proposal is incomplete and expects a little imagination. Let's go beyond the existing victory conditions. What if we award a victory point for liberating a country, and giving its cities back to its founder? If two players control roughly the same territory, it might make for an interesting tie breaker. Moreover, it encourages more realistic diplomacy -- WW2 comes to mind.

Again, I ask you to be a little creative with what might be worthy of victory points. Spreading your religion. Building a close relationship with another Civilization that you never break. You can dangle the carrot to make players do "realistic" things.


Blowout games would still be a lot like Civilization 4. If you're winning decisively, there's no reason to share, or play nice. It's the close games that would be different. Again, the goal isn't to eliminate backstabs, but to offer another way to win. If a game is close, you COULD backstab friend #1. Or you could call up friend #2 and make a deal with them that scores you an extra couple of points. Backstab or not -- the choice is yours. Right now, you have no choice. You pretty much HAVE to back stab.

LESSER NATIONS CAN BE MORE DIPLOMATIC

Mewtarthio said:

The second option makes a very interesting variant, but it's still pretty unrealistic. I have to admit that the idea of being a global superpower manipulating all the little puppets beneath me is quite appealing (and would make for a good Cold War scenario), but as a solution to AI this idea appears to be one of those compromises that leaves everyone unhappy. I suppose the competetive crowd would be satisfied since the minor civs are just "nameless NPCs" so to speak, but in the end the ubercivs will just backstab, vassalize, or otherwise annex the weak ones until all is set for a global war of the superpowers. Again, that's a pretty cool concept, but it's just not realism.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that's any less realistic than what we have now. This seems to be a step towards more realism. Like you pointed out, this is the entire basis of the cold war.

And because the weak ones wouldn't be concerned with winning, they wouldn't always have to be fighting wars of resistance against you. The weak ones could like you because of your reputation for justice and prosperity and join you on peaceful terms. (Like the EU, or even the Republic of Texas.) In essence, you could create two equal playstyles: political power comes from crushing them, or from offering them protection and prosperity (high culture, happiness, GDP)...

WHY WE NEED A PARADIGM SHIFT

Mewtarthio said:

Anyway, those are just examples, but my point boils down to this: The game has to reward people who play realistically. Right now, the only thing that really gets rewarded is owning a lot of cities.

Click to expand...

You're right. The game needs to reward realistic behaviors, and unrealistic "conquer the world" schemes need to be less "the only way". But I think there has to be a fundamentally new paradigm of rewards and penalties. Hence the proposals for new 'minor victories' that might end a close game without a backstab, and a proposal for 'minor civilizations' that might give you more in peace than you gain from killing them. I think if you stop proposing rewards in the old paradigm and start proposing rewards in either of these new paradigms, you'll see the merit of these two big changes.

What it comes down to is whether you want a simulator or a game. I don't believe it's possible to have both. From my perspective, you're offering stupid AI (realistic) and smart AI (strategic), nothing in between. I don't like this. To me, this is more predictable and disassembles the game all together. Civilization IV was a step in the right direction, the-in-between solution, personalities. It isn't a direct manual on how the computer will play, but a guideline of what it might do in certain situations and percentages. I think following your black-and-white suggestion would suck the flavor out of the game.

Victory conditions I won't go into detail. However, we already have a point system, even if it doesn't count as anything. If you wish to make it more complex and developed, do as you wish. I don't think it will solve anything, just detract the variety of destinies a player could choose from, which ultimately ruins the fun.