How to fix the Diplomatic Victory

Ramesses

Ramesses

Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,176
Clearly, the Diplomatic Victory is broken. AIs will gladly relinquish a win to other players if they are on good terms with them. Humans are smarter, and realize that it's pointless to elect another player for diplomatic win as long as there is the slightest chance for victory (which is 100% of the time).

The only conceivable way of making Diplomatic Victory work is by providing some sort of out-of-game reward for conceding to another player. Perhaps the player should receive points for each completed game, win or lose, which then go towards unlockables accessed from a Palace-type interface. Winning the game via Diplomatic Victory obviously gives a better reward than voting someone to victory, but if your chances seem slim, you can greatly cut your losses by voting in the majority. And in this way, even Multiplayer games can expect to see increased use of the Diplomatic Victory.

This also has the added benefit of giving your in-game score more relevance.
 
Ramesses said:
Clearly, the Diplomatic Victory is broken. AIs will gladly relinquish a win to other players if they are on good terms with them. Humans are smarter, and realize that it's pointless to elect another player for diplomatic win as long as there is the slightest chance for victory (which is 100% of the time).

The only conceivable way of making Diplomatic Victory work is by providing some sort of out-of-game reward for conceding to another player.
Click to expand...
i'm against "out-of-game" rewards. if the Diplomatic Victory is broken in multiplayer, then it should be removed altogether. maybe replace it with some Economic Victory?:dunno:

PS if the ai's did not concede to anyone, then everyone will always vote for themselves.
what's the point?:dunno:
 
Ramesses said:
Clearly, the Diplomatic Victory is broken. AIs will gladly relinquish a win to other players if they are on good terms with them. Humans are smarter, and realize that it's pointless to elect another player for diplomatic win as long as there is the slightest chance for victory (which is 100% of the time).
Click to expand...

You are assuming the AI is or at least should be coded to simulate a human player where to goal is simply to win. However if you accept that the AI is coded to simulate real world civilizations then it's logical that the AI will be happy with a world leader from another civ.

The problem with diplo victory is the "domination diplomatic victory". In most games the diplo victory only works to lower the domination thresholds because you will so often be able to vote yourself in (with help of vassals) before domination is triggered.
 
If you read the book in civ chronicles you'll realize that the AI was programmed to not win, and just to offer a challenge to a human player. It's only in BtS that they're coded to pursue victory, but before then they could stumble into space race.

Personally, I don't want an AI coded to act like a human player. I want other civs I can do business with, not cutthroat competition. If you want that, play multiplayer.
 
I actually do sort of wish that some humans would go for the diplomatic victory. I mean, if you have a military superpower who is slowly conquering everybody, and another person who has been nice and helped others out the whole game, and you were a third bystander wth no chance to win, who would you vote for? Logically, the nice person. Realistically, nobody. Most people who play multiplayer are too set on winning, they can't have fun if they lose.
 
Out of game rewards are not a good idea. Plus, this would only work for multiplayer, and wouldn't really fix the problem of AIs handing you a victory.

A better way to fix diplomatic victory would be to apportion some sort of points system in game for the positive relations you have with other nations, without having some sort of vote on it. It would still function the same way, but with actual diplomatic relations with others rather than with an unrealistic vote.
 
Camikaze said:
Out of game rewards are not a good idea. Plus, this would only work for multiplayer, and wouldn't really fix the problem of AIs handing you a victory.
Click to expand...

No, but it does a good job of justifying AI behavior. That's something.

A better way to fix diplomatic victory would be to apportion some sort of points system in game for the positive relations you have with other nations, without having some sort of vote on it. It would still function the same way, but with actual diplomatic relations with others rather than with an unrealistic vote.
Click to expand...

Hmm... mind if I expand on that?

Depending on the government civic you run, how you vote for candidates changes. If you run Despotism, Hereditary Rule, or Police State, you can choose whomever you want, or Abstain. If you run Representation or Universal Suffrage, your population votes for the nation that is friendliest with yours (and always for you if they can, of course).
 
That works. Although still, it involves a vote of sorts, which is inherently illogical. Why would you give another civ victory, under any circumstances?
 
Camikaze said:
That works. Although still, it involves a vote of sorts, which is inherently illogical. Why would you give another civ victory, under any circumstances?
Click to expand...

If victory is hopeless, and there is something to be gained by conceding victory to another civ, you'll want to cut your losses. Hence out-of-game rewards.
 
It shouldn't really be like that, though. Other civs should act like real civilizations whilst still having the desire to obtain victory, or prevent anyone else from gaining victory. I really don't see how giving out-of-game rewards to AI would make it any more realistic. Instead of having AI vote for you for no reason, the reason would be one in our imagination. Basically the problem is going to be the same with an voting system that leads to the ultimate goal in the game- victory. So, it shouldn't be decided on voting so much as points based on your relations with other civs. Once you pass a certain threshold level of 'points', you win. The points you get would be determined by a combination of relations with a particular civ, and the size of that civ.
 
And it would actually make sense as a 'diplomatic' victory. Currently, it is the only type of victory that doesn't require a specific focus on it for a fair part of the game. Making it actually dependent on diplomacy throughout the course of the game would be a far better measure of victory.
 
Camikaze said:
It shouldn't really be like that, though. Other civs should act like real civilizations whilst still having the desire to obtain victory, or prevent anyone else from gaining victory. I really don't see how giving out-of-game rewards to AI would make it any more realistic. Instead of having AI vote for you for no reason, the reason would be one in our imagination. Basically the problem is going to be the same with an voting system that leads to the ultimate goal in the game- victory. So, it shouldn't be decided on voting so much as points based on your relations with other civs. Once you pass a certain threshold level of 'points', you win. The points you get would be determined by a combination of relations with a particular civ, and the size of that civ.
Click to expand...

deanej said:
A points system would be better, I agree. It could punish players for stuff like declaring war on a civ that likes them a lot or reward giving help. This would eliminate the domination/vassal exploit that exists now.
Click to expand...

Camikaze said:
And it would actually make sense as a 'diplomatic' victory. Currently, it is the only type of victory that doesn't require a specific focus on it for a fair part of the game. Making it actually dependent on diplomacy throughout the course of the game would be a far better measure of victory.
Click to expand...

I like this. It would keep things more interesting, and you wouldn't be able to win a diplomatic victory by reducing rival populations with nukes.


Of course it might lead to "Time to die Hattie, we fear you are becoming too popular."
 
Rusty Edge said:
Of course it might lead to "Time to die Hattie, we fear you are becoming too popular."
Click to expand...

I don't think it would lead to this. I mean, a DoW on you would only make you more popular, relatively. And then, even if you were reduced to only one city, your 'our close borders increase tension' penalty would go down, meaning that your relations with the rest of the world would be higher still, increasing your points towards a diplomatic victory. Only if you were to be completely destroyed would this be a problem, but it's the same currently (or at least it should be, using the same logic). If you are a shoe-in for diplomatic victory, there should be a DoW to prevent it.
 
Camikaze said:
I don't think it would lead to this. I mean, a DoW on you would only make you more popular, relatively. And then, even if you were reduced to only one city, your 'our close borders increase tension' penalty would go down, meaning that your relations with the rest of the world would be higher still, increasing your points towards a diplomatic victory. Only if you were to be completely destroyed would this be a problem, but it's the same currently (or at least it should be, using the same logic). If you are a shoe-in for diplomatic victory, there should be a DoW to prevent it.
Click to expand...

When you try to appeal to the entire world, it always seems like there's just one terrorist trying to take you down.

Okay, I think we got a plan. Modders, get cracking!
 
Yeah, it also creates a greater diversification of game possibilities, with one civ going for diplomatic victory, and another going for domination out of sheer necessity to halt the chances of the other. I believe BtS instituted these victory prevention measures for AI to a degree, but I think they should be an absolutely crucial and intrinsic part of every game. Violent Direct competition for victory, and the direct prevention of victory for others. This diplomatic victory idea necessitates more sincere and larger scale wars being waged by the AI, in order to completely wipe you out, which would be necessary to stop you from winning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GeneralZift
CCS: Alternate Victory Conditions
Replies
0
Views
250
GeneralZift
GeneralZift
evonannoredars
3.5th Apocalypse Era and associated Diplomatic Victory
Replies
2
Views
314
evonannoredars
evonannoredars
M
Modern Cultural Legacy (Victory) Rework idea
Replies
0
Views
281
mistral_
M
T
Modern Age Exploration Victory As Humanity Coming Together Vs. Ideology Tearing Apart
Replies
1
Views
474
Krikkit1
K
T
Fourth Age Victory Conditions (Technology Age, Space and Artic Layers)
Replies
2
Views
689
CidMire
C
Back
Top Bottom