Diplomacy

[vonSharma]

Obviously diplomacy done right would exponentially increase the fun in civilization, probably more so than making moderate adjustments in combat.

The one thing that always bothered me was that we could see how other civs felt towards us, but there was nothing to factor in how we felt about those other civs (ie the Aztec may hate me because I was a different religion or shared a close border, but maybe we both had a common enemy between us for which made me value the Aztec more). The AI never actively tries to engage us other than annoying us to declare war against their enemies. I would like to see some AI civs consider strategically trying to curry our favor instead of us always just reacting to random factors. A little quid pro quo would be nice.

The Apostolic Palace was a great idea which I felt each religion should be allowed to build because global alliances/holy wars is hands down the most fun idea in Civ, especially in the somewhat boring middle eras. It's a simple thing to implement, and they need to figure a way to make alliances (not just two way or mutual protection) earlier than the industrial era.

And backstabbing is great, but in moderation. The AI needs to value long held alliances much more and not be so quick to turn on you.

[History buff33]

I definitely believe we should decide how to feel toward other civs. I also think they should make an alliance between more than just 2 countries.

[Ddude97]

The alliance part, I agree so you can simulate NATO or the warsaw pact, and the idea of the AI trying to get our favor instead of randomly popping up and saying "go to war with [insert name] (or we will be displeased with you).
However, I disagree with deciding how we feel towards other civs, i think it would just be too manipulated.

[cyther]

I would enjoy some new modifiers besides [give us x/ declare war on y] and [if do +1 Relation/ don't -1 Relation]. Religion was nice but I always ended up choosing the religion the ai hated. I can't wait to see what Firaxis has in store for us next.

[Drago Askani]

You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. - Al Capone

[Irgy]

I'm not looking forward to new diplomacy that much myself. To me it's either going to mean "More opportunities to make the AIs look like damned fools by understanding the workings of diplomacy", or better AIs which pretend to be your friend then stab you in the back when you least expected so that you lose and die. Neither sounds like more fun to me.

[Aldor]

I would love to see the AI actually win my favor before they demand something from me. And PLEASE make it so I can REFUSE to see an AI if I wish so

[Tavenier]

I hate the random demands to declare war on an enemy. It shouldn't be so frequent and if you have said 'no' once they shouldn't have to ask you again 2 turns later. I find this as annoying as I did in previous Civs the fact that units of other nations would roam your countryside and you had to ask them to leave. Next turn again, again, again, until they declared war over it.

What I miss about these demands is an option to negotiate it: Okay, Monty, you want me to attack your longtime enemies, the Mongols. What's in it for me? You gonna give me some money? Hand over a border city you capture from them? You give me some tech? You accept my state religion? You set your trade routes to trade with me?

With better diplomacy you could even coordinate attacks. You should be able to discuss a very basic attack plan. Attack together in the south? Do an amphibious assault? Divide cities between you? Etc.

Next to religion another source of diplomacy/war is trade. You have the trading of resources and money, but also the trade routes. Maybe that could be explored more. If you do me a favor, my profitable Amsterdam trade routes will be directed more towards your Civ.

[Mesodius]

Yeah, even Civ 3 has a superior diplomacy system (albeit less options) than Civ 4, for those of you that remember. The Civ 4 diplomacy system had so much potential, but ended up being completely broken. Between everyone in the world constantly demanding things of you every 2 turns without offering anything in return until you get hated and gangbanged by everyone, to the rampant AI gifting each other tech until every AI in the world had all the tech and you lag (which you could turn off in options thankfully), and several other complaints, it made for very silly diplomacy.

[Tavenier]

I am so happy with the 'no tech brokering' option.

Whatever Civ5 will be, I hope they'll let us make a lot of choices to play the game as we want. Like the tech brokering, no spies, choose religions and stuff like that.

On topic:
This could also be true for diplomacy. No vassals/alliances/etc.

[Ddude97]

You can already turn off permanent alliances and vassals.

[Tavenier]

Originally Posted by Ddude97

You can already turn off permanent alliances and vassals.

Really? ;-)

I hope they still allow that + all other options. I always play custom games and select all kinds of options.

[Panzeh]

It would be nice if in asking for tribute, you would gain a favor, so you could ask them back for tribute, and you could do the same for the AI, but then they would have a favor from you, which would mean a reasonable tribute in return at some point later. If you abused this, and did not do the quid pro quo, it could reduce your relations with everyone.

[Ddude97]

That would be nice if possible. If they can't do that, then at least they should make the AI more agreeable with our own demands. The AI keeps popping up saying convert to this or adopt that or go to war with this person, but if you try that without offering anything, you end up with them hating you.

[vonSharma]

Yeah, there's definitely too many holes in diplomacy right now.. I definitely agree, spies are waaay out of control in the AI's hands. No tech brokering (unless you discovered it) I felt was probably the biggest improvement in civ4, up there with religions. However, religion did ruin playing continents for me as it was near impossible to not have the civs in other continents hate you when you discovered them

The ultimate goal of the diplomacy in Civ 5 should be to make it possible to have super blocs and some unwavering alliances as to facilitate cold wars, world wars, whatever. The idea makes me want to retire at age 29 so I could play everyday of my life

[jauggy]

The idea of favours is nice. I would prefer that to the +1, +2 stuff. So if the AI asks you for help in a war for free and you comply, the next time you are in a war and ask the same thing, the probability of them helping for free is much higher. Similarly for techs.

Another way to make diplomacy more dynamic is for the AI to make demands from other AIs. Often the player will get "You refused to help us during war time". The AI never gets this penalty at the moment. Similarly for tributes.

[Earthling]

Originally Posted by vonSharma

Obviously diplomacy done right would exponentially increase the fun in civilization, probably more so than making moderate adjustments in combat.

The one thing that always bothered me was that we could see how other civs felt towards us, but there was nothing to factor in how we felt about those other civs (ie the Aztec may hate me because I was a different religion or shared a close border, but maybe we both had a common enemy between us for which made me value the Aztec more). The AI never actively tries to engage us other than annoying us to declare war against their enemies.

Up through right here is everything I've felt for quite some time, pretty much word for word. So agreed I guess. I've said elsewhere that my number one priority in a new game would be AI; not different civs or graphics or whatever, and warfare and all can be balanced/modded eventually. And I too feel that the distinction between the AI having to be "in character" and the human not at all should be something that, at the very least by player option could be worked on.

Originally Posted by Mesodius

The Civ 4 diplomacy system had so much potential, but ended up being completely broken. Between everyone in the world constantly demanding things of you every 2 turns without offering anything in return until you get hated and gangbanged by everyone, to the rampant AI gifting each other tech until every AI in the world had all the tech and you lag (which you could turn off in options thankfully), and several other complaints, it made for very silly diplomacy.

Mostly it was just Mansa, Cyrus, Gandhi, and Hatty. Many BtS leaders were cooler. But that set of pure evil was there from the start. Tokuwaga was too was always annoying but love-hate in a different way

I also would place a heavy priority on changing how victory works - I was very thankful I admit when in BtS the AI finally got around to attempting something other than default Spaceship but still, could go a long ways (and I wouldn't have victories be so clearly game-milestone delineated, at least non-warfare ones.)

[NA00]

I really like the idea of the potential to expand alliances (to form NATO, Warsaw Pact, EU, etc... as was previously mentioned). However, there should absolutely be some kind of upper limit to it, not that I really prefer one. But a limit is needed because the AI, with defensive pacts in civ IV, has a way of creating these 'uber'-pacts in which every AI has a defensive pact with every other AI. I can not help but see this happening with expanded alliances in Civ V if something is not done to contain it... a worldwide alliance would be boring, in my mind.

[Onionsoilder]

Few things I would like to see:

1) As others have said, negotiating deals(instead of the rampant demands) would be very nice. In many cases, I would happily go to war for a tech or some money.
2) Sort of with the above, but I hate it when a civilization is more advanced than you, higher on the scoreboard, with a greater military, and comes asking you to give them a tech for free. Why can't they just trade for it?
3) Unit trades! It would be fun to be able to trade units as well as technology... sort of like hiring mercenaries.

[Ddude97]

Originally Posted by NA00

I really like the idea of the potential to expand alliances (to form NATO, Warsaw Pact, EU, etc... as was previously mentioned). However, there should absolutely be some kind of upper limit to it, not that I really prefer one. But a limit is needed because the AI, with defensive pacts in civ IV, has a way of creating these 'uber'-pacts in which every AI has a defensive pact with every other AI. I can not help but see this happening with expanded alliances in Civ V if something is not done to contain it... a worldwide alliance would be boring, in my mind.

Unfortunately, you're right.