still figuring out diplomacy

[standingwolf]

(1) so i get that the essence of civ 5 diplomacy is hating the people your friends hate, but in my current post-patch game i'm the only one who has never been at war with anyone, and i'm the only one who has ever been denounced. rome denounced me for settling near them, and greece denounced me for no reason. now arabia has declared war on greece, and hiawatha has declared on greece twice, and yet alexander has never denounced either of them: only me. suleiman & bismarck have fought at least three wars and yet neither has ever denounced the other. is denouncing broken post patch?

(2) i've had a declaration of friendship with germany during at least two of the german-ottoman wars and yet this doesn't seem to bother suleiman at all. he still "desires friendly relations with my empire." do your friends' warmongering activities ever have any diplomatic consequences for you?

(3) i'm actually part of a web of about four civs with interlocking DoFs, and periodically someone will pop up and say, "i see you're friends with newfoundland: i have done the same." does this mean anything? i don't get any options to respond, and it seems to leave no diplomatic trace. it looks like nothing more than an announcement, but since we already get the announcement on the right side of the screen (with less time disruption), i'm not sure why they repeat it.

(4) when alexander pops up and tells me that i'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny, does it make any difference at all whether i choose "very well" or "you'll pay for this in time"?

thanks in advance for any help!

[basta]

Here's the Info Addict graphic of the "global relations" of my current game. I'm at turn 150 on immortal and I've been DoWed nine times so far: twice by Japan (now a puppet), trice by Ottomans (the cockroach city spammers), trice by Montezuma (now a puppet), and once by France.

As you can see, it's a psychopath's convention, and everyone has been warring with everyone else since turn 25.

Basically, there is no diplo, unless you follow the old adage that war is diplo by another means...

DoFs are just a sucker's deal that gives you nothing and allows the AI to extort your cash and luxuries and backstab you later anyway. Avoid them like the plague.

Trade luxuries, etc. all you want, but if you pull ahead of the AI, no amount of diplo modifiers will override the basic mechanic that you will be DoW'ed by all your neighbors (and some civ's you haven't even had time to scout out yet) to slow your game progress down.

And I haven't even had time to find Spain yet, and the only way I found the Aztecs was by advancing against them.

[qemist]

Originally Posted by basta

DoFs are just a sucker's deal that gives you nothing

Not true. They greatly reduce the chance of a DoW while current.

[Glassmage]

are you playing on a map on Deity Pangae? I'm in Deity Archipelago right now with 22 civs and I have DoFs with 7 people. o.O

[basta]

Originally Posted by qemist

Not true. They greatly reduce the chance of a DoW while current.

I've been backstabbed/DoWed while in a DoF that I'd carried out perfectly and renewed 4 times. You say that sentence isn't true, but I've experienced otherwise.

And my sentence following is certainly true (and the reason why I know DoFs are worthless): "if you pull ahead of the AI, no amount of diplo modifiers will override the basic mechanic that you will be DoW'ed by all your neighbors (and some civ's you haven't even had time to scout out yet) to slow your game progress down."

[qemist]

Originally Posted by basta

I've been backstabbed/DoWed while in a DoF that I'd carried out perfectly and renewed 4 times. You say that sentence isn't true, but I've experienced otherwise.

I did not. Please refrain from lying.

[basta]

Originally Posted by qemist

Not true. They greatly reduce the chance of a DoW while current.

^Lying??? Hello?

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Don't accuse other users of 'lying'. If you disagree with something they say, or think what they're saying is incorrect, point it out without throwing such heated words around.

[qalsip1977]

Originally Posted by standingwolf

(1) so i get that the essence of civ 5 diplomacy is hating the people your friends hate, but in my current post-patch game i'm the only one who has never been at war with anyone, and i'm the only one who has ever been denounced. rome denounced me for settling near them, and greece denounced me for no reason. now arabia has declared war on greece, and hiawatha has declared on greece twice, and yet alexander has never denounced either of them: only me. suleiman & bismarck have fought at least three wars and yet neither has ever denounced the other. is denouncing broken post patch?

In Civ 5 two civs can go to war, as long as there was no "dirty tactics" (ergo attacking when they had a DoF or that sort of thing), and then declare peace and have no hard feelings at all. Think U.S.A. and Japan after WW2. It happens! So yeah that's not the deciding factor on how a civ feels about you. If you settle too close to them and they say "hey, back off" and you say "bite me" then yeah, it's a hit to your diplo with that civ. Greece probably had a reason. Most commonly it's that you are going for the same victory condition they are or allied a CS they wanted. Sometimes it doesn't even say that when you hover their name. It's hard to keep everyone happy.

On the flip side of the diplo coin...you can have a DoF in place with a Civ (especially at higher difficulty settings) and if they see you are weak (ergo going for culture or science or something and don't have much of an army) and DoW you anyway because they think they can take your candy. Generally speaking, if you're going for a victory condition like that, you want to stay away from opening borders with other civs.

Originally Posted by standingwolf

(2) i've had a declaration of friendship with germany during at least two of the german-ottoman wars and yet this doesn't seem to bother suleiman at all. he still "desires friendly relations with my empire." do your friends' warmongering activities ever have any diplomatic consequences for you?

If you DoF someone BEFORE they go to war with another civ, the odds are very high that you won't have any negative impact on your diplo. If you DoF AFTER they are in a war with them then it hurts.

Originally Posted by standingwolf

(3) i'm actually part of a web of about four civs with interlocking DoFs, and periodically someone will pop up and say, "i see you're friends with newfoundland: i have done the same." does this mean anything? i don't get any options to respond, and it seems to leave no diplomatic trace. it looks like nothing more than an announcement, but since we already get the announcement on the right side of the screen (with less time disruption), i'm not sure why they repeat it.

Basically you're getting a diplo boost for being friends with the same Civ. If you bring up your diplo window and hover over each leader's name, it will tell you most of the factors that is + or - to your relations with them.

Originally Posted by standingwolf

(4) when alexander pops up and tells me that i'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny, does it make any difference at all whether i choose "very well" or "you'll pay for this in time"?

It can have an affect. Saying "you'll pay for this in time" lets the other civs know you aren't just going to let someone talk about you and roll over. You will stand up for yourself. How you respond to someone affects their opinion of you too. If you grab a CS after they were in a war with another Civ, they may come to you and say "Oops I attacked a friendly CS of yours". If you say "kick rocks, you suck" then it negatively affects your diplo. If you say "no worries, yo" then it builds it.

Hope this helps!

[apocalypse105]

[QUOTE=qalsip1977;10842002]In Civ 5 two civs can go to war, as long as there was no "dirty tactics" (ergo attacking when they had a DoF or that sort of thing), and then declare peace and have no hard feelings at all. Think U.S.A. and Japan after WW2. It happens! So yeah that's not the deciding factor on how a civ feels about you. If you settle too close to them and they say "hey, back off" and you say "bite me" then yeah, it's a hit to your diplo with that civ. Greece probably had a reason. Most commonly it's that you are going for the same victory condition they are or allied a CS they wanted. Sometimes it doesn't even say that when you hover their name. It's hard to keep everyone happy.

On the flip side of the diplo coin...you can have a DoF in place with a Civ (especially at higher difficulty settings) and if they see you are weak (ergo going for culture or science or something and don't have much of an army) and DoW you anyway because they think they can take your candy. Generally speaking, if you're going for a victory condition like that, you want to stay away from opening borders with other civs.



So open borders do Affect decleration of wars and the AI knowing you are weak ?

Sometimes they know sometimes they dont Can somebody comfirm this I had culture games where Nobody decalred war on me only china Even I only had 4 units I didnt had open borders

[qalsip1977]

It is my understanding that opening borders allows the AI to know what you have in the way of military. That's always been how I've played and it seems I get DoW less when I don't open borders in a game I am going for a cultural or science win.

Your proximity to other AI civs is also an issue. The closer you are the more grumpy they get. This is another factor that may not be something you can see when looking at their feelings towards you. Keep in mind I am not referring to building a NEW city near them, but having your starting capital be near them, something you really can't control.

The good news is the AI is rediculously predictable! Generally speaking, a civ will bring several units to your border just before attacking, so if you see a build-up of units from an AI...try to get them to DoW someone else (or bribe someone else into DoW them). That works sometimes

Good luck!

[dexters]

Read Diplomacy by the numbers to get more insight into the Civs.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=409062 It’s invaluable in helping me understand how diplomacy works.


Basically in Civ5, you don't have stock AI with broad/general modifiers from previous Civs which made diplomacy fairly standardized ; the AI is much more individualized and you will have clear builders, warmongers and some in betweeners. Some AI will keep the word, others will not. And it’s not an RNG roll, though a dice roll is involved to determine their stats/decisions on some level, the base stats are actually fixed across all games.

For example, Alexander/Bismarck/WuZetian, due to their early UU and high aggressiveness rating should are usually instigators; And trusted as a friend less than someone like Ramsesses who is a builder and less aggressive. Though I've seen one game where Rammy got into early wars (some randomness and environmental factors also affect individual AI behavior)

Some AI also becomes more agressive towards one particular if they are close to another Civ and deploy rush strategies. I believe there's an XML value for closeness and meeting another civ on the first turn. So you'll find AI's who you find early and close to you will generally be more hostile, though again, it's not an absolute rule.

Originally Posted by standingwolf

(1) so i get that the essence of civ 5 diplomacy is hating the people your friends hate, but in my current post-patch game i'm the only one who has never been at war with anyone, and i'm the only one who has ever been denounced. rome denounced me for settling near them, and greece denounced me for no reason. now arabia has declared war on greece, and hiawatha has declared on greece twice, and yet alexander has never denounced either of them: only me. suleiman & bismarck have fought at least three wars and yet neither has ever denounced the other. is denouncing broken post patch?

Denouncing is AFAIK not broken. Going to war with each other increases the chance of the civs hating each other and denouncing, but the AI can also go into phony wars that do no damage and less very few turns.

(2) i've had a declaration of friendship with germany during at least two of the german-ottoman wars and yet this doesn't seem to bother suleiman at all. he still "desires friendly relations with my empire." do your friends' warmongering activities ever have any diplomatic consequences for you?

"Desires Friendly relations" is a fairly generic modifier. When you first meet a civ, they are usually Neutral (no major diplomatic incidents) or Friendly (desires friendly relations). With some AI you will not move past this because your diplomacy doesn’t affect them all that much.

Note however they can go from ‘Desire friendly relations’ to Hostile very quickly once their grand master AI decides you’re a threat. So for now the Ottomans want to be your friends, but they could as easily turn on you.

To answer your second question, if Sulieman had denounced Alexander and you friended Alexander then you’ll get a diplo hit. Similarly, if they are hostile or do no like Alexander, you’ll get the ‘don’t get too close’ line. But generally I check denunciations and war history to decide if its safe to friend a Civ without big effects on my diplomacy.

(3) i'm actually part of a web of about four civs with interlocking DoFs, and periodically someone will pop up and say, "i see you're friends with newfoundland: i have done the same." does this mean anything? i don't get any options to respond, and it seems to leave no diplomatic trace. it looks like nothing more than an announcement, but since we already get the announcement on the right side of the screen (with less time disruption), i'm not sure why they repeat it.

Yes, it’s a positive reinforcing modifier. If you are friends with B, B’s attitude towards you improves. If B and C are friends and you also happen to be friends with C, B’s attitude towards you will improve even more. Similarly, the same thing will happen to C.

The positive modifiers also apply to C if you are not friends with them; but because they are friends with B, your relations with B will still give your relations with C a boost.

(4) when alexander pops up and tells me that i'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny, does it make any difference at all whether i choose "very well" or "you'll pay for this in time"?

thanks in advance for any help!

There’s probably an effect, but undocumented at this point. Someone know where to find this in the xml?

[blitzkrieg1980]

I enjoy the idea of having diplomacy act more dynamic with the ability to change over time, but I am NOT enjoying the difficulty in maintaining blocks of friends.

Relations seem to deteriorate far too easily (and I'm only on Prince level).

I was playing a Prince game as Arabia and was working towards a Science Vic (hence, staying away from any wars). I was able to maintain 4 civs at FRIENDLY for 2 full eras. I was even staying away from making any friends with more than 1 or 2 CS (since Greece was one of my FRIENDLY buddies).

I finally hit the Modern era and started eying up those space ship techs and, suddenly, I got denounced by Mongolia & Japan. Now, Greece is my only friend! Everyone else shifted to GUARDED. It just didn't make any sense. I checked the modifier messages on the diplo menu and the other civs now had negative modifiers for my being denounced. But my friends had bad relations with Mongolia & Japan! I don't understand. Why would they value Mongolia & Japan's opinions of me when they have bad relations?

In my limited opinion, diplomacy is far too fragile in ciV. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that you shouldn't be able to declare war regularly simply to expand without being marked by the rest of the world. But I ended up changing vic strategies to go domination since Greece kept declaring war and asking for my help and they were my only friends!

I miss the ability to make lasting relationships with civilizations. I just think diplomacy in ciV is far too fluid and easily changed.

[stealth_nsk]

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg1980

I finally hit the Modern era and started eying up those space ship techs and, suddenly, I got denounced by Mongolia & Japan.

Open up this: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...thkey=COLpqdcD

Look at "Competetiveness" - "Boldness" column. This indicates how much the given person hates the game leader (average value, varies slightly in each game).

Now look at Genghis Khan and Oda Nobunaga in this column. Their number is 8. This means what if you're becoming a leader, they'll mostly hate you. Alexander has the same average value, so looks like this particular Alexander in this particular game has it in minimum (6). Plus other parameters overweight it, for example low city-state competition you've mentioned.

You just picked wrong friends.

[blitzkrieg1980]

@stealth_nsk:

Understood. But I think this exemplifies the weakness in the ciV diplomacy architecture. I shouldn't have to study a spreadsheet of variable values in order to understand how to properly perform diplomacy.

I imagine there will be further tweaks to the diplomacy infrastructure in future patches/expansions. At least, I hope there will be.

[pxpdoo]

I generally keep DoF's with most Civs that ask and/or accept my offer (until I DoW on them ). The major reason I do this is to keep thier opinion of me "Friendly," and - in so doing - get better trades for most of the game. (When nearing one Victory Condition or another, opinions start dropping a bit.
For example, if I need a luxury resource and try trading with a "Hostile" or "Guarded" Civ, they will either refuse outright or make it a very unappealing offer for me. Naturally, "Neutral" Civs still make slightly unfair offers, but "Friendly" Civs pretty much make 1:1 trades.
For this reason, I generally give DoF's whatever they want - cash, a free luxury for 30 turns, whatever. I do this because I have noticed that a single Civ will only ask for a gift once per game. (I could be wrong about this, but in all of my playtime I have never been asked twice by a DoF, so I consider it a one-time cost.)

Just my thoughts. Friendly Civs are better to trade with.

[stealth_nsk]

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg1980

But I think this exemplifies the weakness in the ciV diplomacy architecture. I shouldn't have to study a spreadsheet of variable values in order to understand how to properly perform diplomacy.

Yes, completely agree here. The minimal changes I expect here:
- AI leader personalities should be somehow described in Civilopedia.
- Advisors should estimate opponent behavior (either AI or Human) and tell their conclusions to the player.

[dexters]

I'm in favour of better documentation of civ flavours; but keep in mind none of this data was avialable in the other games either. People found out checking the values in the editors and learned the diplo system bit by bit.

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg1980

@stealth_nsk:

Understood. But I think this exemplifies the weakness in the ciV diplomacy architecture. I shouldn't have to study a spreadsheet of variable values in order to understand how to properly perform diplomacy.

I imagine there will be further tweaks to the diplomacy infrastructure in future patches/expansions. At least, I hope there will be.

This is no different than knowing who you are dealing with (in real life) before acting.

The biggest change is it is MUCH harder to 'game' the system by switching to 'safe religions', and two faced lying and passive agressive actions like agressive settlement and warmongering and pretending to play nice before you strike. These are things the diplo AI now can handle and keep track of. Civs will take action if they see you moving on up or lying and back stabbing your way to the top.

Furthermore, all those data points are handled differently by each civ based on their Civ specific traits and modifiers. Some are more forgiving of your past actions, others aren't. Some civs really do just want to fight, others avoid it.

[TheKingOfBigOz]

I geniuely think they should drop the "realistic diplomacy".. it's not working out, it is vritually impossible to have a no war game at all.. which kinda makes Civilization slightly pointless.

[jtb1127]

Originally Posted by TheKingOfBigOz

I geniuely think they should drop the "realistic diplomacy".. it's not working out, it is vritually impossible to have a no war game at all.. which kinda makes Civilization slightly pointless.

I agree. And they should at least call it something else.