Diplomacy?

[Selous]

So far we have naval combat and CS being addressed (2 of the biggist issues that CiV has) we are getting new civs and techs (always nice) with land combat being tweeked. Two big gameplay elements being added being religion and espionage which will both affect diplomacy is some way, but..

is anything being done to diplomacy itself? probally one of the biggest complaints about vanilla CiV is the diplomacy model, in that each civ is out to win at all cost, imo making the game play very gamey and create a wait for the backstab or strike first mentality. I miss having allies and friends from previous civ games and would like to see a return

[CivilizedPlayer]

Well CS diplomacy is being addressed, so that it no longer is based on who gives the most money. But as for diplomacy between major civs, it will be tweaked a little by the whole espionage thing. Espionage against a civ will tell you things like who they plan to attack, when they plan to attack them, which cities they plan to attack, etc. So it'll make the backstab problems a little less prevalent. Beyond that, I don't know.

[Camikaze]

The two main things mentioned about diplomacy so far are the impact of religion and late game social policies (though it's unclear exactly what that's actually going to mean).

I'm more curious to see what they do with the existing system, though, so you don't get chains of denouncements or a whole lot of backstabbing. There hasn't been any word on these sorts of improvements yet.

[Haig]

I think this Expansion (and changes in patches too) show that developers really want to improve areas that they and fans think need. Also stuff created by original lead designer like "AI plays like human" are not as much carved in stone now as there's new lead designer.

And the diplomacy has been a debate since day one so I'm sure it's been tuned as well.

In Civ IV I think religion actually forced the sides a bit too much for the whole game.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by Camikaze

The two main things mentioned about diplomacy so far are the impact of religion and late game social policies (though it's unclear exactly what that's actually going to mean).

I'm more curious to see what they do with the existing system, though, so you don't get chains of denouncements or a whole lot of backstabbing. There hasn't been any word on these sorts of improvements yet.

My problem is in the renaissance where people will start to like you on social policies choisses I wonder if that brakes diplomacy or not?

I mean order,autocracy are all industrial or if they made a change about that then i am good

[kaltorak]

I'm really worried about this. Diplomacy should be one of the main features of an expansion for this game, considering it is its biggest flaw right now.

And the diplomacy has been a debate since day one so I'm sure it's been tuned as well.

That wouldnt be enough. They need to change that "acting as a player" point of view and made them act like real leaders. Tuning it a bit won't do anything.

[Camikaze]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

My problem is in the renaissance where people will start to like you on social policies choisses I wonder if that brakes diplomacy or not?

I mean order,autocracy are all industrial or if they made a change about that then i am good

Well, to be optimistic about it, as much as there'd be negative modifiers for those who you don't share social policies with, there'd be positive modifiers for those who you do share with. And positive modifiers allowing you to form firmer and more predictable blocs can surely only be a good thing.

[snarzberry]

Originally Posted by kaltorak

I'm really worried about this. Diplomacy should be one of the main features of an expansion for this game, considering it is its biggest flaw right now.



That wouldnt be enough. They need to change that "acting as a player" point of view and made them act like real leaders. Tuning it a bit won't do anything.

I think it probably is going to be one of the biggest changes. We know that religions are going to have an effect on how civs view each other in the first half of the game and we know that civs will now care about the Freedom/Autocracy/Order status of other civs. How drastic these influences will prove to be is unknown, but I expect that these changes will alter diplomacy dramatically.

[Moroten]

Well what I hope is that they fix diplomacy but also how the AI values different issues for example trade. Atm the game is rly easy even at deity as long as you trade the AI your resources and they will always pay for them as long as they got the cash to do so. I want this fixed so that the AI realize that they dont need more happy faces and instead refuses the deal making the situation in deity much much harder.

I love what they are doing with this expansion and I really hope that they make the AI "think" on what it needs and make the decisions from there.

[TimeWeaver]

I wish the trading aspects of diplomatic relations shone through in more fun and complex ways. If one trades long enough and significantly enough with a certain civ it will deepen the diplomatic options of alliances, embargos and what not.

And while I'm at it, just as map trading in Civ4 was milking the system in a tedious way, so is getting those extra gps for some open borders in Civ5. Can that kind of trade (including dull resource-for-money schemes which the AI doesn't seem to reciprocate) be replaced? One idea is gifts of splendour: the player can officially give certain bombastic things to civs? Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, etc, were indeed gifts. In social anthropology the importance of gifts has been underlined in like century now. Yes, I know, there is gifting going on as regards city states, but this would be significant gifts like road projects, canals, large sums of cash, several military units, a tech, etc. It could be a gift system that had religious undertones in the first two-thirds of the game, with shrines, relics and even religious policies of some kind. This would give us some need immersion that hopefully wouldn't be too easy to use for "farming" resources from AI civs.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by Camikaze

Well, to be optimistic about it, as much as there'd be negative modifiers for those who you don't share social policies with, there'd be positive modifiers for those who you do share with. And positive modifiers allowing you to form firmer and more predictable blocs can surely only be a good thing.

As long as they remove wierd modifiers like:

"you are winning the game like they are doing" at the first 3 turns

But I thinx they need to rework the hole system and not just add more modifiers because the AI is out to get you it act likes a human player and doesn't really read the modifiers