Another perfect example of diplomacy SUCKING

[Halcyan2]

It's all about stopping runaway Civ's.

What would you rather have - Russia with a score of 1200 and Celts with a score of 400?

Or Russia with a score of 1600 and no more Celts?

Or, I certainly understand *why* you might want to do this.

But then you just said it yourself. It's not really about helping the Celts or saving the weak civs. Your primary motive in this case is hamstringing Russia. You're acting in your own self-interest.

And from a strategic perspective it certainly makes sense, it probably won't help that much diplomatically speaking. "We've decided to intervene in Chechnya and Tibet, not because we actually care about those people, but we're really worried about Russia or China becoming the runaway civ."

 

[Heerlo]

Never EVER sign DPs. Let that be a lesson.

That was one of my first games on Prince not long after I got Civ5.I wasn't doing very well, was a weak civ, and saw a Defensive Pact with big strong Persia as a way of protection.

But I rarely, if ever, use them now in singleplayer games.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree that getting warmonger diplomatic hits from your friends/allies that you are helping, is a bit annoying.

But looking at it another way:

In one game, there was a three-way Declaration of Friendship between me, Germany, and Polynesia. Polynesia was competing with me on some wonders so I wanted to slow them down (and isolate them diplomatically), so I bribed Germany to backstab/DoW Polynesia (in contrast, Polynesia was not willing to DoW Germany).

Even though Germany DoW'ed Polynesia on my behalf and I maintained a DoF with Germany, this did not give me a very favorable impression of Germany. If it was willing to DoW its Friend Polynesia, what makes me think that it won't DoW me (also a Friend) at some future point in time.

If a civilization repeatedly requests Friend A and Friend B to go to war (against Enemy C). Friend A is always eager to join in on the war, while Friend B always refuses. It's somewhat reasonable for Friend A to get somewhat of a warmonger reputation (which will get partly get ignored as long as they are still on good terms).

I'm not disagreeing with this - but it's a different scenario then the one I spoke about. I'm not talking about manipulating diplomatic relationships to twist allies into fighting one another. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be penalized for honoring a DP. The AI (and the player) can see who has DP's with whom so it's not like a surprise when you have to DoW to defend allies.

If the AI attacks a civ I have a DP with, then every other civ should know and expect me to defend them. I shouldn't get the warmonger penalty - I should get a diplo bonus for honoring the pact. Especially in light of the fact that you will get a diplo hit if you don't honor the pact.

I'd also like to say that even without the DP, it's a little rediculous when you defend and prop up an AI and then get denounced for it.

I defended Russia from a 3-way attack once. I built Russia railroads, gave them units and resources and then defeated every single city on her continent that was at war with her. I then gave her those cities.

But then I took territory on another continent from one of her enemies and I got the denouncement. It was just stupid and that whole scenario is nonsensical. And made me very .

While there technically are more negative modifiers than positive ones, it's not too hard to manipulate the system to favor the positive ones:

You are right about all of modifiers and how easy it is to use them, but consider what others and myself have said before. There are still many more negative modifiers than positive ones, and the weights of the negative ones are much higher than the weight of positive ones.

I do find staying on good relations easier in G&K than in vanilla, but there are still some whopping situations where you put forth your best effort and still get denounced.

There also seem to be 'hidden' modifiers - and these cause the sudden denouncements. When you are friendly with a civ or have a DoF, I've noticed that they tend to only show you the positive modifiers. Meanwhile you could be wracking up negative modifiers for centuries without knowing it. Then, out of the blue, you get denounced and all of the negative modifiers show up.

If they would just show you all of the modifiers, positive and negative, it would be much easier to actually use the diplomacy options in a meaningful way. I mean, how can you act appropriately towards another civ when you don't even know that you're getting on their digital nerves? As it is now, there are some situations where you get denounced after doing everything possible to stay friendly.

 

[AiTenshi1]

Foreign military intervention is often viewed disfavorably, even if it is done for arguably humanitarian purposes. Even if your goal is to "liberate" the people from an "unjust regime," it's very easy to be labeled as a foreign aggressor. There are plenty of examples (especially in Africa/Middle East/Central and South America) of this. "Peacekeeping" forces have a habit of quickly wearing out their welcome.

This is an inaccurate impression. On the contrary, there are many excellent, long-standing examples of peace-keeping forces of one kind or another being very welcome. One example is the US forces in Japan. Yes, in recent years, there has been a movement by some Japanese who question having the US be their protector and there is also the question of where to base them, but overall having the American military handle the military aspects has freed up enormous funds for Japan's rebuilding after WWII and the later "economic miracle" (which of course fizzled out over the past two decades and thus led to the questioning I mentioned).

The Korean DMZ might be another example.

I'm just offering some real world examples that have been fairly welcome for decades (not to mention effective).

 

[nefloyd]

It's all about stopping runaway Civ's.

What would you rather have - Russia with a score of 1200 and Celts with a score of 400?

Or Russia with a score of 1600 and no more Celts?

Why didn't you just team up with Russia and take the city yourself? You gain 400, Russia stays at 1200. It all ends up in war anyway, why bother defending the loser.

Even better, you should have let the city fall, attacked Russia, liberated the Celts, then destroyed Russia

 

[apocalypse105]

Never EVER sign DPs. Let that be a lesson.

Obiously there is something wrong it isn't called secret pact whats the point of a defensive pact if other civs don't know you have one ?

A defencive pact is supose to prevent people to dow you because the other person will olso dow you.. BUt if you don't know that whats the point of it,

 

[Halcyan2]

I'm not disagreeing with this - but it's a different scenario then the one I spoke about. I'm not talking about manipulating diplomatic relationships to twist allies into fighting one another. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be penalized for honoring a DP. The AI (and the player) can see who has DP's with whom so it's not like a surprise when you have to DoW to defend allies.

If the AI attacks a civ I have a DP with, then every other civ should know and expect me to defend them. I shouldn't get the warmonger penalty - I should get a diplo bonus for honoring the pact. Especially in light of the fact that you will get a diplo hit if you don't honor the pact.

I agree that Defensive Pacts could be made better. For example, others have suggested (and I agree) that it would be better to have the option of honoring a DP (or not), with a penalty if you do not honor it.

Completely avoiding warmonger penalties through DP's could be abused, however. For example, if you hypothetically signed Defensive Pacts with every civ (or nearly every civ) then that essentially gives you the capacity to automatically enter any war that might occur. (Civ IV was actually better in that regard, since it became increasingly harder to enter into more and more Defensive Pacts b/c the AI's factored in how many other DP's you are currently in).

You are right about all of modifiers and how easy it is to use them, but consider what others and myself have said before. There are still many more negative modifiers than positive ones, and the weights of the negative ones are much higher than the weight of positive ones.

I don't play multiplayer much, but I would imagine it would be similar to that. Why did this other player attack me? Was it simple proximity? Did I build a wonder he was working on? Are we competing for the same city states? Would he even tell me why if I asked? Usually it's not just one thing but a combination of factors developed over time.

I do find staying on good relations easier in G&K than in vanilla, but there are still some whopping situations where you put forth your best effort and still get denounced.

In many cases, it would be helpful if AI's *and* players could be more explicit about why they are denouncing. But how would you explain "I only denounced you because I want better relations with this other civ that denounced you." Or (something players do but AI's won't) "I thought it would be funny" or "I was bored" or "some personal reason b/c I hate civilization X or the bright orange color of the Netherlands, or whatever."

People can often be irrational, so I actually don't mind if there is a little bit (though not too much) irrationality and unpredictability with the AI's.

There also seem to be 'hidden' modifiers - and these cause the sudden denouncements. When you are friendly with a civ or have a DoF, I've noticed that they tend to only show you the positive modifiers. Meanwhile you could be wracking up negative modifiers for centuries without knowing it. Then, out of the blue, you get denounced and all of the negative modifiers show up.

I partly agree with you about hidden modifiers.

But I think a lot of these "negatives" should be fairly obvious too.

I find it hilarious how every couple of weeks you will see a post about "why is everyone calling me a warmonger? All I did was DoW and take over 2 or 3 city states!"

If you build every wonder, or you ally with every city state, or you expand towards and block off other civs, or you run around DoW'ing and wiping out other civs, of course there will be diplomatic penalties. Even if your Friendship status is hiding some of those red modifiers, it shouldn't be all that surprising that you're accumulating them!

If they would just show you all of the modifiers, positive and negative, it would be much easier to actually use the diplomacy options in a meaningful way. I mean, how can you act appropriately towards another civ when you don't even know that you're getting on their digital nerves? As it is now, there are some situations where you get denounced after doing everything possible to stay friendly.

Yes, it might be helpful being able to see all the modifiers, but is it that bad (or unrealistic) not to have access to that information?

At a personal one-to-one level, sometimes individual people are just going to dislike you. Most of the time you won't know why. Many times its for reasons you can't even really fathom even if they were explained to you. I think it's great that some AI leaders are easier to get along with than others. I like how there's a +/- 2 modifier each game which gives you a bit of variety. Yes, it would occasionally be helpful if I could sneak a peak under the hood to see exactly what values the AI has this game, but I'm okay not having access to that information.

 

[Halcyan2]

This is an inaccurate impression. On the contrary, there are many excellent, long-standing examples of peace-keeping forces of one kind or another being very welcome. One example is the US forces in Japan. Yes, in recent years, there has been a movement by some Japanese who question having the US be their protector and there is also the question of where to base them, but overall having the American military handle the military aspects has freed up enormous funds for Japan's rebuilding after WWII and the later "economic miracle" (which of course fizzled out over the past two decades and thus led to the questioning I mentioned).

The Korean DMZ might be another example.

I'm just offering some real world examples that have been fairly welcome for decades (not to mention effective).

Japan is interesting because its Constitution (heavily influenced by the U.S. after World War II) prohibits it from having a military. However, there is increasing tension. Every time a U.S. serviceman does something (e.g. rape accusations from civilians) you hear a lot of discussion on whether the local populace actually wants a military base there any more.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree that Defensive Pacts could be made better. For example, others have suggested (and I agree) that it would be better to have the option of honoring a DP (or not), with a penalty if you do not honor it.

My apologies, I thought that you already did have the option to either uphold or ignore the DP when the time came, the way you can back out of a promise to go to war in 10 turns when the 10 turns pass.

Completely avoiding warmonger penalties through DP's could be abused, however. For example, if you hypothetically signed Defensive Pacts with every civ (or nearly every civ) then that essentially gives you the capacity to automatically enter any war that might occur. (Civ IV was actually better in that regard, since it became increasingly harder to enter into more and more Defensive Pacts b/c the AI's factored in how many other DP's you are currently in).

But to fair, you would be facing diplo hits from the people you are war with, even if you are only upholding the DP. I just don't think players should be denounced by other civs you are not at war with for upholding a DP.

You also wouldn't have the capacity to enter into any war as the DP is canceled if you attack someone. You would only go to war when someone else DoWs one of your DP partners. If it is true that you don't get a choice in honoring a DP, then if you went and signed DP with everyone, sooner or later you are going to be forced into wars with people you don't want to fight. This would counteract the tendency to DP everyone, and I think making additional DPs harder to get is good. But after such a war you will still have bad relations with those you fought, and if you eliminated them or took their capitals, you should still get a warmonger denouncement. This also counteracts the tendency to DP everyone.

I do not favor taking the warmonger penalty away if you honor a DP and then use it to conquer half the world - but you shouldn't be hit with the penalty just for honoring the pact and you should never get denounced by the person you defended, even if you do conquer the rest of the world.

In many cases, it would be helpful if AI's *and* players could be more explicit about why they are denouncing. But how would you explain "I only denounced you because I want better relations with this other civ that denounced you." Or (something players do but AI's won't) "I thought it would be funny" or "I was bored" or "some personal reason b/c I hate civilization X or the bright orange color of the Netherlands, or whatever."

It could be done with some clever writing. Really, I don't think it would be that hard to come up with scripts that explain the denouncements. Honestly I didn't even think of the vanilla character of the denouncements; a little more input from the AI when they are doing so would actually be welcome now that I think about it.

I don't play multiplayer much, but I would imagine it would be similar to that. Why did this other player attack me? Was it simple proximity? Did I build a wonder he was working on? Are we competing for the same city states? Would he even tell me why if I asked? Usually it's not just one thing but a combination of factors developed over time.

I am not really focused or care much about how you would do it with players because I don't MP and don't know how diplomacy in MP work.

People can often be irrational, so I actually don't mind if there is a little bit (though not too much) irrationality and unpredictability with the AI's.

I do too, and I actually don't always mind being back stabbed. I'm not saying take backstabbing away. A back stabber is going to back stab you for no reason whatsoever, not necessarily because they have secret modifiers against you. They should do this - it adds flavor to the game. You can even see it when you get backstabbed but have no negative modifiers. But I don't like how (at least it seems this way to me) you build up negative modifiers and then get denounced and only then see that they had legit beef with you. That's not backstabbing, that's opaque diplomacy, IMHO.

But I think a lot of these "negatives" should be fairly obvious too.

I find it hilarious how every couple of weeks you will see a post about "why is everyone calling me a warmonger? All I did was DoW and take over 2 or 3 city states!"

I'm with you 100% here. The funny thing is is that it is a lot easier to stay friendly as long as you aren't a jerk to people. When people make the above complaints I dismiss them. I'm just talking about the sometimes wonky things that happen. Did you read that Babylon post I tried to point out? I'm more concerned with crazy, non-sensical things happening like that or being denounced by a civ you have done nothing but support and defend than I am about letting players warmonger worry-free.

If you build every wonder, or you ally with every city state, or you expand towards and block off other civs, or you run around DoW'ing and wiping out other civs, of course there will be diplomatic penalties. Even if your Friendship status is hiding some of those red modifiers, it shouldn't be all that surprising that you're accumulating them!


Yes, it might be helpful being able to see all the modifiers, but is it that bad (or unrealistic) not to have access to that information?

But that's what I'm talking about! Backstabbing is backstabbing and needs no justification from the AI, but just playing the game and being denounced for it (and not knowing they are mad about things you are doing while playing to win) is bad. Especially so with the hidden modifiers.

I do want to know about all the modifiers so that if I want to maintain relationships, I can give it a good effort.

At a personal one-to-one level, sometimes individual people are just going to dislike you. Most of the time you won't know why. Many times its for reasons you can't even really fathom even if they were explained to you. I think it's great that some AI leaders are easier to get along with than others. I like how there's a +/- 2 modifier each game which gives you a bit of variety. Yes, it would occasionally be helpful if I could sneak a peak under the hood to see exactly what values the AI has this game, but I'm okay not having access to that information.

I agree, I love that +/- modifier and the randomness it presents you with. I don't mind being backstabbed, as explained above. I just want some of the random quirks to be ironed out and a little more transparency in the system is all.

 

[whyidie]

At a personal one-to-one level, sometimes individual people are just going to dislike you. Most of the time you won't know why. Many times its for reasons you can't even really fathom even if they were explained to you. I think it's great that some AI leaders are easier to get along with than others. I like how there's a +/- 2 modifier each game which gives you a bit of variety. Yes, it would occasionally be helpful if I could sneak a peak under the hood to see exactly what values the AI has this game, but I'm okay not having access to that information.

I find my approach to diplomacy very similar to yours. I find the AI does a decent enough job of simulating irrational and rational characters alike.

Frankly, the AI is probably entirely too logical, considering how irrational real life can be...

 

[ghost88]

Japan is interesting because its Constitution (heavily influenced by the U.S. after World War II) prohibits it from having a military. However, there is increasing tension. Every time a U.S. serviceman does something (e.g. rape accusations from civilians) you hear a lot of discussion on whether the local populace actually wants a military base there any more.

They are allowed a Self-Defense force ,but forbidden by their constitution from conducting offensive operations. Read this wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Iraq_Reconstruction_and_Support_Group

 

[Lakissov]

Yes, it might be helpful being able to see all the modifiers, but is it that bad (or unrealistic) not to have access to that information?

At a personal one-to-one level, sometimes individual people are just going to dislike you. Most of the time you won't know why. Many times its for reasons you can't even really fathom even if they were explained to you. I think it's great that some AI leaders are easier to get along with than others. I like how there's a +/- 2 modifier each game which gives you a bit of variety. Yes, it would occasionally be helpful if I could sneak a peak under the hood to see exactly what values the AI has this game, but I'm okay not having access to that information.

Speaking of which, that would sometimes be very valuable information, something similar to intrigue. I'd say, it would be good if you could somehow get that kind of intel through espionage.

 

[Le Roi Soleil]

The "problem" of secret defensive pacts drawing a bunch of civilizations into unwanted wars was an extremely real issue in world politics into the 20th century. Or does no one here know what happened in the leadup to WWI?

It would be good to have the option to make defensive pacts public (like NATO) or secret, but the secret pact mechanic is certainly a legitimate and historically realistic form of treaty.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Are DP's really secret? I thought you could see them in the diplomacy screen.

 

[Roxlimn]

I think it's worthwhile to note that, while the AI is coded to simulate MP human players to some extent, their ability to mimic human behavior is necessarily limited. We're not talking about super-complex chess style AI here. We're talking about a simple script that runs off a bunch of finite event modifiers.

It was the same way in every Civ game prior, and probably will be so for the foreseeable future.

The diplomacy aspect of the game is something you play, just like the building and combat aspects. If you're getting DoW's left and right, it simply means that that part of your play is kind of failing. It's simple enough to stack positive modifiers, as mentioned. Not as simplistic as in Civ IV, where sharing religions almost means being able to manipulate the AI behavior like puppets, but it's close.

 

[Xotite potancev]

I SAVED THE CELTS FROM THE MAYANS. And get no credit for it.

I SAVED THE CELTS FROM THE RUSSIANS. And get no credit for it.

I SAVED THE CELTS FROM THE ARABIANS. And they hate me because 'I attacked someone I'd been allies with' or something like that.

What a load of cow chips.

the French were attacked by Germany, twice the British saved their ass both times and who do the French hate now, while they madly suck up to Germany.

Seriously sounds like the diplo matches RL.

I'm really tired of the 'whatever you do, they hate you' stuff in this game

 

[Roxlimn]

Xocite Potancev:

If you want the AI to acknowledge the save, you have to allow them to get wiped by the enemy Civ, then liberate a City. In addition, taking enemy cities and gifting them to the AI seems to result in a net positive as well.

In general, the AI views your motives askance when you're taking cities for yourself. That's no longer a defensive action, and it isn't asking you to take over cities.

 

[Buccaneer]

Never EVER sign DPs. Let that be a lesson.

There are also several other diplomatic-related things you should never ever do as well. The basic problem is that some want "immersion" with diplomacy modifiers and will only end up disappointed because it was a bone thrown to those that want to pretend that they are playing against a real person. Just ignore it and focus on the better parts of the game, and hope that the AI can remain somewhat un-predictable to keep the human player on its toes.

 

[strhopper]

Defensive pacts are good for this problem. With God's and kings the ai seems more willing to sign them as well

 

[Tachii]

I find defensive pacts somewhat useful in my last culture game (Immortal). It depends how you use them. It didn't matter much but it was pretty entertaining to see it happen on screen.

Spoiler :

I signed DPs with 2 of the strongest civs around me: Ottomans and Denmark. Aztecs had the audacity to DOW on me in the last 5 turns before my Utopia project and even had a sizable fleet to attack Mombassa. What naturally occurred was Denmark whooping Aztecs fleet with the help of 2 of my nukes. Happily I won the culture victory with 100 happiness to boot, lol.