denouncing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eric_]

No memory or personallitys...

Totally disagree on both counts. Certain expectations arise when I meet a given leader, although their personalities are not so hard-coded that they will reliably make an obvious error just to "stay in character". This is a good thing, imo.

 

[Thormodr]

Sigh.....

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcuQQ1eWWI
It explains about different typ AI's the good AI and fun AI
Good AI wants to win the game and will do everything to do it like the starcraft Ai
The fun AI still will win but its more for the player to enjoy like herous 4 might and magic

Civ 4 was in the middle the AI still wanted to win but it had olso some fun factors like different personallity's and a certain behavior Sow that every player has its fun challenging players who want a high diffuculty but olso narrative players who are in to role playing who want to play a certain leader a certain way and the Ai to have a certain personnallity and style sow it is important the AI has a MEMORY from what you've donne

I watch this video and i knew exactly what was wrong with civilization 5 it is olmost the same AI as civ 2 if human is stronger then Ai declare war

civilization 5 have only a good AI typ that wants to win. No memory or personallitys...

Yep. That's a great video. Soren Johnson explains things very well there.

Also interesting to see that he mentioned he had a lot of trouble with 2K in getting the AI code for cIV released for the public/modders. Supposedly legal issues.

 

[Kerosene31]

So, I'm in the middle of my first full post-patch game (I have another game going that was started pre-patch), which is also my first game on King. So far I have had no issue whatsoever maintaining friendly relations, entering Declarations of Friendship with at least 3 civs, 1 being my neighbor, the other sharing my continent, and one on another continent. At one point fairly early, a REXing Monty did declare on me. We had been friendly, but his goals were clear (dominating the continent) and I was weak due to a NC start. He brought some serious heat in the form of like 7 jaguar warriors moving very determinedly towards my capital. I managed to fend this off with 2 warriors and a spearman and then all was quiet for quite some time. Ultimately, I had to go aggressive as I was languishing in the middle of the pack. During my build up, Monty and Ramesses both became "Afraid" of me. Eventually I conquered Monty and am now working on Ramesses.

So, it remains true up through King, in my experience, that we are not at the mercy of an unfathomable diplomacy mechanic. I find it makes a lot of sense, it's just not all spelled out for you in little tooltips.

That's my experience as well. When a "friendly" civ attacks, there's usually a good reason for it.

That shows the different leader personalities too, as Monty will jaguar rush you if you start out weak (a smart move). Other civs who don't have a good early UU may not.

I'm really starting to wonder if some people here haven't played much since the latest patches. Earlier on you would get the crazy random denouncing, but they improved that significantly in the latest patches.

 

[apocalypse105]

Totally disagree on both counts. Certain expectations arise when I meet a given leader, although their personalities are not so hard-coded that they will reliably make an obvious error just to "stay in character". This is a good thing, imo.

I just wish there where more positief modifiers then it would make some sence and fix all the rondom of the AI

 

[digitalcraft]

I think that the diplomacy AI would benefit a lot from a few small changes. First, change the label "work together" to "give me your stuff or I'll hate you forever is this ok? y/n" Second, at the start of the game, just set the point modifiers to assume everyone has denounced you because they're going to anyways.

Its so annoying, I'll have a guy pissed I "settled near him" literally a thousand years ago and he'll just sit and fume about it "oh mah gawd that guy settled near me do you understand how very angry" until he finally declares. Or he'll just sit and denounce denounce to make sure nobody else likes you either. It actually might be good strategy to just denounce every civilization you meet so hopefully they'll be less friendly towards each other. Just keep every single civilization on denounce status.

Honestly, I just treat diplomacy as a war countdown in a tactical combat videogame because that's all it really ends up. Even if someone is friendly with you, trading (temporarily of course, no permanent trades which means yay countdown to unhappy civilization if you get a trade, sometimes better to not trade at all) and tech agreements, they'll still randomly declare on you (and get their ass kicked) for no reason. Just assume you're going to be warring against everyone. It's a tactical combat game, not a civilization emulation game anyways. That's what Civ4 is for.

Oh and the whole "Friendly civilization declares war against you for literally no reason, loses some troops, asks for peace and is still perfectly friendly with you" BS. Diplomacy is soooo broken in this game.

 

[apocalypse105]

I think that the diplomacy AI would benefit a lot from a few small changes. First, change the label "work together" to "give me your stuff or I'll hate you forever is this ok? y/n" Second, at the start of the game, just set the point modifiers to assume everyone has denounced you because they're going to anyways.

Its so annoying, I'll have a guy pissed I "settled near him" literally a thousand years ago and he'll just sit and fume about it "oh mah gawd that guy settled near me do you understand how very angry" until he finally declares. Or he'll just sit and denounce denounce to make sure nobody else likes you either. It actually might be good strategy to just denounce every civilization you meet so hopefully they'll be less friendly towards each other. Just keep every single civilization on denounce status.

Honestly, I just treat diplomacy as a war countdown in a tactical combat videogame because that's all it really ends up. Even if someone is friendly with you, trading (temporarily of course, no permanent trades which means yay countdown to unhappy civilization if you get a trade, sometimes better to not trade at all) and tech agreements, they'll still randomly declare on you (and get their ass kicked) for no reason. Just assume you're going to be warring against everyone. It's a tactical combat game, not a civilization emulation game anyways. That's what Civ4 is for.

Oh and the whole "Friendly civilization declares war against you for literally no reason, loses some troops, asks for peace and is still perfectly friendly with you" BS. Diplomacy is soooo broken in this game.

Well that is why i dont play civilization 5 not so much it isnt a civilization game... It maybe cool for players who want real challenge but for narative players and who want a little bit of a challenge is it anoying....

I loved civilization 4 because of the diplomacy you could decide how your own leader behave you could make for example cesar a peacefull culture freak and ghandi a warlord....... You could actually had friends and defensive patcs and olso enemy's but not all rondomly atack!!!!!!!

You just said it this AI wants to win result is that it lacks the gameplay......

Its like playing sims only all the people will suddenly leave the house because they are borred they want to win and do something else... Or sim city where you are fired for beeing a bad mayor

 

[Kerosene31]

Just like in Civ 4, you can lure the AI into war. Some of you must be doing things to bring on the constant attacks, as many of us have learned to avoid them. Remember in Civ 4 if you had a small empire and had a city on a border with zero defenses (even if you had a huge stack nearby) the AI would attack lots of times? We simply learned to not do that (or to exploit it if that's what you want).

In Civ V you have to watch your military advisor. As soon as a nearby civ starts to get a military advantage on you, you risk war. The "suddenness" can also be when they discover a new military tech which gives them a sudden boost in power.

Keep your military modern. It seems completely backwards when going for peaceful victories, but you need to focus on military tech. Having a few advanced units will deter the AI from bothering you (until later in the game). You also have to keep your army far away from AI borders. Move them into the worst locations strategically to keep them away from others. This game is not Civ 4, if you play it like Civ 4 you will fail.

On king difficulty I can usually stay peaceful for most of the game. There will be the 1-2 opportunity attacks, but if you do as I suggest you'll push them back. Another important thing is when you do get attacked, you will still take a huge negative hit if you wipe them out (something that needs tweaking). If you are not warmongering, don't wipe out Civs. You can hurt them a little, but leave them around and other Civs won't hate you nearly as much.

 

[eric_]

you could make for example cesar a peacefull culture freak and ghandi a warlord

My only cultural victory in Civ V was while playing as Alexander, and I didn't experience one war the entire game (got lots of others tangled up in war, though! )

 

[Colonel Bogey]

On being denounced my first course of action is to denounce them back. Other civs suddenly come out of the woodwork to agree with you.

 

[LegionSteve]

I really like the way the diplomacy works now. One thing I've noticed is how much it depends on the map and settings. With only the standard amount of civs on a continents map, or with a few extra on an archipelago, it is certainly possible to stay friendly with some civs for the whole game. With 20 civs on a pangaea, not so much But I like being able to tweak the settings depending on what type of diplo game I want.

In a recent game, I was France doing a culture win on an archipelago. Most civs were getting along so well that I decided to liven things up by denouncing the most warlike (and so least popular) civ, Genghis who had been attacking city states. Next turn 2 of my friends did the same. Turn after, more civs joined the 'we hate Genghis' party. Realising for the first time I had started a denouncement chain was a moment. The shared denouncements helped keep friendships and even got Gandhi (who didn't like me trying to win by culture) back to friendly status.

My current game, I am Songhai on a 20 civ large pangaea. I have 2 cities of my own and have taken 4 puppets, and at the moment I still have 3 DoF partners and quite a few other civs that are still friendly. I got quite a few opportunistic attacks against me early on, but managed to survive them. Monty came very very close to taking my iron city but none of the others did much.

My favourite moment in this game was joining a war with 2 of my DoF partners against Siam, who had been really really annoying and declared war on me twice before. I took his capital then bombarded his other city down (he only had two because he lost some settlers to barbs early on, then spent all his time building warriors to attack me). I let my pet city state strike the final blow so I wouldn't take a diplo hit for killing him. That's what diplomacy should be like - vicious and sneaky.

Our alliance is crumbling now because Iroquois has started too many wars, my other two friends have turned against him, plus strategically I need to take out Rome and from then on it will be a total free for all. But I should be strong enough by then to handle them.

 

[jbevermore]

My favourite moment in this game was joining a war with 2 of my DoF partners against Siam, who had been really really annoying and declared war on me twice before. I took his capital then bombarded his other city down (he only had two because he lost some settlers to barbs early on, then spent all his time building warriors to attack me). I let my pet city state strike the final blow so I wouldn't take a diplo hit for killing him. That's what diplomacy should be like - vicious and sneaky.

Not going to lie, I do this all the time. Hilarious.