Excellent diplomacy analysis just popped-up on the 2k forums of Civ5

[gecos]

The title says it all, looks like diplomacy isn't as bad as most of us thought of it:

http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?106570-AI-Diplomacy-From-the-XML-(A-Quck-Interpretation)

 

[Shurdus]

Tnx, will have a look at it.

Edit: welcome to civfanatics gecos!

 

[General Tso]

Interesting article - answered some questions for me. Thanks.

 

[aatami]

Not really an analysis, just facts.

 

[Horizons]

So in other words the diplomacy is clinical and bland just like the rest of the game.

Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[bryanw1995]

I think that a better understanding of diplomacy adds to enjoyment of the game. I remember the first time I returned a worker b/c it was 30 rough tiles from my capital and I wasn't confident that I could get it home, the entire rest of that game mongolia was my best buddy and I never had to make a DOF and/or offer him bribes to keep our friendly status. Definitely makes you more strongly consider rescuing civilians or not becoming a complete warmonger when you know the consequences.

 

[vincentz]

looks like diplomacy isn't as bad as most of us thought of it

hehe. that sentence says it all.

if an imperfect circle is drawn badly (not round) it wouldn't matter if it was drawn by a 1000 techniques, machines, engineers and mathematicians. It would still be an imperfect circle.

(not trying to troll, just saying that if the majority of players think diplo sucks, then maybe it really does.)

 

[nokmirt]

I had not considered returning civilians. This must mean captured workers?

 

[gecos]

I had not considered returning civilians. This must mean captured workers?

Workers & settlers I'd say.

 

[gecos]

Tnx, will have a look at it.

Edit: welcome to civfanatics gecos!

Cheers mate, long time lurker, felt no special need to post until now since I admit I'm rather a Total War hardcore fan than a Civ series one.

 

[neilkaz]

I think that a better understanding of diplomace adds to enjoyment of the game. I remember the first time I returned a worker b/c it was 30 rough tiles from my capital and I wasn't confident that I could get it home, the entire rest of that game mongolia was my best buddy and I never had to make a DOF and/or offer him bribes to keep our DOF status. Definitely makes you more strongly consider rescuing civilians or not becoming a complete warmonger when you know the consequences.

Maybe this has more effect since the recent patches. I know that Pre-Dec patch when I returned a worker from a distant barb camp to Ghandi, he basically said that he loved me, but 25 turns later and with me just fighting a counter-attacking war against another AI and far from his borders, he hated me once again.

 

[Sullla]

I don't doubt that this information is true. The problem is that all of the stuff that determines diplomacy is completely undocumented, and never explained at any point in time, anywhere in-game. You are never told the rules of the game. Figuring out the diplomatic system in Civ5 requires a process of tedious trial and error (reverse-engineering what works and what doesn't work over the process of many games) and/or reading the actual programming code itself in the XML files. With enough time and repetition, yeah, sure, you can figure out how to manipulate things. This is a computer AI, after all - it will behave according to predictable patterns.

But that doesn't change the fact that diplomacy is based on undocumented, arcane rules that are never explained at any point in time. Should players really be expected to go to those lengths in order to understand why the AI is acting the way it does? When you need to consult XML charts and an undocumented, never-diplayed "OPINION" rating?

It feels like a rather poor system to me.

 

[Muskie]

I don't doubt that this information is true. The problem is that all of the stuff that determines diplomacy is completely undocumented, and never explained at any point in time, anywhere in-game. You are never told the rules of the game. Figuring out the diplomatic system in Civ5 requires a process of tedious trial and error (reverse-engineering what works and what doesn't work over the process of many games) and/or reading the actual programming code itself in the XML files. With enough time and repetition, yeah, sure, you can figure out how to manipulate things. This is a computer AI, after all - it will behave according to predictable patterns.

But that doesn't change the fact that diplomacy is based on undocumented, arcane rules that are never explained at any point in time. Should players really be expected to go to those lengths in order to understand why the AI is acting the way it does? When you need to consult XML charts and an undocumented, never-diplayed "OPINION" rating?

It feels like a rather poor system to me.

You do realize that diplomacy has no rules and is learned by a tedious system of trial and error.

Diplomacy is based on undocumented, arcane rules that are never explain at any point in time.

Seems like you both contradicted yourself and perfectly described how diplomacy really works.

You both understand and don't believe or you believe but don't understand. Or perhaps you know how it works, but don't want to play the game of diplomacy.

I suggest you read (reread) Machiavelli or even some modern diplomatic memoirs. As it seems like the Civ V diplomacy system is working perfectly in your games.

If you want an easier to understand game, go play chess or go. ;-)

 

[Rusty Edge]

I don't doubt that this information is true. The problem is that all of the stuff that determines diplomacy is completely undocumented, and never explained at any point in time, anywhere in-game. You are never told the rules of the game. Figuring out the diplomatic system in Civ5 requires a process of tedious trial and error (reverse-engineering what works and what doesn't work over the process of many games) and/or reading the actual programming code itself in the XML files. With enough time and repetition, yeah, sure, you can figure out how to manipulate things. This is a computer AI, after all - it will behave according to predictable patterns.

But that doesn't change the fact that diplomacy is based on undocumented, arcane rules that are never explained at any point in time. Should players really be expected to go to those lengths in order to understand why the AI is acting the way it does? When you need to consult XML charts and an undocumented, never-diplayed "OPINION" rating?

It feels like a rather poor system to me.

In times like these, an emperor should be able to call upon his trusted advisors ( I was always partial to Elvis myself). You could find out a better option without immersion-breaking rules or code studying.

"Your Excellency- Madame Wu recognizes you for what you are, the foremost contender to rule the world. She will never give you what you want, because it will advance your aims, unless you share a common enemy.

Catherine may be both fickle and high maint. , but she can be had. She just wants to be treated better than any other ruler.

I advise you to break off relations with China, and gift some pearls to Catherine. After that she'll put everything on the negotiating table. It's the price of doing business."


I would have found such an approach much more useful than emotionally animated leaders.

 

[bryanw1995]

Workers & settlers I'd say.

It's always workers. the only way you can capture a settler from barbarians is if it's your own settler. Again, this is very situational, I typically only do it with a scout-type unit 1/2 way across the globe b/c I'll usually take out my nearest neighbors anyway, but sometimes it is good to counteract border pressure if you want to expand in a different direction.

 

[bryanw1995]

Maybe this has more effect since the recent patches. I know that Pre-Dec patch when I returned a worker from a distant barb camp to Ghandi, he basically said that he loved me, but 25 turns later and with me just fighting a counter-attacking war against another AI and far from his borders, he hated me once again.

It was after the dec patch, before the early march patch. I was floored. I hadn't really ever heard anybody talk about it, so I wasn't sure if it was a glitch or not. In my next game (my first game with spain) I returned a captured worker from an island in the renaissance era. That civ immediately went from 6-7 reasons to dislike me, hostile attitude, and no "likes" to the bonus for liberating his citizens and only 3 dislikes. He even became friendly with me after having been hostile for 50 turns after the chain denunciation.

I still don't think that it's always good to liberate captured workers, but it can definitely get you forgiveness for massive warmonger/etc and/or get you ally for life if you want to then make a DOF with that civ.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I like "Deceptive", hehe. It seems like the AI is fooling a lot of players, and it isn't like players don't do that to the AI anyway.

 

[pazmacats]

So, after reading this "analysis" ... what's the point.

AI only has 2 different types of status
status 1: will pay money for resources, will buy research pact
status 2: will not pay money, will not buy research pact

Being at war is a variant of status 2. I will continue to quickly press >escape< whenever an AI approaches me. (If I ever reinstall the game.)

 

[Kerosene31]

I like "Deceptive", hehe. It seems like the AI is fooling a lot of players, and it isn't like players don't do that to the AI anyway.

Exactly. How many people in Civ 4 never, ever were friendly with a neighbor while secretly building an army to destroy him?

The diplomatic AI needs tweaks for sure (most notably ways to make positive diplomacy), but it is far from "broken" in my opinion. The AI is not always predictable. That's one of the main things that makes the game fun for me. In Civ 4 the AI would make their attacks so obvious. You could almost always get a feel when an attack was coming.

 

[jbevermore]

I'm of the opinion that CivV diplomacy isn't all that bad, there's just not enough content to make it a worthwhile part of the game. At least in 4 tech and map trading were important enough incentives to make keeping your neighbors happy, this goes double for winning a diplo victory.

In CivV I almost always ignore everyone unless I want to sell them something. Even going for a diplo victory means bribing all the city states rather then actually conducting canny diplomacy. This feels like a huge step backwards to me, in IV keeping all your neighbors happy could be a genuine challenge at times (unless your going for a religion victory...but we don't talk about that).

I think what gets me the most is how hard it is to build good relations with other Civs...and just as much how easy it is to lose it. Backed in a corner and need to conquer a city state to give you room to expand? Well even if this is the only conflict you've engaged in for over four thousand years Liz and Ghandi now hate your guts for the rest of eternity you warmongering douchebag. This is despite the fact that you've peacefully traded with them since time began. And if you want to mend fences you can do....nothing. Absolutely nothing. That's where the fail comes in. Sure if I've wiped out two other Civ's in my bloody path to glory I don't exactly expect to get invited to anyone's cocktail parties, but being a world pariah for taking a few Aztec cities in a defensive war is more then a bit annoying.