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

[Txurce]

Diplomacy is an exception, with backstabs being frequent.

There are no exceptions. An example was raised, which happens to counter your argument. Frequent backstabs aside, players often side with the big player against the smaller, working against what you described earlier as obvious self-interest. People often think short-term, even if to their eventual loss. To go further, personalities become involved, and people often act in a downright irrational manner. This is part of what makes Diplomacy both so immersive and so frustrating. In these regards, the AI is no worse.

 

[spicytimothy]

I played a new game last night armed with these information/clarifications, and I feel like the diplomacy worked much, much better than before.

On my continent there were only me (Arabia), India, & Azteca.

I returned a settler to India early on, and we were best friends to the end: he went to war with me, denounced enemies the very next turn along with me, defensive pacts, even agreeing to luxury resource demands. I only made a demand after he asks for something himself, since according to the discoveries there's a penalty to reject, I find a reciprocated demand the best way to get even. I even settled a city very close to his, no complaints.

Aztec on the other hand I tried to provoke. I settled a city 3 tiles away from his and started buying land right away. I also did not return his workers. He declared war soon after a denouncement. While all these are no surprise, India actually went along with me on every action against the Aztecs even though they were weaker and smaller. I rarely see that in previous games.

I know this example is pretty extreme, but I'm seeing a difference in my actions as a player. Strategic civilian return goes a long way to buying allegiance. After discovering the other civs on the 2nd continent it got a bit more complicated to observe tho.

 

[kcwong]

<snip>I know this example is pretty extreme, but I'm seeing a difference in my actions as a player. Strategic civilian return goes a long way to buying allegiance. After discovering the other civs on the 2nd continent it got a bit more complicated to observe tho.

That's not extreme at all, I've done that many times too. It's possible to have a good relationship with AIs for a while, at least with leaders less prone to backstab.

My problem (and I think many others' problems) with the system is that this relationship is highly likely to turn sour later on. After discovering navigation, Ghandi gets a new friend overseas and begin to covet your lands or your wonders, thinking you're trying to win in the same manner and his relationship with you turns into "guarded" or even worse.

There might be a balance between immersion and trying/not-trying to win. Let me throw a new idea onto the table: Let different civilizations win *together*.

It's not a new idea actually. In Alpha Centauri there's a Pact of Brotherhood concept. It allows two factions to share a victory condition, but both sides are equal unlike being/getting a vassal state. They could combine their efforts to win and thus win earlier, with the drawback of having a lower score because some points are shared with your brother(s).

This could give incentives to players and AIs to maintain a long-term relationship, instead of everyone for themselves near the end of the game.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

That's not extreme at all, I've done that many times too. It's possible to have a good relationship with AIs for a while, at least with leaders less prone to backstab.

My problem (and I think many others' problems) with the system is that this relationship is highly likely to turn sour later on. After discovering navigation, Ghandi gets a new friend overseas and begin to covet your lands or your wonders, thinking you're trying to win in the same manner and his relationship with you turns into "guarded" or even worse.

There might be a balance between immersion and trying/not-trying to win. Let me throw a new idea onto the table: Let different civilizations win *together*.

It's not a new idea actually. In Alpha Centauri there's a Pact of Brotherhood concept. It allows two factions to share a victory condition, but both sides are equal unlike being/getting a vassal state. They could combine their efforts to win and thus win earlier, with the drawback of having a lower score because some points are shared with your brother(s).

This could give incentives to players and AIs to maintain a long-term relationship, instead of everyone for themselves near the end of the game.

Now this, is a great idea, so long as it's simply two civilizations and no more.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Now this, is a great idea, so long as it's simply two civilizations and no more.

I dunno.
It might take a bit of re-tooling, or maybe a different game entirely, but ISTM that getting every (surviving) nation into your Alliance or Brotherhood is a far more accurately named "diplomatic victory" than just buying off city-state votes for the UN election (which, honestly, is more of an 'economic victory' as someone suggested in another thread.)

 

[ohioastronomy]

There are no exceptions. An example was raised, which happens to counter your argument. Frequent backstabs aside, players often side with the big player against the smaller, working against what you described earlier as obvious self-interest. People often think short-term, even if to their eventual loss. To go further, personalities become involved, and people often act in a downright irrational manner. This is part of what makes Diplomacy both so immersive and so frustrating. In these regards, the AI is no worse.

I think we're talking past each other: the game Diplomacy, which is indeed cut throat, has a different approach than the newer generation of board games does. I'm raising this to point out that the Civ 5 AI tactics are not required to make a good game.

Yes, you're absolutely right about the psychology of Diplomacy (the game.) A big structural problem is that people who can't win any more can still "choose" a winner by how they play, e.g. they can throw the game out of spite. That happened in enough Dip games for me that I eventually got tired of playing it.

 

[Txurce]

I think we're talking past each other: the game Diplomacy, which is indeed cut throat, has a different approach than the newer generation of board games does. I'm raising this to point out that the Civ 5 AI tactics are not required to make a good game.

Yes, you're absolutely right about the psychology of Diplomacy (the game.) A big structural problem is that people who can't win any more can still "choose" a winner by how they play, e.g. they can throw the game out of spite. That happened in enough Dip games for me that I eventually got tired of playing it.

Thanks - I follow your thinking now, and agree on both counts. The Civ AI tactics have potential, and I happen to enjoy them, but aren't there yet, and didn't have to go in the direction they went to provide a good game.