I've yet to make a single relatively reliable friend!

[Snerk]

My main gripe with immersion in this game is probably that I never make any long term friends among the AI civs that I can rely on for fair trades, defence pacts and the likes. I've tried to nurse a few relationships but it doesn't seem to help much. My latest attempt at courting Catherine, ended up with her declaring war on me..
And the only time I've managed a 1:1 luxury trade was with Ramses, and I'm pretty sure he hated my guts because he frequently called me a bloodthirsty git or something along those lines. So currently the diplomatic AI seems a bit all over the place.

I like it how some civs are tagged with "hostile" in the diplomatic screen, if they don't like you. But whenever they're not "hostile" I never have much of an idea of where they're at. A simple label of either "hostile", "annoyed", "neutral", "pleased" or "friendly" would to me be really, really helpful here. And of course have their opinion of you matter a great deal in terms of war and trade arrangements. That said, I am glad they removed the rudimentary equation of plus/minus points for relations present in civ4. It makes for a more realistic and transparent experience.

Anyway, consider this a plea to Firaxis to do some patching on this particular area of the game.

 

[lietkynes]

My main gripe with immersion in this game is probably that I never make any long term friends among the AI civs that I can rely on for fair trades, defence pacts and the likes. I've tried to nurse a few relationships but it doesn't seem to help much. My latest attempt at courting Catherine, ended up with her declaring war on me..
And the only time I've managed a 1:1 luxury trade was with Ramses, and I'm pretty sure he hated my guts because he frequently called me a bloodthirsty git or something along those lines. So currently the diplomatic AI seems a bit all over the place.

I like it how some civs are tagged with "hostile" in the diplomatic screen, if they don't like you. But whenever they're not "hostile" I never have much of an idea of where they're at. A simple label of either "hostile", "annoyed", "neutral", "pleased" or "friendly" would to me be really, really helpful here. And of course have their opinion of you matter a great deal in terms of war and trade arrangements. That said, I am glad they removed the rudimentary equation of plus/minus points for relations present in civ4. It makes for a more realistic and transparent experience.

Anyway, consider this a plea to Firaxis to do some patching on this particular area of the game.

In both my last 2 games I managed to have a good stable relationship with an AI: pact of cooperation, secrecy pact against a common enemy, open borders, trades, research agreements, we went to war together and killed a common enemy and finally ended with a defence pact.

Thing is: this is (from what I have seen) not possible with a neighbour that shares a border with you, because at some point he will need more room and will see your empire as an easy target (at higher difficulty level the AI always has more units then you).

So you have to pick a friend that is reasonably close to your empire, so that it can be useful, but not so close that he will want to expand directly into your territory.

 

[Brawndo]

It's because Firaxis, in all their wisdom, decided to turn the AIs from simulated civilizations into nothing more than players playing a board game. They will turn on you the second the believe they have an opportunity to take you out, because they are playing to win.

Completely breaks the immersion of the game for me

 

[Decimatus]

Basically they put way too much emphasis on winning the game.

 

[Morningcalm]

And I don't think I'm the only one that doubts Firaxis will hardly change the inane diplomacy much. You see, AI playing to win is a "design decision" and thus sacrosanct.

 

[SGRaaize]

Yeah, I don't think you can have legitimate friends here
Sucks

 

[Clement]

It's because Firaxis, in all their wisdom, decided to turn the AIs from simulated civilizations into nothing more than players playing a board game. They will turn on you the second the believe they have an opportunity to take you out, because they are playing to win.

Completely breaks the immersion of the game for me

I can indeed agree with this, the "AI plays as human" is now the only thing about Civ 5 i really object to, almost everything else is growing on me, but not this, the leaders would be infinetely more interesting as nations.

Having said that, i've noticed a big improvement since the latest patch, they are more logical than before, and that at least is a step forward, i'm using some balance mods from Thalassicus (my apologies if i mispelt) and the game is starting to be enjoyable, for me at least.

 

[s1ngl3play3r]

It's because Firaxis, in all their wisdom, decided to turn the AIs from simulated civilizations into nothing more than players playing a board game. They will turn on you the second the believe they have an opportunity to take you out, because they are playing to win.

Completely breaks the immersion of the game for me

Agree 100%.

 

[brento1138]

"I'm so... ronery..."

 

[Danei]

It's because Firaxis, in all their wisdom, decided to turn the AIs from simulated civilizations into nothing more than players playing a board game. They will turn on you the second the believe they have an opportunity to take you out, because they are playing to win.

Completely breaks the immersion of the game for me

A lot of people seem to share this view, but my view is completely the opposite. One of my least favorite things about Civ IV was the huge disparity between the way I was playing and the way the AIs were playing. It felt like I was the only one playing the game, and everyone else was having a roleplaying session.

 

[gingerbill]

People moan the game is too easy then complain the AI is out to win , strange . Though i can see how AI's back stabbing is a pain and can annoy some.

I've had AI allies who have last from the start to the finish , far more than in any other CIV , maybe i been lucky . Alexander in my first 3 games was like a best buddy who i fought beside in many wars , was cool as our armies marched round the world together , was almost like playing a co-op game.

 

[vandyr]

I'll be your friend Snerk

 

[Guardian_PL]

Yeah, psychotic AI that get's angry at your warmongering the moment you've liberated them, which later turns to other AI who killed them in the first place in order to declare on you is not the Civ game I want to play.

 

[UWHabs]

Everyone complained in civ4 that most AI weren't out there to win the game. They'd back into a random diplo win every now and then, and would occasionally actually make a run at culture or space win, but they wouldn't really go for the win. I mean, they could be within 5% of getting a domination win, but won't invade a neighbour because they're friends.

Now, they actually will invade anyone if it's in their best interests (or if they think it's in their best interests). It's true, it does break some of the immersion aspects that you should have friends that you trust, but it avoids the cases like in civ 4 where you could have a standing army of 1 warrior per city as long as your only neighbour is at least pleased or friendly with you.

It'll take some getting used to, but my guess is once we are used to it, it'll be for the better, overall. City states will take the place of the civ4 opponents, where you'll have some that are your dearest and best friends and who will drop everything at a moment's notice for you, and the current opponents will be the scourges you have to strategically deal with, but always have to be worried that they'll stab you in the back anytime it makes sense to them.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Everyone complained in civ4 that most AI weren't out there to win the game. They'd back into a random diplo win every now and then, and would occasionally actually make a run at culture or space win, but they wouldn't really go for the win. I mean, they could be within 5% of getting a domination win, but won't invade a neighbour because they're friends.
.

You'd think there could be a happy medium, though.

 

[Danei]

Now, they actually will invade anyone if it's in their best interests (or if they think it's in their best interests). It's true, it does break some of the immersion aspects that you should have friends that you trust, but it avoids the cases like in civ 4 where you could have a standing army of 1 warrior per city as long as your only neighbour is at least pleased or friendly with you.

Yeah. I like the new way much more. I want civs to be friendly with me because it's beneficial for them, not because I'm a pretty cool lady. When I play Civ with my friends, I attack them when I think it's the best choice, and I work with them when I think I'll benefit. I want the AIs to be as much like that as possible.

 

[Clement]

A lot of people seem to share this view, but my view is completely the opposite. One of my least favorite things about Civ IV was the huge disparity between the way I was playing and the way the AIs were playing. It felt like I was the only one playing the game, and everyone else was having a roleplaying session.

Thing is, that "roleplaying" session has been in every single Civ game apart from the current one, "AI plays as human" is the new idea in the series, personally i think it's understandable if a long time fan of the series asks where it went.

It'll take some getting used to, but my guess is once we are used to it, it'll be for the better, overall.

I'm hoping i won't have to get used to it, it's a design decision i personally do not appreciate at all, even the early mods are pretty amazing and they are a good sign that future mods may well will bring back the "roleplay" feel.

City states will take the place of the civ4 opponents, where you'll have some that are your dearest and best friends and who will drop everything at a moment's notice for you, and the current opponents will be the scourges you have to strategically deal with, but always have to be worried that they'll stab you in the back anytime it makes sense to them.

They don't appeal to me either to be honest, apart from being very generic i feel they are a pretty poor substitute for the indepth diplomacy that features like vassalage used to offer.

On the whole i'm liking civ 5 more by the day, but it's mainly due to the mods.

 

[dexters]

VASSAL states were the furthest thing from indepth diplomacy, if anything they narrowed down the field too quickly.

A lot of the same complaints being said here are rehashed on this other thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394672

 

[Clement]

VASSAL states were the furthest thing from indepth diplomacy, if anything they narrowed down the field too quickly.

A lot of the same complaints being said here are rehashed on this other thread.

Well of course it's just my opinion, i don't expect anyone else to feel the same way, i see city states as a barrier to friendly diplomacy, their existence seems to me like a stumbling block to any long term friendliness with another AI leader as the benefits they offer are often a catalyst for even more war.

 

[Mazer Rackham]

Yeah, psychotic AI that get's angry at your warmongering the moment you've liberated them, which later turns to other AI who killed them in the first place in order to declare on you is not the Civ game I want to play.

Every time I have liberated an AI, they almost immediately start with the insults. Half the time I end up taking them over again to put us both out of our misery.

I would love to be able to form some long-lasting alliances, but it doesn't seem like the current AI behavior allows that. I'm all for the AI always competing for victory and an occasional backstabbing would be fine, but the way it is now is ridiculous. Maybe they have a "Raging AI" setting that they could keep for those who like the way it is now.