So we are back to gods and king?

[apocalypse105]

I was playing brave new world with the new fall patch and I laughed hard


First game I played venice on a continents map and started next to atilla and spain on the other side of the continent their is byzantium and north of spain is pacotello.

this is what happened :

Spain takes 3 cities of pacotello and whipes him of the face of the planet.

byzantium drops a city next in the middle of the huns and me the huns ask me to join a war against byzantium I say yes and take the city byzantium settle near me(this was byzantium last city i killed her off)

The huns take 2 cities of byzantium their capital and a other one.

Spain denounces me for beeing a warmonger and af ew turns later i get a double dow from the huns and spain thanxs

Really spain takes 3 cities whipes someone out and calls me a warmonger?


guess we are back at gods and king? Where the AI is hyper agressive and kills eachother off and calls you a warmonger?

trade routes i am not going to bother

 

[Larsenex]

This ^^

 

[Callonia]

Hey, Pacal died because that noob didn't build a army. he deserved to get his arse kicked by Isabella, and Isabella is butthurt over losing to you in a war.

But it looks like you're having fun xD I even had a good laugh reading your post.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Sounds like the AI's are playing to their flavors. Look at the numbers for Izzy and that is exactly what she should be doing.

 

[apocalypse105]

It seems domination victory is just impossible they really should decrease warmonger penalties because this is just ridicoulous

olso lizzy has 6 warmonger hate like most of the leaders funny thing is she is warmongering her self.

At least before the patch it make sence warmongers are agressive and tolorate warmongers peacefull civs hate warmongers and don't declare war a lot.

 

[Ninakoru]

Yeah, the new warmonger ssytem had a great idea: penalyse on city acquisition, but the execution is poor. Take the last city of any civ or a CS and your diplo relations are doomed to no end.

 

[apocalypse105]

Yeah, the new warmonger ssytem had a great idea: penalyse on city acquisition, but the execution is poor. Take the last city of any civ or a CS and your diplo relations are doomed to no end.

Exactly the warmonger penalty is allready hard enough the whiping out penalty is so hard you might as well just start a new game because everyone will hate you So why bother doing it?

Olso the penalty really doens't work on standard or larger maps

on small maps it actualy works but thats it

 

[Callonia]

I wish there's a peacemonger penalty so that the warmonger will hate you for loving peace and attempt to annex you because you love peace. Denounce something like he's a peaceloving menace of the world !

 

[Ninakoru]

I wish there's a peacemonger penalty so that the warmonger will hate you for loving peace and attempt to annex you because you love peace. Denounce something like he's a peaceloving menace of the world !

Hehehe, you are contrary to Firaxis beliefs! blame on you!!

 

[Polisurgist]

First game I played venice on a continents map...
...
...trade routes i am not going to bother

'Nuff said.

 

[PaleJackal]

So, does the Fall patch increase warring? Because in the last few (multiplayer) pre-patch games I played on Emperor, it seems like there wasn't that much war. Does the Fall patch help? Would going from Emperor to Immortal help?

Game 1: I got DoW'd by Japan, then later DoW'd by Brazil and England in unison. (By Japan because I expanded right next to his borders, the others because of my religion spread.)
Game 2: I got DoW'd by Spain and Portugal. (Maybe because I wiped out two civs early in the game.)
Game 3: No DoWs for me, another player got DoW'd by France.

I'm not sure if a 3rd human player even got DoW'd at all!

All in all, the AI didn't seem that aggressive. I'm not even sure if any AIs declared war on each other.

 

[Ninakoru]

Player recently an Emperor game with Japan, it was a war fest. Most of the time several wars, like old G&K times.

AI Civs: America, China, Inca, Ottomans, Austria, Shongai (gone for tall science vic uh), Greece, Aztecs, Venice.

 

[njmfff]

Really spain takes 3 cities whipes someone out and calls me a warmonger?

guess we are back at gods and king? Where the AI is hyper agressive and kills eachother off and calls you a warmonger?

Siam, every single time. Takes out half the civs, attacks left and right, but nope, I start one war and he hates me for the rest of the game.

I especially love when Huns or Mongols think I am a warmonger, with Huns knocking out half the civs and Mongols knocking out half CS.

Also, don't you love when AI plant 20 cities, but hates you for expending too fast when you drop your fourth city?

 

[rodrigoq]

Umm.. if yer going for domination victory, expect to be hated by everyone anyway.. less hurt feelings in the end.

 

[Babri]

Taking the last city of a civ (thus wiping it off the game) is a HUGE crime in ciV world. Try not to do it unless you are going for domination.

In my last game as Germany, Rome DoWed me & got defeated. Later on I DoWed them & wiped them off the map by capturing Rome. Everybody started hating me but I didn't cared about that. I also captured Washington's New York some time later.

Then I focused on science & production. Eventually France forgave my war crimes. I got my Panzers + lightning warfare. I steam rolled all capitals except Paris. Then I back-stabbed France & won.

This is how ciV is supposed to work. Don't expect AI to always play by the rules. And also keep in mind that this is what happens in real world. For example in the past few decades US has been declaring wars left & right and yet calls other nations as warmongering menace to the world. Basically if you think a civ is growing too powerful & might become a threat for you later on, you'll try to take them down ASAP. That may result in making silly excuses for you declaring war on them.

 

[Quineloe]

fairly simple imo, if an AIs warmonger score is higher than the players, the AI shouldn't receive any negative diplomacy points towards that player from the players warmonger score.

 

[Walter R]

I wish there's a peacemonger penalty so that the warmonger will hate you for loving peace and attempt to annex you because you love peace. Denounce something like he's a peaceloving menace of the world !

Love this idea!

...but surely after an AI Civ gets really 'annoyed' with your peace-loving ways they will DOP, move any units away from your territory, attempt to give you some of their cities and force you to accept favourable RAs etc. As in:

"I see you have NO units near my borders"
<That's right and I'm not feeling aggressive>
"That's it, your peace-loving ways leave me no choice!"

 

[phillipwyllie]

....Take the last city of any civ or a CS and your diplo relations are doomed to no end....

Not necessarily true. In my previous game everybody hated Shaka, we all go to war and he is left with only 1 city. Several years later I'm asked to join in against Shaka again but I decline as he has 1 city. I say to hell with it and take his last city any way. As a result I had major warmongering penalties with all civs but none were hostile(all went from friendly to neutral), I wasn't near the top of the pointiest sticks table and no nukes. Several more years pass and some of these neutrals even asked for a DOF(still stayed at neutral tho).

 

[Polisurgist]

fairly simple imo, if an AIs warmonger score is higher than the players, the AI shouldn't receive any negative diplomacy points towards that player from the players warmonger score.

Just like how a human player, if they've been engaging in a lot of wars, will completely ignore that there's an AI-controlled opponent gobbling up the other side of the map, right?

 

[Strategist83]

The diplomacy of Civ V is a joke and the Fall Patch has unfortunately proven that Firaxis does not understand this and will not be changing what is a horrendous model to the core.

Diplomacy should never have revolved primarily around who is a warmonger or not the way it does now. There is no basis for this in terms of realism; there is no basis for it in terms of gameplay. It is an unfun mess that leaves the player seeking for ways to work around this artificial obstacle of being branded a warmonger rather than playing the game (avoiding conquering a civ's last city, anyone?). World affairs never were dictated by pointing fingers at 'warmongering menaces to the world'. Did Rome attack and destroy Carthage because Carthage was a dirty warmonger? They did it to secure their own interests in the Mediterranean - because Carthage was a competitor, not because Carthage was OMG BAD GUYZ. Same can be said of virtually every conflict there's ever been.

In Civ V, diplomacy is taken to finger-pointing kindergarten level. Practically the only thing that really matters diplomatically is whether you conquered some random city or not, in case of which you'll be hated for it by every nation on the globe, even if it happened hundreds or thousands of years ago, and regardless of if you had otherwise good relations. It is, excuse me, idiotic. The needs and current statuses of nations take a second priority to resenting some unfortunate civilization for what happened hundreds of years/turns ago (while at the same time being perfectly fine with seeing some other civ that could threaten their very existence running away with the game). If the real world worked like Civ V's, we'd still be bombing or at least 'denouncing' Germany.

They could have gone with a sane, adult model like the one used in the Europa Universalis series, which manages to feel both realistic and relevant. Instead, they've perpetuated the "warmongering menace to the world!!!!111" again, the Fall Patch once again shaving off just a tiny layer of the worst ramifications of a broken diplomacy model when a total rework was required in the first place.

There's my thoughts on Civ V's diplomacy, the single weakest aspect of the game.