So we are back to gods and king?

[katfish]

See, that's exactly my point. I don't want to read a thread posted by someone who's familiar enough with the coding of the game to read the AI's diplomacy algorithms to understand what's going on in the game. I want to understand what's going on in the game by playing the game myself or by reading a thread posted by someone who's familiar with playing the game. In a game of Civ I don't want to beat algorithms or mechanics, I want to beat Monty, Lizzy and Cathy. And strangely enough even the Civ V lead designer Jon Shafer acknowledged this in his recent blog about Enemy at the Gates stating that even the best and most brilliant AI algorithm is pointless if the AI behavior does not make sense for the player... Dude...

Its funny how the guy says things about "human-like behavior" and "same thing players would do". And when you point out its not the case and Ai does its best to get labeled as insane, he says "you just don't understand its algorithms".
In fact, i think many of us do, and some us can easily abuse it. There are even working mods that fix it. Yet he keeps defending blemished product with vigor of a well paid PR manager.

 

[Arachnofiend]

I can actually understand everything the AI does in my games and can work with them accordingly.

The trick is to accept that the AI is playing a competitive video game, not taking on the role of the bad guys in a story.

 

[Callonia]

Sure, my last game, Assyria. Only neighbor was Shoshone. He forward settled two expansion cities towards me, and his capital was behind them. I couldn't go around because it was protected by a one-tile hills approach between mountain and sea on one side, and a CS he had allied on the other.

I couldn't cap a CS because that would be an immediate DoW by all Civs. So, I capped his three cities, because, well siege towers are a Classical Unit. You really need to use them before turn 100 or you're missing out on a powerful attack unit. Sure, they can support other units until t130 maybe, but they'll get owned fast because the AI targets them.

After capturing two cities, all civs denounced me, and after capturing his 3rd and capital, started DoWing me within a few turns. I couldn't defend my entire flank from multiple DoWs and retired.

Basically, warmongering prior to artillery is nerfed now. You get to capture 1-2 cities before you're a pariah. If you wait until later in the game when you've built up friendships and allowed diplomacy to create allies and enemies, you can DoW the enemies of your friends, or denounce and rely on your friends taking your side.

But in the early game? (IE prior to turn 100-120) Sides haven't been taken, friendships aren't strong enough, and the new patch warmonger penalty puts the whole world against you.

So you can capture 1, at most 2 cities. If they aren't highly valuable there's almost no point. Because you're going to lose friendship opportunities for doing it, even if you don't get denounced.

EDIT: Not to mention the +5% per city penalty, the puppet city penalty, the cost of annexing, etc.

It's far superior right now to build 4 cities than the build 2 and cap 2. So why not go Tradition/Liberty and peacefully tech to artillery? What's the *point* of early warmongering?? Other than, well, it's fun. ;-)

It's not profitable at the moment. Early warmongering is an investment of resources, just like focusing on growth or putting out cities. It needs to yield at least comparable benefits. And don't get me started on the Honor tree. If you don't think warmongering is nerfed, try Honor some time. Once upon a time, Honor held its own with Tradition and Liberty. Then they buffed city defense and nerfed the Honor policies. This latest patch is yet another blow.

Now, none of this applies on Emperor or below. The game is so ridiculously easy on those levels that virtually any strategy can succeed. But to win on Deity with early war is very tough, and this patch made it even harder. That's all I'm trying to say.

Oh Deity, that actually explains everything and why you're complaining. AI cheats on Deity. Worldwide denoucement is part of it.

I crushed Shaka early on and Shaka never got to dow on anyone else, His Impis got wiped out by my frigates and a lone machinegun, we traded ulundi for several turns. Celts joined in the war against shaka and took 3/4 of the cities from zulu while I got Shaka's capital + his 2nd bestest city, I think i came out ahead.

Only the gandhi denounced me for it, and Venice went guarded. Byzantines stay friends. Me and Shaka was in perma war against each other cuz he kept on trying to colonize my islands and I kept on sinking his fleets. Couldn't quite assault the cities with triremes and galeasses xD Had to wait til i got frigs.

Difficulty is king.

I denounced Gandhi in return and took a city from him and still no worldwide denoucement cuz me and byzantines been chilling with each other and Celts enjoyed the mutual struggle against zulus.

Main reason why I'm at war against india is because i suspect their lakes can be used as canal to the greater ocean, i'm in a massive inland ocean. So their denoucement was a good excuse for me to take the potential canal if I am right from my guesses on what i can see currently among the fog of war.

Deity is likely the reason why.

Diplomacy works very good on King diff. I could move up to emperor but research tech pace too fast and i'm too lazy to slow the pace down so eh eh. Kings for now xD

World's in industrial era atm, except for gandhi, he's in modern. Map was fairly difficult i had to do lot of work to get where i'm at. xD

 

[gps]

Its funny how the guy says things about "human-like behavior" and "same thing players would do". And when you point out its not the case and Ai does its best to get labeled as insane, he says "you just don't understand its algorithms".
In fact, i think many of us do, and some us can easily abuse it. There are even working mods that fix it. Yet he keeps defending blemished product with vigor of a well paid PR manager.

Fully agree.

The trick is to accept that the AI is playing a competitive video game, not taking on the role of the bad guys in a story.

Hate to repeat myself:

Verbal quote from Civ V manual page 3:

"Civilization V is the fifth version of the classic game first released in the early 1990s. It is the longest-lived and best world history computer simulation ever published, famous for its depth of play and uniquely addictive nature."

This is all about the AI taking on the role of a bad guy in a story. That's what the desingers explicitely state in the manual as their aim. This is one of the major reasons that kept me playing and buying Civ games for 20+ years. Fail here and you take away the major motivation for me to even play the game. I want the history simulator they advertised (and actually delivered in the first four iterations of the series). I want a game that feels like replaying real world history in a nutshell - and not like playing an arbitrary strategy game. Playing vs. AI that "knows" and behaves like it's playing a video game (for me at least) is highly immersion breaking and basically kills the intended purpose.
If that's the trick, to accept that the game fails at it's intended purpose to fully enjoy and appreciated it - well, great trick anyway...

 

[apocalypse105]

I can actually understand everything the AI does in my games and can work with them accordingly.

The trick is to accept that the AI is playing a competitive video game, not taking on the role of the bad guys in a story.

Then why add trade routes? World congress? Embargo's

 

[tommynt]

This is all about the AI taking on the role of a bad guy in a story. That's what the desingers explicitely state in the manual as their aim. This is one of the major reasons that kept me playing and buying Civ games for 20+ years. Fail here and you take away the major motivation for me to even play the game. I want the history simulator they advertised (and actually delivered in the first four iterations of the series). I want a game that feels like replaying real world history in a nutshell - and not like playing an arbitrary strategy game. Playing vs. AI that "knows" and behaves like it's playing a video game (for me at least) is highly immersion breaking and basically kills the intended purpose.
If that's the trick, to accept that the game fails at it's intended purpose to fully enjoy and appreciated it - well, great trick anyway...

where you see in manuell that ai is bad guy and player is the good guy???

the player is a random civ out of 8 imo and the ai should and (hopefully) does behave towards the player as to any other ai in the game.
If an ai wipes out another ai it gets warmonger penatly - so does the player.

If u want a replaying real world history you NEED an ai that plays to win - because exactlly that whats human nature.
Outdo other nations.

Real world is and was neither peaceful nor fair - so is civ.

 

[Theruss]

Verbal quote from Civ V manual page 3:

"Civilization V is the fifth version of the classic game first released in the early 1990s. It is the longest-lived and best world history computer simulation ever published, famous for its depth of play and uniquely addictive nature."

That's kinda funny actually. Never knew George Washington was born in 4000BC and still lives to this very day. The Civ games take a lot of things from world history, sure. But it is not a simulation at all, imo.

If you want to play a historical simulator, you ought to pick up a Paradox strategy game. And even those cannot claim to be a historical simulator due to the random elements needed for the game play.

 

[gps]

where you see in manuell that ai is bad guy and player is the good guy???

My focus was not on good vs. bad, my focus was on (hi)story. And here's the quote that clearly states the opponents are intended as world history leaders and antagonists to the player and not a simulated video game players.

"Welcome to Sid Meier’s Civilization V! In this game you take on the greatest leaders in world history in a battle of warfare, diplomacy, technology, culture and economics. There are many paths to choose from in Civ V: can you lead your people to a military, cultural, diplomatic or technological victory, or will you be crushed beneath your enemies’ chariot wheels, just another forgotten ruler of a vanquished people?"

the player is a random civ out of 8 imo and the ai should and (hopefully) does behave towards the player as to any other ai in the game.
If an ai wipes out another ai it gets warmonger penatly - so does the player.

Which is all totally irrelevent game mechanics, as long as the player (in his role as world history leader) cannot and does not give the same warmonger penalty. That's what this whole thread is about: complaints about a strange, artificial and silly warmonger game mechanic ruining what should be a real live related, rational diplomacy system.

If u want a replaying real world history you NEED an ai that plays to win - because exactlly that whats human nature.
Outdo other nations.

Yes, and it should do so based on proper and rational evaluation of the game situation and the history related game elements it has at its disposal - and not based on meta knowledge and surreal mechanics it should not have or know in its role as historic leader personality.

 

[njmfff]

Well, it's like having Constantinople and Istanbul in the same game, but meeh, who cares? It's gameplay that matters, logics-based-on-reality (and history in this case) don't matter that much.

you know, if we are truly going for historical simulator, they why are Aztecs able to build spaceship parts and Giant Death Robots in the first place?

 

[gps]

Well, it's like having Constantinople and Istanbul in the same game, but meeh, who cares? It's gameplay that matters, logics-based-on-reality (and history in this case) don't matter that much.

Great example you've chosen there: how many Alexandrias did Alexander found? How many Hamburgs, Richmonds or Birminghams are there? How many Nazareths or Bethlehems? How many Neustadts or Kirchbergs? The use of the same name for different cities is totally plausible and highly likely in human history...
Btw. in your case it's not even the same name. There's just one city called Constantinople and the other one is called Istanbu. It's two different cities with two different names.
And even if you value gameplay over logics based on reality and history: as many said before, warmonger penalty makes bad gameplay.

 

[Moriarte]

Which is all totally irrelevent game mechanics, as long as the player (in his role as world history leader) cannot and does not give the same warmonger penalty. That's what this whole thread is about: complaints about a strange, artificial and silly warmonger game mechanic ruining what should be a real live related, rational diplomacy system.

It's complaints about real life being real life. With last three modern american presidents bombing the living hell out of petty nations, while looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction, i have to say CIV 5 is quite realistic, real life related, rational.

It's okay to have real life countries declare war for reason less than "you are warmongering menace", so why should civ be different if, like you say, it represents, in part, a real world simulation?

 

[katfish]

It's complaints about real life being real life. With last three modern american presidents bombing the living hell out of petty nations, while looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction, i have to say CIV 5 is quite realistic, real life related, rational.

It's okay to have real life countries declare war for reason less than "you are warmongering menace", so why should civ be different if, like you say, it represents, in part, a real world simulation?

Now try imagining Mudslims making peace with Byzantium without capturing Constantinople to avoid world denouncing and DoWs.

 

[gps]

It's complaints about real life being real life. With last three modern american presidents bombing the living hell out of petty nations, while looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction, i have to say CIV 5 is quite realistic, real life related, rational.

Luckily in real life other nations don't just listen to denouncements and follow suite like dominos, but decide on their own accounts whether they want to join hostilities or not. Remember Gulf War II and the whole "hard evidence for poison gas barrels burried in the sand", "old Europe" and "freedom fries" affair? And I think that is the main complaint here...

 

[Myomoto]

I think that warmonger points should only be able to accumulate across two consecutive eras. So any earned Ancient Era warmonger score would be gone by the Medieval Era, but any from the Classical Era would be retained.

 

[Polisurgist]

Btw. in your case it's not even the same name. There's just one city called Constantinople and the other one is called Istanbu. It's two different cities with two different names.

You might need to brush up on the fundamental curriculum before continuing this line of discussion:

Link to video.

 

[njmfff]

Great example you've chosen there: how many Alexandrias did Alexander found? How many Hamburgs, Richmonds or Birminghams are there? How many Nazareths or Bethlehems? How many Neustadts or Kirchbergs? The use of the same name for different cities is totally plausible and highly likely in human history...
Btw. in your case it's not even the same name. There's just one city called Constantinople and the other one is called Istanbu. It's two different cities with two different names.
And even if you value gameplay over logics based on reality and history: as many said before, warmonger penalty makes bad gameplay.

Constantinople became Istanbul after the fell of Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and it remained Istanbul ever since (renamed and repopulated by Ottomans), yet in game, both empires are presented.

and yeah, warmonger penalty takes out fun of fighting with AI, and some games can become boring, no matter how good your game goes because all you do is just click "next turn". They should loosen up AI a bit, especially when you are attacked, and in retaliation you capture enemy city, but get "warmongering menace to the world" penalty? What?

So not only that we can't start a war without penalty, now we can't even capture a city without penalty? Why? And AI can? Again, Why?

In my Rome game today, I got attacked by Hiawatha and Attila (around turn 60-70). I capture Hiawatha's capital and he asked for peace. I accepted. Attila still fought a few more turns, then asked for straight peace. I accepted. I checked their diplo, and Hiawatha is Guarded. Ok fine, I took his capital. But there's also in red "They believe we are warmongering menace to the world". Huh?

I check out Attila, he thinks I am a warmonger, even if he attacked ME. I check out Ottomans and Egypt, they both think I am warmonger. What? Why? How?

I understand Hiawatha's guarded diplo, since I took his capital, but why he and rest think I am a warmonger, when I only defended and didn't start any wars? Didn't even complain when he dropped city right next to me, then ask me not to settle near him!?

Later on, Ghandi asks me to join him in a fight against Egypt, and I refused. Ten turns later, he attacks Ramses. Few turns later, Attila attacks me AGIAN, and few turns later, Ghandi tells me that my "warmongering is popular topic these days". huh!?

 

[kaspergm]

Constantinople became Istanbul after the fell of Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and it remained Istanbul ever since (renamed and repopulated by Ottomans), yet in game, both empires are presented.

and yeah, warmonger penalty takes out fun of fighting with AI, and some games can become boring, no matter how good your game goes because all you do is just click "next turn". They should loosen up AI a bit, especially when you are attacked, and in retaliation you capture enemy city, but get "warmongering menace to the world" penalty? What?

So not only that we can't start a war without penalty, now we can't even capture a city without penalty? Why? And AI can? Again, Why?

In my Rome game today, I got attacked by Hiawatha and Attila (around turn 60-70). I capture Hiawatha's capital and he asked for peace. I accepted. Attila still fought a few more turns, then asked for straight peace. I accepted. I checked their diplo, and Hiawatha is Guarded. Ok fine, I took his capital. But there's also in red "They believe we are warmongering menace to the world". Huh?

I check out Attila, he thinks I am a warmonger, even if he attacked ME. I check out Ottomans and Egypt, they both think I am warmonger. What? Why? How?

I understand Hiawatha's guarded diplo, since I took his capital, but why he and rest think I am a warmonger, when I only defended and didn't start any wars? Didn't even complain when he dropped city right next to me, then ask me not to settle near him!?

Later on, Ghandi asks me to join him in a fight against Egypt, and I refused. Ten turns later, he attacks Ramses. Few turns later, Attila attacks me AGIAN, and few turns later, Ghandi tells me that my "warmongering is popular topic these days". huh!?

All this comes down to the way Firaxis tweaked warmonger penalty a couple of patches back: They decreased the penalty for actually declaring war and increased the penalty for capturing cities. Hence, the fact that you captured Hiawathas city makes you a much worse person than the fact that he DoW'ed you. Imo. that is the completely wrong way to go, the change should be in the exact opposite direction, but clearly Firaxis don't agree with this, which is why game plays out often in absurd ways like you descripe.

 

[player1 fanatic]

I think the biggest issue with new system is that it penalizes early wars too much.

Like that early war was not already punishing enough, compared to peaceful early play.

In my Roman game, I took only last two Mongolian cities in classical era, and penalty I got I kept till the end of the game (my next war was not before atomic era), with two of the other civs that I started on same continent. Lucky, continent maps are much more forgiving, since only civs you know at time of conquest, will get to know about your warmongering.

I think biggest flaw in new warmonger mechanic is that it only counts cities, not actual population affected. You can get seriously high warmongering score just by clearing out 1-2 pop cities, to make room for your settlers.

I this my case, I took Mongol capital first, and warmonger penalty was not much. But after I cleared remaining 1pop city that was in the way, it became significant factor.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Hate to repeat myself:



This is all about the AI taking on the role of a bad guy in a story. That's what the desingers explicitely state in the manual as their aim. This is one of the major reasons that kept me playing and buying Civ games for 20+ years. Fail here and you take away the major motivation for me to even play the game. I want the history simulator they advertised (and actually delivered in the first four iterations of the series). I want a game that feels like replaying real world history in a nutshell - and not like playing an arbitrary strategy game. Playing vs. AI that "knows" and behaves like it's playing a video game (for me at least) is highly immersion breaking and basically kills the intended purpose.
If that's the trick, to accept that the game fails at it's intended purpose to fully enjoy and appreciated it - well, great trick anyway...

The marketing team and the game designers disagree on something! Isn't that shocking.

Civ V has only been getting more gamey with each expansion and patch so you can't really argue that the programmers didn't follow through with their intended design since they clearly have no intention of "fixing" it. If you want to play a history simulator go pick up a Paradox game; I don't play those because, though from what I've seen they appear to be well made and high quality, I have zero interest in playing a simulator because I have a very competitive mindset.

 

[gps]

Constantinople became Istanbul after the fell of Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and it remained Istanbul ever since (renamed and repopulated by Ottomans), yet in game, both empires are presented.

Oh my god, you guys seriously think I don't know that??? Please re-read my post and at least try to get the message...

The marketing team and the game designers disagree on something! Isn't that shocking.

No it's just some Civ V hardcore fans not agreeing with the marketing team and the game designers...
Watch the Civ V Gold Edition Behind-The-Scenes video, see the game designers talk about how important it was for them to create proper throne room environments so that players actually get the feeling of meeting important world history leaders. It's all there, you just have to try to see it...

(Btw. should anyone really be crazy enough to actually be interested: the secuence start's at 10:30 and at 11:50 Dorian Newcomb, veteran Civilization designer, says verbally: "The whole point of playing Civilization is to experience history.")