The most infuriating diplomacy fails in G&K

[Dogmouth]

Turn 1: Japan asks me for my help with Gems. Japan is a trusted friend (DOF) and I have an extra Gem, so I say "sure."

Turn 2: Japan denounces me.

Turn 3: Japan pulls off a coup in on of my CSs. Meanwhile, I'm still stuck in this stupid Gem deal, and I'm getting negative reps because "a friend denounced your civilization" (or whatever the actual language is).

Turns 4-8: Japan amasses troops on my border. I still can't get my gems back.

Turn 9: Japan DOWs me.

Now I understand that everything in diplomacy is about gamesmanship with this AI, but why can't I cancel this dumb "gift" until I get the DOW? Also, why does any other civ think that being denounced by a friend is terrible unless they're RP'ing rather then being strategic? They should know that friendships don't mean jack.

 

[Halcyan2]

I liked the idea of Permanent Alliances in Civ IV, even though I wasn't that impressed with the implementation. It was often more trouble than it was worth since you took on the other Civ's diplomatic penalties and some things (i.e. Great Person costs) could increase rather dramatically.

Some people liked (and some people disliked) how two AI's could do a Permanent Alliance, which could give you a run for the money in the end game.

There was another recent thread about Vassals and Colonies, and I definitely do *not* miss the Vassal system though!

 

[Halcyan2]

The most immersion-breaking things are relatively small details that could probably be simply fixed. My favorite is when I pop a goodie-hut and turn my opening warrior into a spearman. If I do this at a time when an AI has lost his opening warrior to barbarians or whatever, I'll sometimes have that AI as 'Afraid' of me and my might. This is the only time I actually laugh when playing the game. Afraid of me in turn 15? Because I own a single spearman? I think they should not even bother starting the diplomacy modifiers until turn 30 or 50 maybe (with the only exception being for major things... like DoW).

Ha ha. Well, maybe they *should* specially hardcode it so that if you are Attila and have a Battering Ram on Turn 15, everyone definitely *should* be AFRAID....

 

[Smokeybear]

The concept of "war" is tricky since it has changed over time.

In modern times, a war declaration is a big deal and it is unlikely to happen over a city state. Can you imagine the U.S. (or other country) actually declaring war on Russia after its aggression towards Chechnya or over China's treatment of Tibet? You might see plenty of denouncements, but outright war?

Tibet and Chechnya are not 'city state' equivalents. They are, at least within modern times, contiguous parts of existing states. Not that everyone agrees they should be, but that's another story. A good equivalent of a wholly independent and self-determining CiV-style city state, would be Kuwait... and we all know what happened when the modern-day Babylonians sent their tanks into that one

Me = Schwarzkopf, AI = Saddam Hussein. Nothing so tricky about it.

 

[whyidie]

Tibet and Chechnya are not 'city state' equivalents. They are, at least within modern times, contiguous parts of existing states. Not that everyone agrees they should be, but that's another story. A good equivalent of a wholly independent and self-determining CiV-style city state, would be Kuwait... and we all know what happened when the modern-day Babylonians sent their tanks into that one

Me = Schwarzkopf, AI = Saddam Hussein. Nothing so tricky about it.

Yep, that example proves the point as well. No one DOW'd the US over a city state squabble.

Good they pulled out in that first one, puppets can be tricky...

 

[ahawk]

Ha ha. Well, maybe they *should* specially hardcode it so that if you are Attila and have a Battering Ram on Turn 15, everyone definitely *should* be AFRAID....

Ah, nicely played. I have to agree with you, popping a Battering Ram from a goodie hut is one of those rare times where it could be the first 10 turns and the AI absolutely should be afraid.

 

[Harv72b]

I think the issue that most of us have with diplomacy in this game is that exists primarily to screw over the human player.

I understand that. The human has a sizable advantage over the AI on even the highest difficulty settings, as it is just not currently possible to program an AI which can adapt to changing situations as efficiently as a human can. The diplomacy evens that out a bit by having a decidedly anti-human tilt, effectively allowing the AI civs to gang up without forming an outright team in the game. Totally understandable as a game balancing ploy.

The problem is that it takes away from my enjoyment of the game. Here, let's run through a typical gameplay scenario:

-Set up the game, pick a primarily peaceful civ with the intention of playing a nice, relaxing culture or science game.
-Turn 15: meet my first neighbor. It's Japan.
-Turn 27: meet my second neighbor. It's the Aztecs.
-Turn 53: get DoW'd by both AIs. At this point it's obvious I'm not going to be able to play my intended game, leaving me with two options: quit & restart, or shift into defensemonger mode & play the rest of the game either fighting never-ending wars on my borders, or being universally hated by every other leader in the game for defeating Ida & Monty and "stealing" their lands.

Or, alternately:
-Start game as trade-based civ. Luck into peaceful neighbors, reign in my expansion so as not to upset anyone, and play all the way through the mid-game holding friendly relations with every other leader in the game. Sign DoFs, RAs, trade/sell luxuries, and get the game I was looking for. Until...
-Turn 282: Two turns after re-upping my long-standing DoF with the Netherlands, for no apparent reason whatsoever Willy decides to denounce Arabia and Ethiopia (who had been mutual friends).
-Turn 283: Arabia and Ethiopia issue denunciations of the Netherlands & warn me about getting too close to them. I apologize.
-Turn 284: Arabia and Ethiopia denounce me.
-Turn 285: The Netherlands denounces me.

Pick your flavor--the end result is that I end up playing the same freaking game every single time--build 2-4 cities, get DoW'd by 2-3 AIs, crush the invading armies, accept peace with 2, take the third down to one city, get denounced by everyone else for being a warmonger/expanding too rapidly/encroaching their borders/owning wonders (via conquest) which they coveted. If I manage to play through an entire game without being forced to conquer at least a quarter of the other civs, it's either an accident or I've dropped down to settler so I can actually enjoy the game without having to worry about a diplomacy system that's stacked against me and (often) follows no rational pattern whatsoever. And it's even worse when I have to sit there watching an AI calmly march its entire army up to my borders and encircle my frontier cities, while my only options are to DoW & suffer massive diplo hits with the entire world or sit around & wait for the inevitable attack.

This doesn't seem like such a difficult issue to fix--just weight past positive modifiers more heavily than recent negative ones! Could an adept player use that system to their advantage by befriending everyone & then slowly picking off the AIs one by one? Absolutely, but the current system doesn't really prevent that from happening anyway (in fact, it probably makes it easier to accomplish by speeding things up). At least with that fix, you don't have to worry so much about the long-standing friendships which you've worked for hundreds of turns to cultivate being done in by one leader who all of a sudden goes all schizo on you.

Or heck, how about this for an addition: offer a game option which turns war off.

"Quick Reply" indeed.

 

[whyidie]

I think the issue that most of us have with diplomacy in this game is that exists primarily to screw over the human player.

I understand that. The human has a sizable advantage over the AI on even the highest difficulty settings, as it is just not currently possible to program an AI which can adapt to changing situations as efficiently as a human can. The diplomacy evens that out a bit by having a decidedly anti-human tilt, effectively allowing the AI civs to gang up without forming an outright team in the game. Totally understandable as a game balancing ploy.

The problem is that it takes away from my enjoyment of the game. Here, let's run through a typical gameplay scenario:

-Set up the game, pick a primarily peaceful civ with the intention of playing a nice, relaxing culture or science game.
-Turn 15: meet my first neighbor. It's Japan.
-Turn 27: meet my second neighbor. It's the Aztecs.
-Turn 53: get DoW'd by both AIs. At this point it's obvious I'm not going to be able to play my intended game, leaving me with two options: quit & restart, or shift into defensemonger mode & play the rest of the game either fighting never-ending wars on my borders, or being universally hated by every other leader in the game for defeating Ida & Monty and "stealing" their lands.

Or, alternately:
-Start game as trade-based civ. Luck into peaceful neighbors, reign in my expansion so as not to upset anyone, and play all the way through the mid-game holding friendly relations with every other leader in the game. Sign DoFs, RAs, trade/sell luxuries, and get the game I was looking for. Until...
-Turn 282: Two turns after re-upping my long-standing DoF with the Netherlands, for no apparent reason whatsoever Willy decides to denounce Arabia and Ethiopia (who had been mutual friends).
-Turn 283: Arabia and Ethiopia issue denunciations of the Netherlands & warn me about getting too close to them. I apologize.
-Turn 284: Arabia and Ethiopia denounce me.
-Turn 285: The Netherlands denounces me.

Pick your flavor--the end result is that I end up playing the same freaking game every single time--build 2-4 cities, get DoW'd by 2-3 AIs, crush the invading armies, accept peace with 2, take the third down to one city, get denounced by everyone else for being a warmonger/expanding too rapidly/encroaching their borders/owning wonders (via conquest) which they coveted. If I manage to play through an entire game without being forced to conquer at least a quarter of the other civs, it's either an accident or I've dropped down to settler so I can actually enjoy the game without having to worry about a diplomacy system that's stacked against me and (often) follows no rational pattern whatsoever. And it's even worse when I have to sit there watching an AI calmly march its entire army up to my borders and encircle my frontier cities, while my only options are to DoW & suffer massive diplo hits with the entire world or sit around & wait for the inevitable attack.

This doesn't seem like such a difficult issue to fix--just weight past positive modifiers more heavily than recent negative ones! Could an adept player use that system to their advantage by befriending everyone & then slowly picking off the AIs one by one? Absolutely, but the current system doesn't really prevent that from happening anyway (in fact, it probably makes it easier to accomplish by speeding things up). At least with that fix, you don't have to worry so much about the long-standing friendships which you've worked for hundreds of turns to cultivate being done in by one leader who all of a sudden goes all schizo on you.

Or heck, how about this for an addition: offer a game option which turns war off.

"Quick Reply" indeed.

I keep trying to play isolated games but keep getting pulled in. The most recent game I'm playing I'm changing my approach, won't be conquering any cities. Granted I've rolled a great map, completely isolated from the other Civs with easily defensible choke points. Throw in that I'm Siam with Faith and Culture city states and its proving to be a roll that is quite "unfair" to the AI.

Even then I've had three Civs DOW me, but they have offered reasonable peace terms once I repel the invasion.

Still not the most popular guy on the block though. Best relationship I have is neutral. This is largely due to DOF with three Civs that were waging war with each other. I friended them, then refused open borders and refused to join their wars. They ended up bringing it to me. Add in a significant lead in science, culture, and wonders as well as a weak military and I'm an easy target. Largely due to location, this is the longest I've been able to sustain such a mix without having to go on the offensive.

So this game is likely a lost cause in terms of a peaceful game, but I think I can at least avoid going on the offensive due to choice location.

 

[Halcyan2]

I think the issue that most of us have with diplomacy in this game is that exists primarily to screw over the human player.

I understand that. The human has a sizable advantage over the AI on even the highest difficulty settings, as it is just not currently possible to program an AI which can adapt to changing situations as efficiently as a human can. The diplomacy evens that out a bit by having a decidedly anti-human tilt, effectively allowing the AI civs to gang up without forming an outright team in the game. Totally understandable as a game balancing ploy.

I don't feel that the human player is getting screwed over by the AI diplomacy.

Since the AI's largely treat each other the same way and (as you pointed out) the human has a sizeable advantage over the AI, the humans tend to fare the best overall. (Similarly, Raging Barbarians can sometimes hurt you, but the human player fares far better than the AI's).

I see the AI's backstab each other (including civs they have DoF's with) far more than they backstab me. I see AI's denouncing each other far more than they are denouncing me. While I do occasionally get declared against, the AI's squabble amongst themselves far more often.

The problem is that it takes away from my enjoyment of the game. Here, let's run through a typical gameplay scenario:

-Set up the game, pick a primarily peaceful civ with the intention of playing a nice, relaxing culture or science game.
-Turn 15: meet my first neighbor. It's Japan.
-Turn 27: meet my second neighbor. It's the Aztecs.
-Turn 53: get DoW'd by both AIs. At this point it's obvious I'm not going to be able to play my intended game, leaving me with two options: quit & restart, or shift into defensemonger mode & play the rest of the game either fighting never-ending wars on my borders, or being universally hated by every other leader in the game for defeating Ida & Monty and "stealing" their lands.

In the recent GOTM 41, you do start next to a psychopathic, bellicose Augustus Caesar. But he's not just picking on you - in fact, he tends to attack Carthage even before sending his forces your way. GOTM 39 had psychopathic Monty, who was just as willing to attack Washington as you.

In fact, if you take the time to read the Messages Replay after you finish a game, you can see what happened between civs even before you met them. In Continents style games, I find that the AI's on the other continent end up in far bloodier wars than anything my neighbors did against me....

Or, alternately:
-Start game as trade-based civ. Luck into peaceful neighbors, reign in my expansion so as not to upset anyone, and play all the way through the mid-game holding friendly relations with every other leader in the game. Sign DoFs, RAs, trade/sell luxuries, and get the game I was looking for. Until...
-Turn 282: Two turns after re-upping my long-standing DoF with the Netherlands, for no apparent reason whatsoever Willy decides to denounce Arabia and Ethiopia (who had been mutual friends).
-Turn 283: Arabia and Ethiopia issue denunciations of the Netherlands & warn me about getting too close to them. I apologize.
-Turn 284: Arabia and Ethiopia denounce me.
-Turn 285: The Netherlands denounces me.

What sort of diplomatic modifiers did you have?

I've had plenty of games where I have maintained friendships with AI's who hate each other's guts. I just have to make sure I stack enough positive modifiers to compensate. The moment they started denouncing each other, it would have been prudent to make sure you have enough positives to stay out of it (easy solution of gifting them a luxury or some gold).

Pick your flavor--the end result is that I end up playing the same freaking game every single time--build 2-4 cities, get DoW'd by 2-3 AIs, crush the invading armies, accept peace with 2, take the third down to one city, get denounced by everyone else for being a warmonger/expanding too rapidly/encroaching their borders/owning wonders (via conquest) which they coveted. If I manage to play through an entire game without being forced to conquer at least a quarter of the other civs, it's either an accident or I've dropped down to settler so I can actually enjoy the game without having to worry about a diplomacy system that's stacked against me and (often) follows no rational pattern whatsoever. And it's even worse when I have to sit there watching an AI calmly march its entire army up to my borders and encircle my frontier cities, while my only options are to DoW & suffer massive diplo hits with the entire world or sit around & wait for the inevitable attack.

I've finished plenty of games without ever being in a war. In GOTM 40, I was Friends with all the other nine civs, no one ever DoW'ed me even though I only had *four* (4!) military units the whole game (when I won with a Science victory).

Sometimes I do end up with one or two aggressive neighbors who I have to put down, but I can still manage good relations with the rest of the AI's. In GOTM 41, I pretty much wiped out Rome, but was Friends with the remaining 6 other Civs.

The human player can maintain far more Declarations of Friendship than an AI player could even dream of doing.

Some additional factors that affect things:

- Map size and # of civs. Crowded maps lead to more conflict.

- Map type. What are you playing? Pangaea tends to lead towards more conflict as opposed to Archipelago or Small Islands.

- How often do you bribe the AI's to war against each other? I do it in just about every game (unless the AI's are doing a good enough job warring each other without my encouragement). I find it can help tremendously in getting the AI's to *not* war against you.

 

[Smokeybear]

Yep, that example proves the point as well. No one DOW'd the US over a city state squabble.

Good they pulled out in that first one, puppets can be tricky...

It only proves that most real life countries aren't utterly stupid, while CiV AI's are.

 

[Lakissov]

The moment they started denouncing each other, it would have been prudent to make sure you have enough positives to stay out of it (easy solution of gifting them a luxury or some gold).

That's an interesting idea, never actually tried this. Will try next time. Usually, I simply choose the side, and denounce the guys who had been denounced by the side I chose. This helps to cement friendship quite a lot.

- How often do you bribe the AI's to war against each other? I do it in just about every game (unless the AI's are doing a good enough job warring each other without my encouragement). I find it can help tremendously in getting the AI's to *not* war against you.

And this is a very useful tip for all the peaceful players getting in trouble over diplomacy "fails".

 

[Harv72b]

I don't feel that the human player is getting screwed over by the AI diplomacy.

Since the AI's largely treat each other the same way and (as you pointed out) the human has a sizeable advantage over the AI, the humans tend to fare the best overall. (Similarly, Raging Barbarians can sometimes hurt you, but the human player fares far better than the AI's).

I see the AI's backstab each other (including civs they have DoF's with) far more than they backstab me. I see AI's denouncing each other far more than they are denouncing me. While I do occasionally get declared against, the AI's squabble amongst themselves far more often.

The difference here is that the AIs by definition play the same game every time (unless you have random personalities enabled). The AI doesn't get put off & want to quit the game when they get randomly backstabbed by another AI, and that then snowballs into them becoming World Pariah #1. The AI isn't worried about its immersion factor in the game.

Once I learned not to puppet city states, even when they're allied with an AI that DoWs me, and not to completely wipe out AI civs no matter how many times they declare or otherwise harass me, my most common negative modifier became "feels you are building cities too rapidly". This often from founding a whopping five cities by 500 AD, on large maps, or sometimes even fewer than five. Granted, it's usually easy enough to work around a single negative modifier, but then all it takes is some other random thing to click in the AI's characteristics before I'm riding the bus to Denouncedville.

In the recent GOTM 41, you do start next to a psychopathic, bellicose Augustus Caesar. But he's not just picking on you - in fact, he tends to attack Carthage even before sending his forces your way. GOTM 39 had psychopathic Monty, who was just as willing to attack Washington as you.

In fact, if you take the time to read the Messages Replay after you finish a game, you can see what happened between civs even before you met them. In Continents style games, I find that the AI's on the other continent end up in far bloodier wars than anything my neighbors did against me....

Never played a GOTM, and TBH never even heard of the concept until your post. The examples I provided weren't from specific games, but were made-up on the spur of the moment to exemplify what happens all too often during games. I've also never dug through the Messages Replay after a game, so I will try that next time I finish one.

But again, I'm not really crying that it only happens to poor little me, I'm pointing out that it happens almost with frightening regularity almost regardless of what the player does in the game. Expand outward & neighboring civs dislike you because you're expanding too fast and/or they covet your lands. Don't expand outward & neighboring civs view you as a weak candidate for conquering, DoW, and then you end up "expanding" in the form of puppet cities. It's extremely frustrating for players who want the challenge of competing against the AI on more difficult levels, but who don't necessarily want to spend the entire game fighting wars.

I've had plenty of games where I have maintained friendships with AI's who hate each other's guts. I just have to make sure I stack enough positive modifiers to compensate. The moment they started denouncing each other, it would have been prudent to make sure you have enough positives to stay out of it (easy solution of gifting them a luxury or some gold).

You (or someone) need to put out a detailed guide on diplo relations with the AI, then (or point me to it if it already exists).

Gifting a luxury or gold isn't always possible when you're playing the game to the hilt, selling/trading off whatever spare luxuries you have & spending your money on units/buildings as soon as you get it. By the late game sure, I usually have more than enough money or happiness to spare, but by the late game I also have a strong enough military that I rarely get DoW'd anyway (and hardly have to react when I do).

- Map size and # of civs. Crowded maps lead to more conflict.

- Map type. What are you playing? Pangaea tends to lead towards more conflict as opposed to Archipelago or Small Islands.

- How often do you bribe the AI's to war against each other? I do it in just about every game (unless the AI's are doing a good enough job warring each other without my encouragement). I find it can help tremendously in getting the AI's to *not* war against you.

I very rarely play on Pangaea maps; when I'm looking to avoid early conflict I'll usually go with Large Islands, otherwise Small Continents or Continents (or an Earth map mod). Every so often I'll play a duel map with 9 AI opponents just for kicks, but that's on occasions when I'm looking to spend the whole game fighting.

Your last point is one I'd never thought of doing, and which I will try to integrate into my games in the future.

Also, please don't view this reply as simply being argumentative or unappreciative of your response--you provided a detailed, well-thought out, and extremely helpful counter to my OP which I appreciate greatly (and which I'm sure has been helpful to numerous lurkers as well). So, while you didn't wholly change my mind about the diplo system or it's (alleged) failings, thanks regardless.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I would like to summarize my beefs with diplomacy in a list so that others can pick it apart without having to read more of my massive posts.

* The non-combatant AIs will denounce you for winning a war that was declared on you, even if you were on good terms with the non-combatants

* Hidden modifiers make it difficult at times to play an effective diplomacy strategy. When you don't know what's irking someone, you can't change your strategy.

* The diplomacy system does not always work as intended (see my LOL WUT post on page four of this thread for a great example)

* There are many more negative modifiers than positive ones and the negative modifiers also carry significantly more weight than the positive ones

* AIs fail to take into account your long term relationships. If you have spent an entire game propping up an AI and defending it while also gifting it everything extra you have, that should count for something. So when I take land from another AI that was warring on a friendly AI, I shouldn't be denounced as a warmonger or for expanding too much by the AI I was defending (this happens even when land you take isn't adjacent or even on the same continent to your ally).

* It takes way too long (or is downright impossible) to rebuild good relationships that went sour by mishap

* You don't have the option to tell the AI to move it's troops from your border or DoW, you also can't tell the AI to stop proselytizing.

sooo....this turned into a big post, sorry bout that.

 

[n00bxqb]

I was getting this cycle all night long last night ...

First turn: AI asks to accept embassy
Second turn: AI asks to accept open borders
Third turn: AI makes declaration of friendship
Fourth turn: AI denounces me

Nearly every leader in the game was doing this to me last night in the same fashion.

 

[ahawk]

I was getting this cycle all night long last night ...

First turn: AI asks to accept embassy
Second turn: AI asks to accept open borders
Third turn: AI makes declaration of friendship
Fourth turn: AI denounces me

Nearly every leader in the game was doing this to me last night in the same fashion.

I've seen this more lately, too. I play on small maps (6 civs) because I don't want long turn-end delays, and lately I'll have multiple civs do this to me (usually 2-3) all in a short span. It used to happen when I played vanilla at higher levels like Emperor and Immortal (usually as a prelude to a mass-DoW as I started to pull ahead). But lately, I've been playing at Prince to mess around with new strategies in G&K's, and now I see it even at Prince!

 

[GhostSalsa]

Third turn: AI makes declaration of friendship
Fourth turn: AI denounces me

Weird -- but, again, sometimes Declarations of Friendship are the diplomacy problem. I hope you aren't auto-accepting every one that's offered. If the first one you accepted was from bipolar King Kamhy, this kind of thing can happen.

(Kamhy makes lasting alliances hard because he gathers a lot of friends and then randomly breaks up the group with denouncements.)

 

[whyidie]

I would like to summarize my beefs with diplomacy in a list so that others can pick it apart without having to read more of my massive posts.

* The non-combatant AIs will denounce you for winning a war that was declared on you, even if you were on good terms with the non-combatants

* Hidden modifiers make it difficult at times to play an effective diplomacy strategy. When you don't know what's irking someone, you can't change your strategy.

* The diplomacy system does not always work as intended (see my LOL WUT post on page four of this thread for a great example)

* There are many more negative modifiers than positive ones and the negative modifiers also carry significantly more weight than the positive ones

* AIs fail to take into account your long term relationships. If you have spent an entire game propping up an AI and defending it while also gifting it everything extra you have, that should count for something. So when I take land from another AI that was warring on a friendly AI, I shouldn't be denounced as a warmonger or for expanding too much by the AI I was defending (this happens even when land you take isn't adjacent or even on the same continent to your ally).

* It takes way too long (or is downright impossible) to rebuild good relationships that went sour by mishap

* You don't have the option to tell the AI to move it's troops from your border or DoW, you also can't tell the AI to stop proselytizing.

sooo....this turned into a big post, sorry bout that.

I haven't yet mastered the diplomacy bit as well as Halcyan2, but I rationalize a lot of the AI's movements in a similar fashion.

In terms of areas I'm on the same page as you, it is more effort to build lasting alliances in this iteration. Because there is no shared victory, things do get testy in my games. I've only maintained one "alliance" the whole game (one I lost), but I thinks its due more to a lack of awareness on my part than a fundamental flaw with the AI

I like the "hidden" variable bit. If I put the pieces together and wrap in in nice real world examples (as Halcyan2 does) I get more enjoyment out of it. If the mechanics of the system were completely visible it would take the puzzling and RPG element out of it for me. My fear is if they reveal too much, it becomes color by numbers.

 

[OmniPotent42]

I haven't yet mastered the diplomacy bit as well as Halcyan2, but I rationalize a lot of the AI's movements in a similar fashion.

In terms of areas I'm on the same page as you, it is more effort to build lasting alliances in this iteration. Because there is no shared victory, things do get testy in my games. I've only maintained one "alliance" the whole game (one I lost), but I thinks its due more to a lack of awareness on my part than a fundamental flaw with the AI

I like the "hidden" variable bit. If I put the pieces together and wrap in in nice real world examples (as Halcyan2 does) I get more enjoyment out of it. If the mechanics of the system were completely visible it would take the puzzling and RPG element out of it for me. My fear is if they reveal too much, it becomes color by numbers.

I think if hidden variables are to exist there needs to be at least an equal amount of positive and negative modifiers. Then they could hide positive ones, too.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I haven't yet mastered the diplomacy bit as well as Halcyan2, but I rationalize a lot of the AI's movements in a similar fashion.

In terms of areas I'm on the same page as you, it is more effort to build lasting alliances in this iteration. Because there is no shared victory, things do get testy in my games. I've only maintained one "alliance" the whole game (one I lost), but I thinks its due more to a lack of awareness on my part than a fundamental flaw with the AI

I like the "hidden" variable bit. If I put the pieces together and wrap in in nice real world examples (as Halcyan2 does) I get more enjoyment out of it. If the mechanics of the system were completely visible it would take the puzzling and RPG element out of it for me. My fear is if they reveal too much, it becomes color by numbers.

(referencing what I bolded) Apparently, if you play a team game with the AI on your team, they will end up dictating war and peace with other AI's. You don't control things as you did in CIV, which from what I've read is a nightmare. Plus, the AI teammates will hate you for all the typical reasons and trade poorly with you - even though you are on the same team.

Also, I've tried to explain that I see back stabbing as backstabbing. Sometimes it's just a random thing that happens for no reason and I'm fine with it. I'd just like to be able to keep my alliances together, especially when I'm putting a lot of effort into doing so.

But you guys have merits, there might be certain things that should be hidden from you. But there is also the deceptive traits of the AI's and I'm fine with that too...which again isn't necessarily the same thing as hidden modifiers.

 

[whyidie]

(referencing what I bolded) Apparently, if you play a team game with the AI on your team, they will end up dictating war and peace with other AI's. You don't control things as you did in CIV, which from what I've read is a nightmare. Plus, the AI teammates will hate you for all the typical reasons and trade poorly with you - even though you are on the same team.

Also, I've tried to explain that I see back stabbing as backstabbing. Sometimes it's just a random thing that happens for no reason and I'm fine with it. I'd just like to be able to keep my alliances together, especially when I'm putting a lot of effort into doing so.

But you guys have merits, there might be certain things that should be hidden from you. But there is also the deceptive traits of the AI's and I'm fine with that too...which again isn't necessarily the same thing as hidden modifiers.

Just read that thread and got to say I'm pretty disappointed with the implementation. Thats a type of play I get a lot of enjoyment out of and it stinks to hear that the diplomacy is such that it breaks the immersion of working together with the AI. Really hope that can be modded or some of the diplomacy gurus can figure out how to deal with the AI.