The reason why you get denounced after liberating

[TheMeInTeam]

@TheMeInTeam

You've made incredibly valid points. I actually have to say that I change my position on this. Well put, man. It does cheapen the experience when the AI doesn't try to win. The only thing I have to disagree with is this one:



There really aren't many options for actual diplomacy building in this game. The only options we have to actively take part in positive diplomacy is DoF and accepting requests for gifts. Almost all positive diplomatic modifiers stem from DoF.

When I said it was "meaningless by design", this is what I was talking about. The game designers made it so that diplo isn't very meaningful...both in setting the goals of the game and in setting up the trade system. Aa it stands a DoF is, at best, an agreement to leave each other alone for now. It reminds me very much of NAP (non aggression pacts) in multiplayer games; there's no hard rule that you can't break them, but it is extremely frowned upon. That analogy is strengthened even further by the massive diplo penalty you take for DoW or denouncing someone with whom you have a DoF.

Trades fundamentally create blocs too though, because resources are finite. Unfortunately RA are too good so everyone spams them.

Although temp diplo is required for a game where you have only 1 winner, that does not mean the system itself can't be deep. Consider some possibilities:

1. You get significant RA bonuses from signing them repeatedly with the same civ, and/or signing them with DoF allies (though I hate to do ANYTHING that powers up the most overpowered mechanic).
2. Trade gives better returns over time, for both sides (such that it isn't 0 sum, but you actually wind up with bonuses for trading at all, but only when cultivated)
3. Trading with enemies is frowned upon or somehow hampers trade returns directly.

I'm not saying these things specifically need be implemented; the point is to change the model such that players have more incentive and or choice when it comes to diplomacy. Even if the model is to be temporary, the developers have a choice as to how much they want to emphasize the development of temporary alliances (and how much pressure they want to put on players when they need to make the key backstab, if such becomes required).

IMO, the biggest thing lacking on the diplo side of things is dynamic incentives; right now you basically always want RA and after that as many DoF with people you're not immediately targeting as possible. The game didn't HAVE to go that route though.

 

[Trias]

There is ONE other option. ONE. That would be to allow multiple civilizations to win the game. Only under those circumstances can permanent diplomacy ever be meaningful or anything beyond abuse of the AI to make the game easier.

Well there is another (although the gist is similar): Make the position in which the civ ends matter. I.e. let there be a difference between ending in second place or third or last. (I'll leave how to do this as a separate matter, but having a persistent ranking of some sort seems like a way to achieve this). Especially if this order depends on the victory type by which the game is ended, this can lead to situations where there is a mutual benefit for a set of players to cooperate in the end game.

In some sense this amounts to having multiple winners, although not all players win by the same amount.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I wonder how the AI would react if you were to turn ALL the victory conditions off and just played a "sim civ" type of game. Would the AI be totally broken?

 

[CivOasis]

I wonder how the AI would react if you were to turn ALL the victory conditions off and just played a "sim civ" type of game. Would the AI be totally broken?

You can't disable domination, mainly because, if you destroyed every civ, it would be a very boring game to finish.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

That's not what I mean. I'm referring to my discussion with TheMeInTeam. He made some very good points regarding the type of experience one would have if the AI weren't programmed to try to win. I was wondering how the AI would behave if you turned OFF all the victory conditions. You can, indeed, turn them all off (whether or not it would be boring to finish). I might try this tonight with a QUICK speed setting just to see how the AI behaves. After all, if it is programmed to try to win, how can it behave if there is absolutely no way to win?

Well there is another (although the gist is similar): Make the position in which the civ ends matter. I.e. let there be a difference between ending in second place or third or last. (I'll leave how to do this as a separate matter, but having a persistent ranking of some sort seems like a way to achieve this). Especially if this order depends on the victory type by which the game is ended, this can lead to situations where there is a mutual benefit for a set of players to cooperate in the end game.

In some sense this amounts to having multiple winners, although not all players win by the same amount.

I like this idea. Although the difference between winning and coming in second would have to be rather large in order to encourage the second place civ to try and uproot the soon-to-be winner. The idea of having permanent alliances could mix with this, as well. If a struggling civ is able to maintain good (lasting) diplo relations with the second place civ, they might be able to combine their efforts and uproot the first place civ. There's a lot of room to move with these two ideas working together. It makes diplomacy actually worth something other than RA.

 

[CivOasis]

Unless you mean by modding, you cannot turn them all off. It just doesn't work, domination is forced on.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I think that says a lot about the developers aims with regards to the AI and diplomacy.

 

[Trias]

That's not what I mean. I'm referring to my discussion with TheMeInTeam. He made some very good points regarding the type of experience one would have if the AI weren't programmed to try to win. I was wondering how the AI would behave if you turned OFF all the victory conditions. You can, indeed, turn them all off (whether or not it would be boring to finish). I might try this tonight with a QUICK speed setting just to see how the AI behaves. After all, if it is programmed to try to win, how can it behave if there is absolutely no way to win?

You do need to realize that although the AI is programmed with the intent of winning, this does not automatically, that it makes all it decisions based of the first principle that it is trying to win. Rather, the various decision making algorithms have been designed with the idea of giving the AI the best chance to win.

It may very well be that the only part of the AI that is aware of the victory conditions that are active, is the grand strategy agent. (And this part may simply produce an error when the are no victory conditions at all, which might be why the game forces at least one victory condition to be active. Haven't checked though.)

 

[basta]

IMO, the biggest thing lacking on the diplo side of things is dynamic incentives; right now you basically always want RA and after that as many DoF with people you're not immediately targeting as possible. The game didn't HAVE to go that route though.

Great analysis; I'll just address this aspect of your post. Actually, you do see something of a "dynamic" going on with the AI when DoFs are broken by backstabbing (this also leads to the suicidal "I know I can't win but I'm going to attack you anyway" DoWs as well). This is of course a game mechanic rather than an in-game mechanic; it steps outside of the logic of the game and simply kicks in when the leader's victory progress reaches some predefined redzone. I have a real problem with the suicidal attacks, as they are so obviously "game-y," and think this mechanic should be limited to the top 2-3 rival civs--those that can really challenge you.

Likewise, defensive pacts are staggeringly underdeveloped. Why there wasn't/isn't more love being paid them by the devs is beyond me. Joint DoFs and cliques actually do get generated quite often and do work rather well, but I've never seen any evidence that the AI uses pacts and creates defensive blocs, and it is far too difficult to get them from most civs.

I think pacts should be developed to in some way replicate vassels or the current CS mechanic--a hopelessly smaller civ, esp. one on your borders, should readily accept a defensive pact; even one reduced to a rump civ should also accept them--and actively seek them out--simply to stay alive. As it now stands, civs have no ability to judge their relative status and you still get those ridiculous demands from empires you've crushed to one or two tundra cities.

Currently, it is virtually impossible to get a civ on your borders to sign a pact--when logic would indicate it should be just the opposite. Civs that decide on science and culture VCs should naturally form pacts, and either one of them should band up with neighboring warmongers for protection. A pact would give by default open borders and a per-turn gold boost to simulate a profitable, no-tarif trading bloc. Also, pacts should entail real war commitment, not the lowest level of skirmish warfare.

The end result would hopefully be games with more emphasis on interesting diplomatic triangulation, less AI squandering of hammers on pointless unit spam (and therefore better progress towards victory and more of a challenge), fewer pointless, desultory 5-turn phony wars, and some real epic, knock-down, drag-out world wars.

 

[turingmachine]

Unless you mean by modding, you cannot turn them all off. It just doesn't work, domination is forced on.

One can very easily, without mods, go to the advanced setup for a game and un-click the domination victory condition. Whether the game actually ends regardless of if this option is checked or not is not the point. The poster was asking if you disable a victory option by un-checking it, does the AI still "play to win" by pursuing it." This has been asked a lot on the forums and I've never seen a straight answer. Does disabling all the victory conditions remove the "play to win" style of the AI.

 

[turingmachine]

Currently, it is virtually impossible to get a civ on your borders to sign a pact--when logic would indicate it should be just the opposite. Civs that decide on science and culture VCs should naturally form pacts, and either one of them should band up with neighboring warmongers for protection.

I think this is a big problem with the Civ AI. The AI doesn't play to win so much as it plays so that the human player loses. Currently, if the human player is near victory the AI will almost always turn hostile and declare war even if it's not beneficial to do so (if say it was going for a cultural victory in which case, especially if the human is stronger, it would make more sense to go defensive and not declare war but try to find defensive pacts).

 

[CivOasis]

One can very easily, without mods, go to the advanced setup for a game and un-click the domination victory condition. Whether the game actually ends regardless of if this option is checked or not is not the point. The poster was asking if you disable a victory option by un-checking it, does the AI still "play to win" by pursuing it." This has been asked a lot on the forums and I've never seen a straight answer. Does disabling all the victory conditions remove the "play to win" style of the AI.

Why you can unselect it in advanced options is beyond me, because that does not work. Domination victory is always enabled, regardless of anything else you do.
I suppose, in a way, that's logical (imagine playing with all other civs wiped out), though.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

Why you can unselect it in advanced options is beyond me, because that does not work. Domination victory is always enabled, regardless of anything else you do.
I suppose, in a way, that's logical (imagine playing with all other civs wiped out), though.

Domination victory is when all nut one civ has lost it's capital. As far as I can tell there is no name for when everyone else is destroyed.
Is it possible to disable time victory, I do not recall?

 

[mitsukaikira]

Yep. First option under Victory Conditions.

 

[CivOasis]

No. Bizzarely, even if you check that option, it still appears in-game as a victory condition.

And, yes, I am aware of it being only capitals, the conceptual bit is "if you kept going", you could reach a point where the game would be... well, boring, and kind of pointless.