Yes you were strong. Military power does indeed affect if they attack you or not. But we are not talking about military, we already know warmongering rocks in this game. We are talking about diplomacy affecting relations. That is, giving in to demands, returning workers, beeing friendly, cooperating. And all that is useless. Which is a shame because this is civilization, diplomacy should be a part of the game.
What's the use of cooperation and secrecy in diplomacy?
- Thread starter dickens
- Start date
But we don't know. You could make nice to a civ in Civ IV and they would still attack you, that didn't mean that giving them tribute etc. hadn't helped, it just meant that other reasons overbalanced your friendly acts - even if you had no negative modifiers, unless you reached a certain threshold you were at risk of an attack.
To be honest I agree with the criticisms of diplomacy being a black box - I'd much rather know what was going on and how the system works. But just dismissing friendly actions, and AI attitudes in general, as irrelevant is almost certainly wrong. We just don't know exactly what effects they have or how they are formed.
I think not being able to see what impact your actions have is not a good thing gameplay-wise. It might be "realistic" that you don't know the reactions of a human competitor in real life, but his is a game and with the games I play, I prefer to know the rules.
The only time I really got a clue about what influences the AIs attitude was when they all canceled pacts due to my warmongering. But then again I don't know whether it played a role that I actively DOWed (although I only DOWed on leaders that insulted me) or what impact my taking the capitals / capturing the whole Civ had.
As it is now, the AI behaves mostly at random and the diplomatic options do not seem to have an influence great enough to inflict visible patterns. This is definitely my major critique on Civ5. Another is missing options: i.e. to ask for piece with a city state etc.
The only time I really got a clue about what influences the AIs attitude was when they all canceled pacts due to my warmongering. But then again I don't know whether it played a role that I actively DOWed (although I only DOWed on leaders that insulted me) or what impact my taking the capitals / capturing the whole Civ had.
As it is now, the AI behaves mostly at random and the diplomatic options do not seem to have an influence great enough to inflict visible patterns. This is definitely my major critique on Civ5. Another is missing options: i.e. to ask for piece with a city state etc.
Accepting pacts of cooperation seems to do little but make civs more likely to constantly bug me for ridiculous amounts of money. And I assume declining pisses them off (maybe?). No, I am not going to give you 2,000+ gold just because you asked nicely, especially when you'd never give me anything, ever.
Pacts of secrecy seem iffy too, because they'll ask you to make one against a civ that you are already trading with. And there doesn't seem to be any way to cancel trades short of declaring war. So does that count? Who knows? Civ5 diplomacy doesn't tell you anything, so I don't bother.
Now what I really want to know is what the hell happens when you choose the more polite/more brash answers. Why would I ever -not- pick the more polite one, seeing as it likely lessens their hate towards you? And if it doesn't do that, is the choice just meaningless? Why even have it? Once again, the game tells you nothing.
Pacts of secrecy seem iffy too, because they'll ask you to make one against a civ that you are already trading with. And there doesn't seem to be any way to cancel trades short of declaring war. So does that count? Who knows? Civ5 diplomacy doesn't tell you anything, so I don't bother.
Now what I really want to know is what the hell happens when you choose the more polite/more brash answers. Why would I ever -not- pick the more polite one, seeing as it likely lessens their hate towards you? And if it doesn't do that, is the choice just meaningless? Why even have it? Once again, the game tells you nothing.
I like the new diplomacy, but I generally hate the fact that if you have a town even slightly near an AI they are pretty much guaranteed to hate you. I just looked at the town America is having a hissy fit about a town that is 5 squares away from his. I make good gestures, but the fact that borders are close ultimately seems to trump everything n diplomacy. So the only point of diplomacy seems to be to keep them at bay until you can conquer them as not a single AI is willing to be a genuine friend in this game. Talk about cynicism and real realpolitik...
Couch Tomato
First Tomato Emperor
I noticed you can upgrade units in friendly borders. I had a pact of cooperation with the country I upgraded in. Can you do this without one?
seasnake
Conquistador
Facts are a pact of cooperation should matter more, as well as a pact of secrecy. The system should be like in EU3, where failure to keep a pact will give the other side a Causus Belli and you'll be able to declare war with less penalties to unhappiness and production than the other side. Also other leaders should know that you break pacts of cooperation so they know not to get involved with you, and city state relations should cool.
And your foreign advisor should KNOW that junk. She doesn't need to be able to say "-3 for breaking a pact of cooperation." She should say "The Romans have broken multiple pacts of cooperation, cooling their relations with city states and making other civs leery of entering into deals with them. We should be careful when dealing with them." She should also be able to give a barometer of what's going on between two other civs, something like "The Songhai declared war in the past on the Iroquois and have refused to stop sending troops to their shared border. Maybe the Iroquois would pay a lot for some extra military units right now." And if you actually sell the military units to the Iroquois there should be some information like "Songhai knows you sold troops to their enemies, even though we had a pact of cooperation. They now have a Causus Belli against us, meaning if they choose to declare war it will affect them less than us!"
These kind of things would make diplomacy valuable and engaging. And it would still prevent the feared SoD (Spreadsheet of Doom) from Civ IV.
And your foreign advisor should KNOW that junk. She doesn't need to be able to say "-3 for breaking a pact of cooperation." She should say "The Romans have broken multiple pacts of cooperation, cooling their relations with city states and making other civs leery of entering into deals with them. We should be careful when dealing with them." She should also be able to give a barometer of what's going on between two other civs, something like "The Songhai declared war in the past on the Iroquois and have refused to stop sending troops to their shared border. Maybe the Iroquois would pay a lot for some extra military units right now." And if you actually sell the military units to the Iroquois there should be some information like "Songhai knows you sold troops to their enemies, even though we had a pact of cooperation. They now have a Causus Belli against us, meaning if they choose to declare war it will affect them less than us!"
These kind of things would make diplomacy valuable and engaging. And it would still prevent the feared SoD (Spreadsheet of Doom) from Civ IV.
spoooq
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2006
- Messages
- 221
I very strongly suspect there is something like bad-boy points from EU3 in ciV. Try this - get Ghandi and Caesar in a game, declare on a few people, and see their reaction. When I did it, Ghandi called me blood-thirsty and Caesar couldn't care less. Guess which one was willing to make deals? Formal CBs would be a nice addition. And your advisor absolutely should know this stuff, that is their job!
In my current first game (Prince, Earth, Large). Civs constantly declare they are protecting city states, the thing is, I have already pissed off every city state in the world, and they are permanently at war with me. (I conquered 4 early, because other city states asked me to). Every 5 turns or so a different nation talks to me and basically says they disapprove of me preying on the weak. I have already eliminated three players, control Africa, Europe, and the Middle east. I had France ask me if I was attacking them when my Caravel showed up on the boarders of North America, and saw they only had spear men. I had Montezuma tell me he heard of my great triumphs in battle or something like that.
I only have a capitol (Kyoto), every other city is a puppet, and I support my warmongering by pillaging improvements in city state tiles. If only I could sell the useless buildings puppets build, I'd be rocking a +300 economy. My four former allied military city states are now at permanent war with me.
The point is, every civilization hates me, and I am at war with 20 city states. Literally everyone is "Hostile" on my diplomacy screen. No one has declared war on me, but they verbally insult me every chance they get to which I respond "You will pay for this in time." One leader even went so fare as to say something along the lines as "I see you cave men like to jump up and down and beat your rocks together". I wiped his civilization off the map 15 turns later.
This time around, opposing civilizations have a sense of fear. There is no "Dog Pile" effect like there was in Civ IV where everyone gangs up on the point leader. Instead they don't want to be the one to irritates me and has to face retribution. They are definitely more human or emotional then the old AI. I mean they have 20 other city states who I bet all have a "attack Japan" mission available for the AI.
At least I feel like I'm properly being a jerk to people now, in CIV4 people would have all declared on me, or whatever the major religion was would declare me a heathen and I'd be in a world war.
One thing that did amused and impressed me was the Egyptians declaring war and fighting to the death against me even though they were a couple ages behind me. I don't know why though, I seriously did nothing to annoy them.
But I do dislike how this game feels bipolar. For quite a few turns I was getting scoffed at and mocked turn after turn. Then I get attacked, so I hit back hard, and now all the AI's are whinging that I am a warmonger and disapprove. I didn't even provoke the war, but now you're all whining because I hit back against a civilization and a city state that declared war on me? Every game I'm winning, every other single civ appears to be hostile. There's no point in being nice because chances are 10 turns later they don't even care.
The only thing that really seems to matter is having borders near the AI. But I don't see why that is the benchmark to them hating you. They do realize that most countries in the world aren't separated by some buffer zone of hatred and land mines like north and south korea. This badly needs tweaking.
But I do dislike how this game feels bipolar. For quite a few turns I was getting scoffed at and mocked turn after turn. Then I get attacked, so I hit back hard, and now all the AI's are whinging that I am a warmonger and disapprove. I didn't even provoke the war, but now you're all whining because I hit back against a civilization and a city state that declared war on me? Every game I'm winning, every other single civ appears to be hostile. There's no point in being nice because chances are 10 turns later they don't even care.
The only thing that really seems to matter is having borders near the AI. But I don't see why that is the benchmark to them hating you. They do realize that most countries in the world aren't separated by some buffer zone of hatred and land mines like north and south korea. This badly needs tweaking.
Diplomacy in CIV is a nightmare; plain and simple. All Civ's in common have the same flaw:
when AI-player wants something from you, like peace or declaring war against anothor; NO ONE is telling YOU what it does for your other agreements with other AI's. Like: your ally will be not amused or so. None! You all have to write it down yourself, else . . .
And that's why it is flawed, in real, you surely would be advised by your advisors what this new agreemeent does for your other agreements, with other nations. But NO, you are left in the DARK; it's like playing memory; you just have to memorise it all, else you are screwed (or blindfolded).
Wouldn't it be great to have advisors, there where you need them most
when AI-player wants something from you, like peace or declaring war against anothor; NO ONE is telling YOU what it does for your other agreements with other AI's. Like: your ally will be not amused or so. None! You all have to write it down yourself, else . . .
And that's why it is flawed, in real, you surely would be advised by your advisors what this new agreemeent does for your other agreements, with other nations. But NO, you are left in the DARK; it's like playing memory; you just have to memorise it all, else you are screwed (or blindfolded).
Wouldn't it be great to have advisors, there where you need them most
I think the idea behind these mechanics is reasonably sound, but it doesn't really seem to be working at the moment. Firaxis has received a lot of feedback about this, and lack of transparency in diplomacy in general, so I'd expect this to improve with patches. My two cents.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
In actual diplomacy one has diplomats and you'd have at least narrative information, e.g.
The Romans are suspicious of our motives since we have attacked two of our neighbors...
etc.
You don't need to know that something is a +3 or whatever, but at least some set of clues about how your actions matter is essential if the system is to mean something.
The Romans are suspicious of our motives since we have attacked two of our neighbors...
etc.
You don't need to know that something is a +3 or whatever, but at least some set of clues about how your actions matter is essential if the system is to mean something.
Pacts of Secrecy can get you in trouble.
Pacts of Cooperation are for building better relations.
Breaking your word worsens relationships. Warmongering worsens relationships. Having a weak military worsens relationships. Being rude (chosing the worse dialogue in interactions) worsens relationships. Adjacent borders worsen relationships. Aggressively settling worsens relationships. Being the top dog worsens relationships. Your military on their borders worsens relationships.
Trading improves relationships. Freeing captured civilians improves relationships. Research Agreements/Defensive Pacts improve relationships. Helping out in wars probably improves relationships (if you can avoid the warmongering penalty).
As can be seen, there are a lot of things that worsen relationships. Trading is really the only reliable thing that makes it better. Trade early, trade often.
Pacts of Cooperation are for building better relations.
Breaking your word worsens relationships. Warmongering worsens relationships. Having a weak military worsens relationships. Being rude (chosing the worse dialogue in interactions) worsens relationships. Adjacent borders worsen relationships. Aggressively settling worsens relationships. Being the top dog worsens relationships. Your military on their borders worsens relationships.
Trading improves relationships. Freeing captured civilians improves relationships. Research Agreements/Defensive Pacts improve relationships. Helping out in wars probably improves relationships (if you can avoid the warmongering penalty).
As can be seen, there are a lot of things that worsen relationships. Trading is really the only reliable thing that makes it better. Trade early, trade often.
This is simply false. All that stuff plays into the AI's decision-making. AIs will declare war on you for ignoring a pact of secrecy sometimes. They will avoid declaring war on you after accepting a pact of cooperation. Everyone gets mad at you if you flagrantly violate a pact of cooperation.
The only thing to keep in mind is that the AI isn't becoming friends with you. When you buddy up to an AI, you're teaching it that you can be relied upon, and when you betray it you're teaching it that A) you can't be counted on and B) you're probably hostile even if you aren't at war. But this is a very Machiavellian AI - if it thinks it has a huge military edge over you, it will attack, even if you were friends. It wants to win.
I've never had a random betrayal in over 80 hours of gameplay - I've had plenty of times where we had a poor relationship eventually degrade to war, and I've had plenty of times where a vastly militarily superior ostensibly friendly civ came after me (bearing in mind that it's just comparing troop strengths to determine military power, not how much better players are at tactical combat), but never one where a civ randomly came after me with no warning.
The game's real weakness in diplomacy is simply that all of this information is hidden from you, so you don't get a sense of how your actions are actually affecting opinions of you.
Nope. Take a game with a good diplomacy and hide the modifiers. It will be tactical worse in my opinion, and more random, but still, you can feel the good diplomacy.
But civ5 is far worse than just not showing the modifiers.
For example, not only are the leaders crazyer than civ4 montezuma, but they also have no personality. All of them are like that.
There's no peaceful ghandi, crazy montezuma, religious isabel, army beast shaka, tech fanatic mansa musa... You find your neightbours and don't care who they are. Besides for their cool speaches ofc
That's not true either. Well, Gandhi isn't overly peaceful. But Alexander expands his empire much more rapidly than other leaders. Askia is an overt warmonger. Catherine is a Machiavellian backstabber. Washington is extremely protectionist. They randomize a bit within a range when you start a game, but in each game the leaders have strong tendencies that you have to figure out, and if you look at it over a sample of many games there are clear patterns that emerge.
Looks good on screenshots. No use in game. They will try to kill you. You will take their capital.
Similar threads
