Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Clement, Mar 3, 2011.
I like it, it's nice to know the AI is actually trying to win the GAME, and isn't just an obstacle for me to overcome to win myself.
The diplomacy in Civ5 is good. It's far from the biggest problem with the game, and shouldn't be messed with much at all until other massive UI issues are dealt with. Speeding up the IBT time is a rare case of Firaxis actually properly prioritizing an important issue.
I'll stir the pot a little bit more, while I'm at it. I think the demerit for pursing the same victory condition makes sense, but realistically, I think there was another demerit/merit combo which is FAR more important and should have been included first... I think there should be a demerit for "They think you are dangerously close to winning" and a similar merit for "They think you are no risk." You can word them in any way you want to make them nicely immersive, but the point of these modifiers is to encourage the computer to try and save itself when you are about to win, and to keep it from dogpiling on you when you're not much of a threat.
I had not forgotten about the dogpiling, its another massive immersion breaker for me, that a long time friend should attack me just because i have more points than him near the end of the game i never liked, but i did not mention it as i do not know if that was fixed by the latest patch.
Realistically, if a former ally is getting dogpiled, and you jump in on the dogpile to save your own butt by building some favor with the dogpiling forces, I'd say that's very realistic and immersive.
It's the predictability of it that breaks the immersion for me, before the patch every time i was near a victory i knew i could kiss goodbye any friends i had made because the "playing to win" attitude would kick in among all the AI, as to the latest patch i do not know if that happens anymore.
I strongly dislike the concept. That does not mean the AI should be easy to please or have no clue on how to build the space ship. The VCs in the game are all goals real leaders would want to achieve.
There's a reason why I play single player games. When I want to play Civ in SP I seek a fundamentally different experience than what playing against other humans can give me.
Actually, isn't there something similar in Civ IV? I've just played a game in IV where I tried to get Shaka to make peace with another AI but the option was in red text and couldn't even be proposed. When I moused over it to see if there was more info, I got something like "We'd rather win the game thank you very much". Sorry, I know this is vague, but I'm pretty sure that, or very similar wording, comes up periodically.
Doesn't alter the fact that it spoils immersion - and references to "shiny things" and "pointed sticks" are just the pits. I suppose it's meant to be amusing, but it comes across to me as patronising. Of course, I might be influenced by having recently watched (in disbelief) Sid suggesting smugly, to a conference audience, that Civ players don't realise that 2 to 1 odds is mathematically equivalent to 20 to 10 odds. We just don't get it, apparently
So when you are dealing with people as stupid as us, talking about winning the game and references to pointed sticks and shiny things is presumably just an attempt, out of the kindness of his heart, to bring the game down to our level. More streamlining perhaps?
Agreed. I think the diplomatic AI is better than most people give it credit for. It makes sense to me for the AI civs in the game to notice when I'm infringing on their "turf," whether I'm grabbing their land, or building a wonder they wanted. I do think it would be interesting to add some sort of "cooperative win" option, but at this point, I would much rather see the devs work on other existing problems, most notably the combat AI.
Yes, they do give you that message sometimes.
I dont like at all.
If I want to play against someone who wants to "win the game", I go multiplayer.
This. I don't object to the AI wanting to pursue a goal, but I do mind when that goal is specifically "Win the Game." An AI should not act as if it is aware that it playing a game; and I feel that an AI fills it's role better when it plays as either an obstacle or a tool.
AI's should determine obstacle/tool based on their relationships to one another, and their relationship to the player(s). Obstacles should act in such a way as to undermine the player's efforts, and tools should act in such a way as to (at the very least) NOT hinder the player. Civ shouldn't feel like you are "playing against opponents", but as if you are "leading an empire" that is diplomatically and economically involved with other empires.
I like it. I don't want to auto win because the AI isn't interested in trying to stop me. I play it as a game to be won more than as a history sim (I did this for Civ IV as well before someone tries to make that into a critique of Civ V), so it suits me perfectly.
Don't like it. I want the ai to try to win but having them pissed at me because they think that I am going for the same victory as them really ruins the impression that I am creating an empire. this creating an all dominating empire is what civ is all about.
in general I really like this game and it gets a lot better with each patch, but that modifier does get to me a bit
makes sense to me, just change the text to something more immersive and problem solved
something like: you threaten our scientific/cultural/military/diplomatic supremacy
very early "you are trying to win" is a bug and should be fixed
I do think shared victories should be included though
The design itself is flawed, and the text just reveals how poorly thought through it is. This game has no co-operative mode at all; why couldn't an AI choose to "side with the winner" and also "win'? Why is "gangpile the leader" a good design choice? This is yet another reason why Civ 5 always ends up in war - because if you know that everyone is going to attack you at the end, why not just stomp them all earlier when it's easier? And once you do that, why bother do anything other than fight?
A lot of us choose to win in other ways - like beat our fastest time at something, or win with an usual nation/victory condition choice. We don't need the artificial "difficulty" of backstabbing computer opponents. It's just a feature for people who want combat and dislike peaceful builder games, and it's one that's forced on everyone who plays by an inexperienced designer.
I have strong thoughts on the matter, and tackled it in my WWGD AI balance mod. I will split up my thoughts into sub-issues:
Wording: I really dislike mentions of "game" or "winning". If they were replaced by "Competing National Interests" then not only would it be much easier to swallow, it would actually make it a fun mechanic.
Victory Types should be different: I absolutely think Conquest and Science competing AIs should view others going the same route as rivals. HOWEVER, I think Culture and Diplomacy strategies should view those going similar routes as allies. As of right now, this separation is NOT possible through modding.
I can't stand it. Completely unrealistic.
People are declaring war on me for waht, building a spaceship? There's room on Alpha Centauri for everyone (even if Miriam Godwinson and Nwabudike Morgan take up extra space)
To say the game as NO co-operative mode is an exageration, there are DOF and shared DOW and trading for mutual benefit.
But yes more co-operative diplomacy is needed and AI should be able to "side with winner" as you say.
What I'd like to see is that as the game progresses and one or more players approach victory the world should split into factions depending on who they would rather win (cold war style).
They would then hinder the other factions through a combination of CS stealing/culling, trade embargos, diversions (troop build ups on boarders) and/or outright war (for the war minded civs) but mainly by trying to get their own victory first.
Not true Civ5 is not coded to "gang up on the leader". this whole dogpile the leader thing was not a conscious civ5 design choice. I'm yet to see a "your score is too high" diplomatic penalty for instance.
I've managed to keep DOF for entire games with selected civs and win the game without everyone declaring just because a start building space ship or utopia project etc. Othertimes I've played with a different play style and got the whole mass denounce thing and ended up going conquest.
The ai has a big list of rules as to what ticks them off, each leader has their own tolerances to how much each wrong annoys them if at all. Break the rules and the ai hates you, ai then uses diplomacy and gets other civs to join in. This is what causes the dogpiles. And the human player can do the samething to the unpopular ai civs.
Trouble is humans don't always know what these rules and have different expectations as to what is good/bad in game behaviour (like being at war with same foe is automatic friendship, and its ok to wipe out another civ if they started it, and its ok to wipe out a CS if its unalligned) are and so end up acting like they were razed by wolves (from ai point of view) and so end up getting dogpiled.
I like that the ai reacts to your in-game actions rather then having them like/hate me based on some abstract and gameable mechanic civics/relegion. Its facts on the ground that matter not philisophical differences. I want the ai to have their own goals and agenda, it make sense that they may covet my land and be jealous of my wonders etc.
Sure the system needs more work (several more patches) to get things better but I like the design philosophy - ai has a goal/agenda (victory type) and what matters most in diplomacy is in game actions of player.
Part of the problem is that the ai has too many things that tick it off and not enough ways to make amends - needs to be more give and take. The result is that there is a bias toward bad relations and little/no way to make amends.
Another part of the problem is that the rules are too opaque, needs to be more feedback as to when the player is breaking those rules. You just have no idea that an ai is reaching its breaking point as to when it may decide to denounce you.
ai doesn't always backstab but it does have the possibility based on leader traits - much like in civ4. this is a good thing
There needs to be at least some ability for the ai to do a well timed backstab when a strategic opportunity presents itself otherwise there's no uncertainty, no risk - do USA,Europe,China,India,Russia really trust each other?
btw I tend to play a hybrid builder/war game (depending on mood and strategic situation) so builder with some wars. I seldom go for straight domination victory. I tend to fight at least one war though cause someone close by is usually a jerk.
I take a slightly different view, in that I consider what happens as right, but the wording is very poor (to say the least) and just a sign that the game was hurried in the first place...
It should be fairly easy to change it to something like, "your civilization threatens the aims of mine" or words to that effect. I just can't understand why it wasn't done like that in the first place! So much of what is in Civ V is good, but this is shoddy and makes it too easy to criticise.
Separate names with a comma.