Agreed to not to spy on me again, caught twice later

[dexters]

^ Not everyone is a native english speaker. I got the point.

 

[black213]

I know all the AI personality stuff and how it is random, but I still don't believe the AI is lying about not spying on you again on purpose. I believe it's just a bug.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

The AI's first goal has to be winning. If you're the top in technology you're going to be spied upon. The only thing you can do is make it as difficult as possible with spy defense buildings and hope your counterspies kill their agents.

Futhermore, demands on AI will only work if you are threatening to them. I'd wager that Genghis has a very high threshold determining whether or not you intimidate him militarily.

Either way, however, the AI will do whatever it feels necessary to advance on a path to victory. In my just finished game with the Byzantines, Spain and China both DoW'd me despite being completely outmatched. Both were pinned in and viewed my "elastic defense" (very few border troops but all other troops plus fast movers a turn or two away) as an opportunity. I crushed them both without losing a unit, but it was the only path they saw to victory so they had to "go all in".

In the end, consider a winning AI like people see the US. Powerful and advanced, but easy to overextend due to the years of enemies. Ignore their demands and denunciations if you have the ability to defend yourself from their troops via distance, terrain, or defensive military parity. Consider a losing AI like North Korea. Everyone knows how irrelevant they are, but they're going to do whatever they darn well feel is in their best interest (because fighting them would cost more than it's worth to have them stop).

Does Genghis deserve death or can you afford to lose a tech every 80 or so turns while he's still behind you about 10 techs? If death then gear for war and end him. If cake then forgive him for the positive modifier and hope he can funnel money or luxuries to you via neutral or friendly status every 30 or so turns.

 

[kaltorak]

So what you're saying is diplomacy is still the same as in vanilla?

If this is true then they are lying to there customers saying you are improving diplomacy and you aren't doing it.

If so I basicly I am ripped of? (if diplomacy indead didn't change)

(didn't play gods and king so much So all information oculd be usefull)

They didnt rip you off. They improved diplomacy by adding some repercusion from religion and espionage. So, they delivered what they promised, it is improved.

That doesn't mean they fixed it. To have a good diplomacy, they would need to drop the base they used in vanilla, making AI play like a human chess player, and do it from scratch making them act like leaders.

 

[Putmalk]

The AI's first goal has to be winning. If you're the top in technology you're going to be spied upon. The only thing you can do is make it as difficult as possible with spy defense buildings and hope your counterspies kill their agents.

Futhermore, demands on AI will only work if you are threatening to them. I'd wager that Genghis has a very high threshold determining whether or not you intimidate him militarily.

Either way, however, the AI will do whatever it feels necessary to advance on a path to victory. In my just finished game with the Byzantines, Spain and China both DoW'd me despite being completely outmatched. Both were pinned in and viewed my "elastic defense" (very few border troops but all other troops plus fast movers a turn or two away) as an opportunity. I crushed them both without losing a unit, but it was the only path they saw to victory so they had to "go all in".

In the end, consider a winning AI like people see the US. Powerful and advanced, but easy to overextend due to the years of enemies. Ignore their demands and denunciations if you have the ability to defend yourself from their troops via distance, terrain, or defensive military parity. Consider a losing AI like North Korea. Everyone knows how irrelevant they are, but they're going to do whatever they darn well feel is in their best interest (because fighting them would cost more than it's worth to have them stop).

Does Genghis deserve death or can you afford to lose a tech every 80 or so turns while he's still behind you about 10 techs? If death then gear for war and end him. If cake then forgive him for the positive modifier and hope he can funnel money or luxuries to you via neutral or friendly status every 30 or so turns.

Why does the AI's goal have to be winning? A lot of the complaints about the AI stem around this; friendly AI, who has nothing but positive modifiers for years, will backstab you, send their units to suicide, and then become a sitting duck. What sensible leader is dumb enough to declare war against the US, using your modern day example? The last nation that did it - Japan - got sorely destroyed in the effort, and they had a much stronger chance than most of the AI in game do at winning it.

The AI's first and foremost goal should be self-preservation. Then it should consider how it wants to run its empire. I would say the general consensus is that most empires in history have wanted to expand - this is not a bad thing, and the AI should consider this. However, as time passes on, and society gets more..."civil", if I should dare say that, the AIs should be more cautious when considering hostilies. The ancient times were filled with warfare; just look at Mesopotamia for an example. Wars in the Medieval era were more religious based, and in the Industrial era, they were more imperialistic. By the Modern times, wars become much less common, and their objectives are usually clear: resource obtaining, dictator removal or alliances.

Now imagine if the AI pursued those types of goals. If religious civilizations pursued wars because of religion, if Industrial civilizations preferred exploration and imperiaism, if modern civilizations formed alliances with each other, and hostilities brewed that eventually lead to world wars. Would that not lead to a better game experience? These are the things diplomacy is needing, justification for war. Right now, war is essentially "You're winning, this is a desperation act to try to stop you", among other example. Would it not be fun to fight wars because of empire-specific things, not some arbitrary game condition?

I realize this would make victory too easy, but that's a tradeoff I would be willing to accept. It's best to immerse the player, not make them feel like they are playing a boardgame. As demonstrated by a lot of diplomatic complaints, I'd say a healthy portion would agree with me here.


I'm sorry I just ranted. Mostly more on topic, it's not a bug that the AI wants to continue spying on you after lying about it. The AI is looking out for its best interests, as anybody would. You're more likely to declare war/denounce if he refuses your demand, so to appease you he lies to keep you happy for a bit longer. (a smarter strategic AI would build an army and defenses up in preparation for war after this event)

 

[dexters]

To have a good diplomacy, they would need to drop the base they used in vanilla, making AI play like a human chess player, and do it from scratch making them act like leaders.

DO people want that though? roleplayers will hate it.

If anything, the improved diplomacy in GnK means roleplayers can actually tell stories because the AI are sometimes artificially forgiving and your friends just completely ignore a lot of bad things you do until you do too much of it.

 

[Putmalk]

DO people want that though? roleplayers will hate it.

If anything, the improved diplomacy in GnK means roleplayers can actually tell stories because the AI are sometimes artificially forgiving and your friends just completely ignore a lot of bad things you do until you do too much of it.

Roleplayers would prefer a chess AI as opposed to AI that act like leaders?

I don't think you read his quote correctly.

 

[Gamewizard]

I think it's already been said, but if you are in the tech lead you are going to get spied upon...friends, enemies, it doesn't matter. And if you catch your FRIEND doing it then why are you asking them to stop? They are your friend and you should be willing to help them tech up with you. Like I tell my daughter, "Share with your friends or else you won't have any!"

 

[Sherlock]

'Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' while you look for a rock'.

-Will Rogers

 

[Putmalk]

I think it's already been said, but if you are in the tech lead you are going to get spied upon...friends, enemies, it doesn't matter. And if you catch your FRIEND doing it then why are you asking them to stop? They are your friend and you should be willing to help them tech up with you. Like I tell my daughter, "Share with your friends or else you won't have any!"

Trading techs would be a friendlier way to handle the issue. Espionage is a serious offense. :/

 

[dexters]

No to tech trades

Just increase difficulty of tech stealing

 

[Danei]

AIs will routinely lie to you. Why wouldn't they? You can lie to them just as easily when they ask you not to do things.

Personally, I definitely don't want the easily-manipulated AIs of Civ 4 who happily do whatever you want while you plot against them.

I want AIs who do what's best for themselves, not what's best for me.

 

[Rathelon]

They didnt lie to you. There is a set turn limit to how long they will stop spying on you. Just like if they ask you not to settle near them, and you say 'Ok'. If you keep your word for however many turns it is - you get a message saying you honored your agreement with so-and-so to not settle in his lands.

Once they have waited the specific number of turns, they will go back to spying on you.

 

[apocalypse105]

DO people want that though? roleplayers will hate it.


If anything, the improved diplomacy in GnK means roleplayers can actually tell stories because the AI are sometimes artificially forgiving and your friends just completely ignore a lot of bad things you do until you do too much of it.

I don't midn the AI playing to win at all but it doens't neither is it a rolemoddel...


I would like that firaxis made his mind up

now the AI is acting like a human player but olso conducting diplomacy as a role moddel . SO it basicly acts random at diplomacy and doesn't play at his full potential to win..

This doens't satisfy both players

You get situations where the AI could dow you and prevent you from wining the game but it doesn'tbecause he is friendly after a few turns it dows you but its allready to late

Or a game where ALl AI's backstabs you at "friendly" But actualy lose because they rushed you with warriors with has a succes rate of 10% procent ...


The AI doesn't play as a human it just plays as a role moddel however there are so many ridicoulous negatif modifiers that a human player would think that it basicly becomes wierd diplomacy..

 

[Xotite potancev]

I know all the AI personality stuff and how it is random, but I still don't believe the AI is lying about not spying on you again on purpose. I believe it's just a bug.

Foreknowledge cannot be elicited from ghosts and spirits;

it cannot be inferred from comparison of previous events, or from the calculations of the heavens, but must be obtained from people who have knowledge of the enemy's situation. ?

Therefore there are five kinds of spies used:

Local spies, internal spies, double spies, dead spies, and living spies.

When all five are used, and no one knows their Way, it is called the divine organization, and is the ruler's treasure.

For local spies, we use the enemy's people.

For internal spies we use the enemy's officials.

For double spies we use the enemy's spies.

For dead spies we use agents to spread misinformation to the enemy. For living spies, we use agents to return with reports.

Therefore, of those close to the army, none is closer than spies, no reward more generously given, and no matter in greater secrecy.

Only the wisest ruler can use spies;

only the most benevolent and upright general can use spies, and only the most alert and observant person can get the truth using spies.

It is subtle, subtle!

There is nowhere that spies cannot be used.

Do not confuse diplomacy with espionage.

We have no agents, there is no such organisation, we would never breach the trust of an ally by doing so.....ok he's of guard send in the agents. If the AI did not lie then it really wouldnt be espionage.

 

[Ahatokia]

The opponent may be Genghis and maybe some people find this fun, but come on, we're playing a computer here. I'm more inclined to believe that this is a bug, as it happens very often with a lot of other civilizations as well.

I had Elizabeth, Napoleon, Caesar, Ghandi, Isabella, Boudica, Alexander and Dido all lie to me about spying and some of them were my friends (DoF) at the time. What is even the point of them promising not to do it again? This AI behaviour has now has lead me to believe that all AIs lie all the time and therefore I should just DoW and conquer them (if possible) as the only means to stopping their espionage (until the Great Firewall anyway - but who plays that long?). I don't find that one bit enjoyable or fun.

They are promising not to do it again so that you don't attack them. Maybe you have set the wrong precedent by letting them get away with it over and over.

I have to admit, if we were multi I would do the same as the AI's - and I credit the developers for considering that.

Besides, just return the favour and go spy on them, don't take it so personally

 

[joncnunn]

What's going on is the AI doesn't really care what anyone else does at all.
And so it doesn't keep spy promises or any other . It only makes spy promises at all because it's been programmed to. (By contrast it's programmed to always respond we'll settle where we please when challenged settling near you.)

 

[black213]

They didnt lie to you. There is a set turn limit to how long they will stop spying on you. Just like if they ask you not to settle near them, and you say 'Ok'. If you keep your word for however many turns it is - you get a message saying you honored your agreement with so-and-so to not settle in his lands.

Once they have waited the specific number of turns, they will go back to spying on you.

Now finally an appropriate answer to my question when everyone else has changed their target of discussion! I remember reading about the if you agree to not to settle again, you'll be able to do it later (50 or 100 turns?) without breaking the agreement. Same for other agreements, I believe.

 

[Peacemongerer]

Harun Al-Rashid got caught by me FIVE times. The first time I forgave him bc we were on good terms, then asked him to stop spying, then I just didn't even click the button the third time (I knew it was him, but the spy lived, so he didn't contact me), the fourth time I denounced him and the fifth time I declared war. I was in the Industrial Age while to get an idea of where he was... the first tech he stole (I kid you not) was Mansory. Yeah. Mansory. He got himself slaughtered over MANSORY. The AI lies compulsively.

 

[Peacemongerer]

What's going on is the AI doesn't really care what anyone else does at all.
And so it doesn't keep spy promises or any other . It only makes spy promises at all because it's been programmed to. (By contrast it's programmed to always respond we'll settle where we please when challenged settling near you.)

Not true. I asked Montezuma to stop settling near me once and he actually agreed not to do it anymore. A few turns later I found the reason why was that he thought attacking me and taking my pre-made cities would be easier. Big mistake on his part.