AI attitude after patch

Make fair trades
Create a friendship bloc
Honor calls to arms
Maintain and army
Don't take their land
Don't steamroll CSs

I know how diplomacy in ciV is supposed to work.

Too far the other way. If you checked the Demographics screen, and you saw that one player was miles ahead of everyone, wouldn't you gang up on him? And likewise, wouldn't you prey on whoever was at the bottom?

They don't gang up. They all seperately declare war over the course of 200 turns.

Here's a short account of the game so far.
I start as Aztecs and first build a couple of Jaguars to go barb farming, alternating between Honor and Tradition for policies.
Pretty early I get attacked by the Americans who are actually pretty far away. They don't build another city, they directly come after me. Before I have build my second city I take Washington with a couple of Jags and a General. Meanwhile I build the GL for Civil Service...
Also on the continent: Siam, Greece, the Mongols and France. Mongolia is guarded and all others are friendly. I have declarations of friendship with Siam, Greece and France and trade with all civs. Around the time I have iron the Mongols attack. Everyone else is still "friendly", I maintain a fairly large army, expand slowly, am friends with some CS and only allied with one.
I have quite a few wonders, but no other civ seems to mind. There's no "you build wonders they covet" anywhere. I have done some things that could upset the AI: I have eliminated two civs and taken their capitals. Howver I did both of these things in self-defense. I have not started a single war and no one calls me a warmonger. Among the remainig three civs there's not a single one that indicates a negative modifier, They don't even "covet my lands".
Out of the blue Greece attacks me. I slaughter their armies for the sun and march towards their border and they offer me a peace deal with all their gold and luxuries. I don't conquer any of their cities because France lies between us. Can you guess what happens next ? France (Friendly, long-tem ally, also fought against the Mongols...) attacks me and I take all their cities. They only have two, but Paris has the Great Wall which will come in handy, since everyone on this continent seems to have lost their mind
I have now annihilated three civs. Still I have not started a single war.
Really, annihilating everyone who attacks you should not make others more likely to attack you. I don't want to hear any rationalisations "Oh, but you took three capitals and killed three civs". That should be justified. It should not be held against me if take bloody revenge on warmongers and backstabbers. I did not start these wars, and if I hadn't wiped them out they would occasionally attack me and be a general nuisance for the next 2000 years.
The lesson learned should be "Don't attack him. He prefers peace, but he can crush you like a bug." It should serve as a warning.

Anyhow, the only one who hasn't attacked me yet is Rhamkhamhaeng.
Then this happens:
Spoiler :



This picture neatly sums up diplomacy in Civ 5. Civ 4 had it's problems, but there were only certain leaders who would attack you when "pleased" and the only one who ever attacked me while being "friendly" is Ragnar. I don't mind being backstabbed occasionally by enemies who stand a chance, but this is just tedious and frustrating.
Anyway, I am now in eternal war with Greece and Siam. I keep all fighting on my territory, decline all peace offers and enjoy my Great Wall, Himeji Castle, Sacrificial Captives and my maxed out Honor tree.
 
My arab "friends" demand ALL my money, and when I refuse, they switch to hostile. I mean, I don't mind spending some money or resources on relations, actually i like it, but asking for all my money is not asking for a gift, its looking for trouble


Haha I once had the AI ask for help could you spare something for me?
He asked for2 000 gold facepalmXD
Serieus even if you have a lot money be reasonable.. A rich person will not give a homelles guy a car...


back to topic:


Well i am still gonne say it if they dont gonne change the typ AI(good AI typ currently that wants to win) you dont gonne have a balanced game with diplomacy..

.
In my games the AI declares war every 20 turns if i am atacked by someone and i defend them of and weaken them suddenly 3 AI declare war on that person... Picking on the weak!!!!

I just analysed it and they are programmed to win as result they declare war on the weaker civs to get more land or atack when this civilization is already at war easier target... Or sometimes they atack it because the AI is become to big...

They are even so es that they ask you to declare war with them and then declare war on you because you are weakend.


It doesn't make sence at all if you put diplomacy in the game engine it start feeling rondom For example:
You get a warmonger hit if you declare to much but the AI declares war constantly logic neah?
You can build friendly relationships with your neigbhours but if they want more land or you are winning the game they will atack you...


Yes its called diplomacy but i will keep saying this on the forum : THERE IS NO DECEND DIPLOMACY IF THEY IMPLENT A GOOD AI TYP.

Have you ever seen a real time strategy game with good diplomacy.. Of course not most of the time there is no diplomacy in the game because it is IMPOSSIBLE to make it work good.

If you ever played rise of nations there is a option diplomacy and the AI just acts like in civilization 5 it comes friendly to you and ask for resources and join wars but declare wars rondomly thats why i allways play team games...

Same with age of empires 2 there was a option where everybody had no team and you had to send tribute to get allieds but sometimes the AI just dont wat that because you are weak or to strong/ and most of the games all AI become one team and are you're enemy

I know civ 5 is not a real time strategy game but most of those real time strategy typ games use the GOOD AI TYP
 
I've never had an AI ask for all my money as a favor. Ever. (Sometimes they do ask for a lot of gold, if I have a lot of gold, but never down to my very last coin. At least, not as a favor - they are a lot more ruthless on truces when I'm at their mercy).

And it's nice that people think the AI ought to be cool with someone razing the entire planet because those bastards had it coming, but that's just not how the game (or reality) works. Sorry. Perhaps you'd be happier playing a straight wargame.
 
Eliminating 2 civs is not "self defense". It doesn't matter who started the war - if you destroy 2 civs you are a warmonger, period. That's what put you on the road to everyone DOWing you. The AI hides their intentions sometimes, so even if it doesn't display the warmonger hate on the diplo screen, it's still there.

But once you reach a certain point of dominance the AIs will declare on you out of pure desparation...those times don't often make a lot of sense. I agree some tweaks could be in order in that regard. If the AI knows it's going to lose, they should focus on defense instead of just throwing away their army in a direct assault.
 
They don't gang up. They all seperately declare war over the course of 200 turns.

Here's a short account of the game so far.

Once you have killed two civs, regardless of who started it, you will no longer have real friends. There are a few civs with really low warmonger hate who might still like you, but everyone else at that point is pretending and preparing to attack.

Many negative modifiers do not show up if the civ is pretending to be Friendly, which is logical. If you saw "Friendly" with a whole bunch of negatives, then you'd know it wasn't true.

You killed two civs off early. Don't complain if everyone treats you like the threat you are!
 
How big was your army. I noticed in my last game everybody declared on me until I built up a decent force after that, diplomacy was okay. AI attitude is now heavily weighted toward Military strength and the new patch lets them bust out more military than before. I have had decently friendly games under the old patch before modifiers, so if you're decent in army it'll be fine.

This isnt only about the AI declaring war at the player but just rondomly declaring war at every AI

I haven't got a single game where a AI person doenst start A war or get into one...

At the end everybody hates eachother
 
I'm not a threat as long as Im not attacked and the AI should notice the difference.
 
Absolutely. If the AI perceives you as weak and not being able to defend yourself, they will take the opportunity unless you have some crazy loyal civ allied.. I've been back stabbed more than ever in the past 24 hours, but playing cultural victory I have a tiny defensive army.

Sorry but still i dont mind that some Ai players will atack me if i am weak because they want land.

but not every AI there must be some personallity thats what DIPLOMACY IS ABOUT....

If they just made a few personallities:
warmongers,peacefull but pacifist and will atack you if you start a lot of wars(warmonger hate) ,
will atack you if you have a lot land, atack if you are winning,

THe AI needs a REASON TO ATACK Not just human player has low army atack!!! Human player has low happiness or low gold atack!!!!! This makes for rondom atacks and most importantly all AI will act like this as result every AI hates you.

this makes it allmost impossible to build diplomatic relations or maintaining them...As result you have those diplomatic options to improve them or avoiding things that make them angry but in the end they will atack you because they want to win..

See my point... Why do you put diplomacy in this typ AI is made for a wargame
 
I'm not a threat as long as Im not attacked and the AI should notice the difference.

They do notice a difference. You only get 2/3 of the warmonger rating by killing civs in a defensive war than you would in an offensive war. After the first one you would still be able to keep your friends, but by the second a clear pattern in your behavior is emerging.

It would be illogical for you to get no warmonger rating for your aggressive actions - by the time you own three original capitals (yours + 2), you are a threat to steamroll the rest of the map.

If you want to play peacefully, then don't kill civs.
 
Once you have killed two civs, regardless of who started it, you will no longer have real friends. There are a few civs with really low warmonger hate who might still like you, but everyone else at that point is pretending and preparing to attack.

Many negative modifiers do not show up if the civ is pretending to be Friendly, which is logical. If you saw "Friendly" with a whole bunch of negatives, then you'd know it wasn't true.

You killed two civs off early. Don't complain if everyone treats you like the threat you are!

What happens if you eliminate the civs on your continent before meeting the civs on another continent? Will they still have that negative modifier even though they never met the eliminated civs or even knew the war was going on?
 
I'd love to see more of the math behind this; has anyone written up something comprehensive? How much worse is it to puppet vs. raze? What about capital vs. border city? At what point does a defensive war turn into an offensive one when they DoW you and you steamroll them in a counter-attack?
 
And I've always wondered: what is the point of Declaration of Friendships anyways, other than give the AI permission to ask you for free crap ? What benefit is there for the player, other than the assurance they won't attack you. But given the AI in this game lately I'm not even sure that's the case anymore.

I hardly ever enter DoF's anymore, because I know within a turn or two they're just going to ask me for resources or gold, despite the fact they're at double my score. :rolleyes:
 
They do notice a difference. You only get 2/3 of the warmonger rating by killing civs in a defensive war than you would in an offensive war. After the first one you would still be able to keep your friends, but by the second a clear pattern in your behavior is emerging.

That's exactly my complaint.
The pattern they see is that I wipe other civs out, while the real patter is that I destroy those who attack me. And their reaction ? Attack me. Sometimes two turns after I have sold them resources for a lump sum:crazyeye:
 
What happens if you eliminate the civs on your continent before meeting the civs on another continent? Will they still have that negative modifier even though they never met the eliminated civs or even knew the war was going on?

There is no penalty from what I can see to cleaning out your continent before meeting other faraway civs.

I'd love to see more of the math behind this; has anyone written up something comprehensive? How much worse is it to puppet vs. raze? What about capital vs. border city? At what point does a defensive war turn into an offensive one when they DoW you and you steamroll them in a counter-attack?

The warmonger penalties come from only two actions:
1. Declaring war
2. Completely conquering a civ

There is no warmonger penalty for conquering cities, razing, or anything like that.

Personally, I believe it should be changed from completely conquering to capturing their original capital. You can totally game the system by avoiding taking a last tundra/desert outpost currently.

That's exactly my complaint.
The pattern they see is that I wipe other civs out, while the real patter is that I destroy those who attack me. And their reaction ? Attack me. Sometimes two turns after I have sold them resources for a lump sum:crazyeye:

Is that really the pattern? If you take out two civs, you're almost halfway to a Domination victory (depending on map size) and it's early in the game. After one, fine, you took out the guy who attacked you. But after the second, now you're an opportunist warmonger trying to conquer civs while hoping to avoid alarming the world. Plus, you're now large and well on your way to becoming too powerful if left alone. From the economic base you have now, you could easily spring out like a tiger and take the rest of them out.

If the AIs didn't turn on you after your early conquests, then that would be a large exploit: want to conquer without letting the world know you're a warmonger, goad someone into attacking you! The benefits of conquest without the cost.

Right now you can get away with it once, but not twice. I think it's well designed.

If you do want to keep doing this, then the current exploit is to leave one crappy city for your victim so their still alive (and maybe try to get someone else to take it and pick up the penalty).
 
I agree with kaltorak that the new patch is a free for all but I enjoyed it. Playing King, Pangeia, Epic I found several AIs attacked me with warriors very early before hooking up their iron. That actually hurt the AIs. I was able to fend them off with warriors and archers, then later go after them with two swordsmen. Not sure if they calculated I was weak or not but I was able to handle them while still doing some building. The wars had to be mostly defensive since I needed to maintain some core defense as more than one AI would attack. But they would accept peace deals flat up. The AIs also were very likely to attack each other. Later, I took out one civ. There were opportunities to build and fight in the free-for-all, since I did not go on the offensive too far. There is still a lot of history left. I don't know if the AIs will hold a grudge.
 
Civ 5 can only be failed; it cannot possibly fail.

If someone reports something bizarre there are apparently a lot of folks here ready to put them down and make up some reason for why it's their fault.

I find this absolutely bizarre - rather than asking questions about the situation to clarify, just assuming that the original poster is incompetent.

9 times in 10 the "problem" someone is having, is that they don't understand what they are doing. But their tone/comment is "The game is broken because I couldn't do X"

People seemed to feel that because the game had/has some problems, this freed them from any obligation to learn to play it, and they just generally proceed straight from "oh that didn't go how I expect" to "OMG this game is broken and sucks and is the worst game ever" and when you ask "Why is that?" 9 times in 10 it is for some complete non-issue.
 
I took one city-state before anyone else had the chance to meet them, then one city from Ramesses who had Dow'd on me. Then 4 other civs denounce me and call me the warmonger :crazyeye:

I've played several games of CiV and I cant seem to find any real pattern to diplomacy other than - PREPARE FOR WAR ! :cool:
 
People seemed to feel that because the game had/has some problems, this freed them from any obligation to learn to play it, and they just generally proceed straight from "oh that didn't go how I expect" to "OMG this game is broken and sucks and is the worst game ever" and when you ask "Why is that?" 9 times in 10 it is for some complete non-issue.

I don't know, I have over 600 hours into this game now, so I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp on its concepts. Yet the completely bi-polar AI in this game is ridiculous, almost to the point where it makes diplomacy irrelevant.
 
Talking about opportunism and wanton aggression: I just started a new game and I'm alone on my island save for two city states. I attacked Warsaw to steal a worker and immediately make peace. When I tried it again on Helsinki they refused peace. I have never seen such an early permanent war before.
I'm not complaining about the change, I'm actually happy about it. Getting all your workers from CS' was one of my favourite exploits, but it's an exploit nonetheles.
 
9 times in 10 the "problem" someone is having, is that they don't understand what they are doing. But their tone/comment is "The game is broken because I couldn't do X"

People seemed to feel that because the game had/has some problems, this freed them from any obligation to learn to play it, and they just generally proceed straight from "oh that didn't go how I expect" to "OMG this game is broken and sucks and is the worst game ever" and when you ask "Why is that?" 9 times in 10 it is for some complete non-issue.

I can't count the number of "diplomacy iz borken" threads I've read where it turns out the person is completely baffled as to why other civs are wary of him "just because I burned four entire empires to the ground after they attacked me, or wouldn't trade a resource I needed, or insulted me, or, you know, I just didn't like the way they looked! It's borken!"
 
Top Bottom