AI Diplomacy, not so bad

KillingMeSoftly

Warlord
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
279
Hey guys,

This is my first post after lurking for about a month. I first bought Civ5 about a month ago after reading about the last big patch. Originally I heard Civ5 was terrible but when I heard all the changes I decided to buy (the Steam summer sale helped seal the deal, too).

Reading posts on these forums I've seen a lot of people bash and rant against the Diplomacy system and how flawed, pointless, and terrible it is. I had to agree with them for a while as I couldn't make heads or tails; AI Civs would constantly declare war on me and continually denounce me all game. Eventually I got more accustomed to the game and soaked in all the wonderful info here, and soon I discovered the problem: it's not really the game, but me and how I play.

Basically, if you act inconsiderately to other civilizations and play like a bully, they're not going to like you. It's actually quite realistic in that sense; they pay close attention to what you do and how you act, and your relationships with other civilizations. I wasn't doing the same and always kind of did my own thing, how I wanted to, never thinking of the consequences.

I would frequently accept many Declarations of Friendship thinking that this is the way to good diplomacy and relations -- but in fact it's really a trap when I was accepting them indiscriminately. You will quickly begin to rack up a list of AIs that don't like you because you're becoming buddy-buddy with their enemies, and before long very few will like you at all because you never were really friends with anyone.

Once I begun to pay close attention to the way the AI handles itself, who they make friends with, and who they make enemies with... Diplomacy became much easier to handle for me. I began to accept much fewer, if any at all, DoFs -- and would only accept them under a few circumstances: they are not enemies with anyone I'm not already enemies with, and they're not an expansionist civilization that will be declaring war on people. This really helped a lot.

I also started not to just expand everywhere and be more selective of where I settle. Plopping a city next to a neighbour is a sure-fire way to create some tension... particularly if you cut them off and don't give them anywhere else to settle that's at least decent. They will begin to covet your lands, giving you a diplomatic penalty. That alone is enough to make them Guarded after a little while. If they're militarily stronger than you it won't be long before they decide to take the land they see as theirs. So be more careful where you settle and be mindful to leave the AI some breathing room. Buying up a lot of tiles near the AI's border, if they could work them by their city, is another way to raise tension.

The computer can also covet your wonders if you beat them to building one they were constructing. I've also been more selective in which wonders I build and usually leave several for the computer to build. This will not only save you the diplomatic penalty for having wonders the AI wanted-- but save you a lot of hammers when you eventually take these wonders from them. ;)

Purely defensive wars are safe to wage and will almost never incur a diplomatic penalty; so long as you only destroy an AI Civ's units and don't take their cities. If you take/raze some of their cities they will remember the war and dislike you. But if your units only fight it out for a while until peace, they will hold no hard feelings. However declaring wars will net you a penalty with everyone (warmonger) after a few, even if you declare against City-States that have no protectors/allies. Similarly wiping out a civilization completely will quickly give you the warmonger penalty, so it's best to leave them a minor city somewhere.

I also find trading frequently to help your relations, so don't hesitate to sell luxury and strategy resources you don't need. I don't worry much about selling iron/horses/oil because any units they build with those resources will become much weaker when they don't have that resource anymore. I don't trade coal, aluminum, or uranium though because they can construct buildings (or nukes) that continue to operate at full strength (when they no longer have that resource). Also if you want a strong relationship with an AI Civ you should give them luxury resources/gold when they come asking for them; it gives you a positive diplomacy modifier. They will usually only ask for them if you have a Declaration of Friendship together, though!

Anyway, that's my observations on the Diplomacy system in Civ5. I find if I act poorly to my neighbours my actions will foster poor relations, while if I pay attention and act smartly in the diplomatic arena, it pays off.

Ultimately we all need to realize wars can and will happen, and friendly civilizations can and will backstab you. Pay special attention to expansionist civilizations like Russia, Mongolia, America, France, etc. because these are the most likely wanting to expand their borders through conquest. King difficulty (what I play on) has taught me to keep a strong military always, otherwise I start to look like a juicy target for such expansionists. Essentially; be prepared, don't be surprised. "If you want peace, prepare for war."

You can always monitor your positive, neutral, and negative diplomatic modifiers with another civilization by hovering your mouse cursor over their "emotion state" (Friendly, guarded, hostile, etc). This helps a lot to keep tabs.

Thoughts?
 
accepting DoF and NOT giving in to request will not damage your relations that much. A DoF gives you -35 relation with that civ(a good thing, -30 is "friendly" status, -50 is "ally" status). Refuse a request of giving them copy of luxury or denounce someone give you +15 relation. Eventually they will stop wanting to DoF with you, but by then the game is over and they will declare war on you for winning. So go ahead and refuse requests. AI's also won't denounce you over your refusals most of the time...
 
There is one piece on incongruity. DoF penalties and bonuses decay when the agreements expire. Failing to agree to a gift will not and it should. The penalty doesn't have to sync with the DoF, but can maybe have a maximum duration of 30, 60 turns.

As for the general point of Civ5 diplomacy. I think what a lot of players find difficult is that you have an AI built in the image of Civ3's sandlot model (each AI in that game often behave in a mercenary fashion and could be bribed) combined with more advanced models on the AI's ability to track AI actions, creates a scenario where you have an AI that appears to be scheming against the human.

There's a lot of learned behaviour in ten years of Civ3/4 play that the human player thinks they can get away with. Things like aggressive early settlement, wonder spamming, 'defensive' wars that turn into an orgy of expansion used to never be tracked or punished by the AI. The only diplomatic penalty may have only been incurred with those games is the AI on the receiving end.
 
Excellent post. Once you figure out how diplomacy actually works, and start paying attention to what's going on in your game, you're hardly ever surprised by an AI turning on you - there are all sorts of clues that a relationship's going bad or that they sense an opportunity for easy pickings.
 
Once you know how it works it does make the bizarre decisions that much more apparent however.

For instance Pachacuti, his AI seems...a little off. Several times now he has routinely done things that can be considered completely insane in my games. He covets my lands despite being very far away from me. A few turns later this is forgotten and he is friendly again. He DoW's me lategame for no reason having been thusfar friendly, when he has no hope of victory. I kill his army, he sues for peace (lucky for him his cities were trash and unappealing) and is friendly again.

What is more on one of the LP's I watched the AI Pachacuti completely imploded, DoWing everyone around, including civs far more powerful than him.

Wierd.
 
Many players don't understand why the AI acts the way it does, so they call it faulty diplomacy. They just play the game, do whatever they want without regards to AI flavors and characteristics, and then gripe when the AI does something they don't want it to do. You have it pretty much nailed. Good job.
 
It's awfually predictable though
I have never seen teh following ever going away
They covet our land
They cover wonder we build
your a warmonger


These three are all bad and they will always keep the A.I in Guarded/Hostile state :/
 
Sure allready know this only problem is the AI atacs and denounce random as result the decleration of friendships dont have any use
 
It's awfually predictable though
I have never seen teh following ever going away
They covet our land
They cover wonder we build
your a warmonger


These three are all bad and they will always keep the A.I in Guarded/Hostile state :/

Really? Because I'm always friendly with at least a few civs, unless I'm going on some crazy civ-conquering binge. As the excellent post above lays out, once you take the time to figure out how diplomacy in Civ5 works as opposed to griping that it's not like Civ4, building alliances is not that difficult (unless, again, you are bent on conquering the world, and then why should anyone be your friend?). Sure, there will always be some tension with someone, most often your closest neighbors competing for the same resources and living room, but that's not exactly surprising, is it?
 
I wouldn't say the AI is even smart enough to be random! It does the same useless things over and over. It plays the same song from a broken record. I love how people make excuses to build up the crappy AI. The funny thing is that I still like CiV. I am not voicing my opinion because I hate the game. I do not, I have bought every DLC. I just feel it is time for Firaxis to stop goofing around, and make this into the game it should be. It will take some skill, and a lot of imagination. I am interested to see if they are up to the task. It has been almost a year, it is time for us consumers to see some expansions etc. added to the game now. Vanilla version is dieing, it is getting old now.

I do like that last Japan invasion of Korea scenario. That was excellent, what a blast I had playing that. Now make the regular game that fun. Add some things to help diplomacy and the AI. Use your brains and resources. There are tons of ideas in these forums you can use to make the game a lot better and more fun.
 
Many players don't understand why the AI acts the way it does, so they call it faulty diplomacy.

I do understand why it does what it does, It just hink the reasons are stupid and the system is bad.
They ask me to attack someone, and when I do I'm the warmonger ? Come on !
 
Generally sound post. Most of the ideas behind the diplomacy system are well founded. Some of their implementations leave a great deal to be desired.

Permanent diplomatic penalties lack verisimulitude. No-one in France holds a grudge against Italy for what Julius Caesar did. It's also not smart game play. Circumstances change and permanent diplomatic anything is a barrier to the AI playing according to the circumstances.
 
The AI's not random. I know that's a popular line for the Civ5 haters, but it's not true at all.

Really? Maybe you're right it becomes so predictable you get backstabbed that isn't unpredictable...


And you are clearly missing the point what I am trying to say the AI is so agressive and land expansion that it wil declare war and denounce constantly even ghandi... As result the global politics screen isfull of red stuf wars denouncements and signing a decleration of friendship is just suicide because everyone hate you..

you are saying :
DoFs -- and would only accept them under a few circumstances: they are not enemies with anyone I'm not already enemies with, and they're not an expansionist civilization that will be declaring war on people.
Wich Ai has ever donne that? Not beeing an expansionist all of them are because they want to win..


So diplomacy works no it doesn't the system idea is good but the AI can't handle it..

Simply because they make their decissions based on numbers (units,gold,hapiness) not on flavor or what actually is going on in the world...It will olso hate you if you are winning or have more cities again based on numbers

thats why you see constantly wars and denounciations someone is weaker declare and so on then the warmonger civ is weaker because of the war and other declare war on hin and so on and they get mad and denounce...

If there where diplomatic options or not the AI wil act the same it doesn't matter it wants to win and makes his decissions on numbers and will not calculate the amount of positif modifiers it will still makes it decission for example denounce,delcare.. Say what diplomacy ?
 
Thank you for your post.

I just want to add (I have already written about this in another thread), that the only thing that affects the relations with AI is "Do you prevent AI from winning?", opposite to Civ3/Civ4. Everything you do is judged from this point. So don't be surprised when every AI has denounced you as soon as you finished Appolo Project.
 
Great!
I have been playing on diety difficulty for months.I think this is a good idea about diplomacy.
 
They ask me to attack someone, and when I do I'm the warmonger ? Come on !
I think you mean even the civ which asked you to go to war will consider you a warmonger after, and that's indeed bad. I wouldn't hesitate calling that a bug. All other civs may still dislike you, and should, but not the civ whose request you answered.
No-one in France holds a grudge against Italy for what Julius Caesar did
Not even against Germany for what happened only a couple of generations ago. Yeah, some individual will still hold a grudge, but the countries are together in EU, Nato and whatnot.

Warmonger penalties should decay over time. They may even be a bit heftier, but they should wear off.

Actually, I wonder what the complaint is about the warmonger status itself. My only experience with it is from a succession game, where we declared on and wiped out two civs. From the remaining 3 civs (it was a small map) Rome and China were still friendly with us. The only one who considered us a warmonger was Ghandi, but even with him we could still make reasonable trades.
From the forums I understand you can even expect to make research agreements with civs that don't like you.
If this is typical, then in my view these warmonger penalties may be bigger than they are now. But decaying over time, of course.

I don't mind the diplomatic system in the game, but there's a lot of sloppiness in it. Some more attention to detail from the developers would make it better. Some examples of this sloppiness have been given above; a civ complaining you're a warmonger after you've answered their request to go to war, a civ complaining you're settling near them when it's actually them who put a town next to one of yours, a civ compaining about your recent involvement with a city state while you've actually been allies for most of the game, a civ coveting your lands while you haven't settled beyond your capital (sometimes I doubt whether they have actually found your lands), city states who remain in dispute with each other for the whole game, research agreements that are too easy to acquire, etc.
I hope for some finetuning.

I don't have much sympathy for players that always rant about the amount of war in the game, though. What do they want? Just set their towns to building after building and press end turn all the time? Units doing nothing? I think a different game genre would satisfy those needs better.
And I think a lot of players indeed don't pay attention to the triggers. Like if a civ declares on you because, like they say 'our proximity has destined us to be enemies' then they are likely to declare again and again as long as that proximity still exists, so you need to do something about that then.
I do agree with most what is said in the opening post.
 
An AI that doesn't consistently DoW you between turn 13 and 50 no matter what you do.

Civs historicially aligned with agression will often play the early game gambit of DoW and I'm happy to report they either fight each other to a stalemate or actually knock/cripple a civ or two out early in the game. But that's been a human strategy the AI wasn't really able to pull off in the past unless in rare circumstances.

I can also confirm a vast majority of the time, I'm not the one being declared on. Even when I don't play an agressive game. Though in the odd game I've gone for the early archer/warrior rush myself if I start cloe to another AI. But the AI will also try that too.

The 'hands off' cooldown period that devs used to put in for the early game where no warfare is allowed has been significantly reduced or may no longer be in play. Normal non agressive AI will also tend to become agressive if you start too close to each other.

The problem, significantly, is playstyle. If you decide to wonderspam or go 'builder' while starting close to another Civ, or next to the likes of Napoleon, Monty, Ghengis, Bismarck, Alexander, or any of the high agression Civs without first confirming they are fighting someone else, you deserve to lose.

There's no 'ideal' starts/ Maybe your first five builds can be prefab and set, but you really do need to adapt to how you roll and who you're next to. I even switch social policies depending on which Civ I play.

Depending on the Civs you roll, who you start next to and geography, games can vary considerably. This is also why games on the same difficulty can vary from easy dominant early game leading to dominant late game due to early warfare amongst the AI civs with a weak slate of AI opponents (all warmongers), to slow grinding stalemate with Haiwatha and being boxed in on all sides. I can't possibly imagine how people can claim it's predictable, civ5's first 100 turns are probably the least predictable of all the Civ games.
 
Back
Top Bottom