1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

AI Diplomacy, not so bad

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by KillingMeSoftly, Sep 11, 2011.

  1. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    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.
     
  2. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,307
    This is the whole problem with Civilization games lately. They are not designed in a natural, instinctive way.

    You will say : but what game is such designed ? Games are games, not reality, so they are not entitled to simulate perfectly, they have their own rules, which have to be learned.

    I will answer : First, I think it's possible to design a game that is instinct-friendly. for example, do so that the rules are not hiden in any way, or by explaining them extensively, and in that case there is a need for a clever initiation through the game itself, or by making some trivial features not key, by not introducing them in a confusing fashion, example : why propose the player to DoF if it will for sure be negative ? :confused:
    Second, I will say that as a game with distinct and sometimes opaque rules must not be pushed toward streamlining everywhere. This mean, the player should not have to streamline his game to take pleasure. Features should be mostly axed on fun, and an average comprehension of the real real world, say around the 7-8 years old, should be enough to win the game in easy or even normal difficulty. As to the hard difficulty, it should requiere an understanding of the game mechanics, but that does not include the confusing/opaque/hidden/complicated ones. Someone should be able to beat the hardest difficulty mode without coming into a forum like CivFanatics.
     
  3. Ginman

    Ginman Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Have you ever cleared your Civ5-Cash? I´ve played much games without world-wars and only minor conflicts. Then there were other games where nearly all civs are at war. It´s all a result from the diplomatic evolution. DoF and denouncements are very important instruments and you should handle them right.


    The AI make their decissions based on numbers. Yes. This ist what an AI almost do - it´s a computer. The behaviour is based on strict numbers including your former actions and things like DoF modified by random parameters. For example, if there is a triangle-constellation between you and two other civs and all of you are friends then you are in their good books and you have to be a "very, very bad boy" to provoke a denouncement.
     
  4. headcase

    headcase Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,213
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I like the AI diplo too. One touch to make it more human is to have a failing civ leader RAGEQUIT, reducing that civ to city-state status so it`s not such a nuisance. This is a serious suggestion.
     
  5. King Patrick

    King Patrick Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    233
    Learn how diplomacy works in Civ5. Pay attention to what you're doing. Don't insist on playing exactly the same strategies you used in Civ4 and then get angry when they don't work. Problem solved.

    Also, it's a computer program. All computer programs make decisions based on numbers. That's how computer programs work.
     
  6. The AI is pissed that you exist. In my most recent game Russia and I were god buddies we traded, we had research agreements, we had open borders, and then WHAM! I settled a city that eventually grew to be adjacent to Russian borders and suddenly Cathy is grumbling and canceling treaties, then denouncing and DOWing on me.
     
  7. King Patrick

    King Patrick Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    233
    Catherine's extremely devious and nearly always backstabs her neighbors once she runs out of room to expand. Any time we start near each other, I know I have to build up my military to make other civs more attractive targets once she starts lusting after everyone else's territory.
     
  8. Well actually that city was going to serve as a staging area for the invasion:mischief:, but she couldn't have known that.

    The best game I had for diplomacy was when I lived on this island. Meaning I rarely shared borders with anyone.
     
  9. Windsor

    Windsor Flawless

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,386
    Location:
    Norway
    No, the problem is not playstyle. I've tried maybe 10 starts (deity, standard speed, continents, no ruins, no barbs, quick combat). No wonders built, not settled close to the AI (if 2nd city settled at all, usually away from AI but you have to settle SOMEWHERE).

    I've started next to Wu, Ramesses, Monty, Elizabeth, Alexander, Oda, Darius, Ramkhamhaeng and Isabella. They have all declared on me so leader doesn't seem to matter, one time (next to Alex) he didn't declare before turn 53, but else I have consistently been declared upon between turn 13 and turn 50.

    I don't mind the AI doing an early rush in some cases, but seriously? I've even tried going straight warriors and archers while still having a decent distance to AI, even that didn't prevent war. Most games I tried only monument before military (getting worker and settler from liberty), but the AI just consistently declares war.

    To me this is not only extremely predictable, it's not fun and it's just a cheap way of making the game harder. And of course, it doesn't matter if the AI is friendly when you meet them or not. They'll declare anyway.
     
  10. NotSure

    NotSure King

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    712
    I think maybe I need some more sleep or something, but this cracked me up. I thought you were being sarcastic until I read the last sentence. They already insult you all game long, so if they rage quit just as you were grinding them into defeat the "playing like a human" design would be complete!

    Seriously though, yes diplomacy in the game makes sense (most of the time) if you understand the soft-coded values. I'm still conflicted about whether it's fun or not. I'm in the middle ground between "narrative player" and "competitor", so the competitive side appreciates an AI that will (sort of) challenge me. This game doesn't offer anything for the "narrative player" in me though. Other countries are mad at me because I'm trying to win the game in the same manner as them? The titles of some of the threads near this one tells the whole story: "The Reason Why You Get Denounced After Liberating"; "Is The Betrayer Punished?"; "Why Monte, Why?" The competitive AI only values winning, which makes diplomacy and the diplomatic victory condition feel shallow (for lack of a better word).

    @Glassmage:
    I've never seen "allied" status in a game. Will it say that or is it a hidden status? I once had the trifecta of major positive modifiers Catherine, and they all occurred within about five turns. I rescued two civilians (settler & worker), agreed to a DoF, and gave Catherine gold (that she immediately requested after the DoF). Not only did I not receive an "allied" status with her, but she immediately spent the gold I gave her to buy away one of my allied city states.
     
  11. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Well diety is widely regardly as a different beast entirely given the AI unit advantages. In every Civ game, it is considered different and is meant to challenge the human players and allowable exploits are expected to be used to counter those massive advantages. Fastest way to get your 2nd city/1st settler out in any game is to beeline for liberty path. That's what I do when I have a crowded start. I beeline for that 1st settler and the 50% build bonus. Then you can dump your gold and get a 2nd settler right away if you need to.

    Without knowing your game, it's hard to discuss, but WuZetian, Monty, Alexander, Oda all have agression of 6 or higher. You're just extremely unlucky here and it goes back to my comment that Civ5 starts can vary in (actual) difficulty wildly on the same difficulty setting and 'canned' starts don;t work as well in this game as in previous games, though canned starts is probably ok to stick to in prince and below. But given so many warmongers were around, I am surprised they didn't war each other as well, giving you room to expand and play lackey to their coalitions. Unless you massively misplayed your hand, or did something wrong or again, just unlucky that they are arranged in such a way that they all had to attack you first.

    Also, there's the dogpile effect. If you're at war, there's a very obvious penalty applied to AI's view of your military strength and even weaker or civs on par may declare to try to gain advantage. This of course can also be used to your advantage given the AI isn't great in tactical troop movements and you can tie up easily, 1 or 2 AI's forcing them to waste their production making troops you kill while you keep your heavily promoted units.

    Again, without seeing your game it's impossible to discuss. That said, I am confirming the AI will DoW early as part of their slate of possible strategies.

    This is not a problem, and defending against this eventuality is part of high level play.

    I can't say for sure, but you are probably playing a difficulty setting that perhaps is beyond you or you're sticking to a starting strategy that isn't suited for that partiuclar start, but worked well in another game and you didn't adjust. That's fine, I fail a lot of my starts, but that's fun. Maybe you had a good start on diety once and think you're diety level, but as noted, ACTUAL difficulty of Civ5 games can swing from game to game.

    There are some games I've played that I feel should be rated much lower because of the AI selection I drew, their placement and early wars, and how they cancelled each other out, allowing me to easily breeze through the game.
     
  12. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    The'res no contradiction. Narrative play works in Civ5 if you work with the diplomacy, just as people projected intentions to Civ3/4 AI when infact the AI was just dogpiling or using random RNG to dow.

    I agree war is more frequent in 5, but I haven't read a good/popular narrative AAR where the entire game is about the player building his way to victory.

    Perhaps the issue is that wars come when the player would prefer it not to come, and that's an issue of balance that I think was skewed too much in favour of humans pulling all the strings and we're now returning to Civ3 level of mercenary/dogpiling.
     
  13. Windsor

    Windsor Flawless

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,386
    Location:
    Norway
    Just have to point out, I didn't meet all of those in 1 game. I tried (roughly) 10 games just to check out the status of Civ5. The problem is not that in a few of them an AI declares, the problem is when ALL games start with a war before turn 50.

    Also note, I'm not complaining about difficulty, but simply that being rushed in every single game is not fun. Granted, it might be that I was just unlucky with all of my testgames, but I doubt it.
     
  14. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada

    I don't think that's a problem, it's just how the game is and I quite like it, rather than the very static early games of the previous civs, with perhaps only the human player instigating early rushes. It's rare to draw a warmonger near you every game, but they do pop up quite frequently. you just have to defend against them so they pick someone else to war first at which point you either offer your services or join in uninvited and get the 'common foe' bonus.
     
  15. Rince

    Rince King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    In your city, poisoning your water!
    I've had a game (on Prince) where not a single war was declared over the course of the whole game. It was Archipelago though, so it might be linked to there being less shared borders.

    In my current game (King) I get along well with almost everybody. Nobody attacked me and I'm on turn 284 currently. At one point the whole world teamed up against Monty and declared war on him.

    So while there are bugs in diplomacy as other poster have mentioned, the system itself does work quite well and ensures that no game is the same as the last one.

    Only sure way to be attacked is being a neighbor of an aggressive Civ, buying/settling aggressively or being outnumbered military-wise. My experience stops at King though.
     
  16. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Yeah, Wars is dependent on the Civ mix as well. and Civ flavours matter much more this time.

    After you play a few games, you'd starting picking up the usual suspects of Civs who instigate wars and its fairly easy to actually plan your strategy around the civ mix in your game.

    If wars just happen completely randomly then I would agree it's a problem. But that's not the case.
     
  17. Optional

    Optional Deity

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,935
    Location:
    It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
    I do agree with you here; if it's always happening it's no fun. I misunderstood you somewhat at first; I thought you had played the same start over and over again with every time being declared on, whichever tactic you chose yourself. Someone has posted that experience, you see.
    I didn't think you meant different games, as I don't believe it's happening in every single game. From my experience, a row of 10 games in which it's happening would not be so strange, as I see it happening lots of times, but not all the time. I think you had a bad spell.
     
  18. NotSure

    NotSure King

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    712
    Well, he's talking about a Prince/Archipelago game, and Archipelago maps are famous for being love-fests. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and you are absolutely right that the soft-coded flavors dictate who is more likely to start wars. But, the higher up you go, the more likely flavors don't matter and everyone will declare war on everyone else, regardless of the grand strategy each civ rolled. A Deity/Pangaea game often degrades into a total war game early and stays that way until the end. I'm not saying this is bad or good it's just my experience (and maybe I'm doing it wrong).

    The wars, by the way, aren't the primary setback to narrative play for me either. It's the fact that if you play for a challenge and also want a little engaging diplomacy, you're barking up the wrong tree. There are very few positive modifiers that will actually put you in a position to ally another civ & even if you could there would be no point to it. DoF is the closest relationship you can have with any civ AFAIK. That relationship gets you very little (50 turns of peace?). You're "friend" will watch you get nearly obliterated by two other civs in the ancient era, ask you for a resource they could easily trade for fairly in the middle ages, and denounce you in Renaissance because you built Big Ben. The AI only values winning.

    I appreciate your perspective regarding previous Civ games (because I never played them) and I can see your point regarding player manipulation of the AI with regard to powerful positive modifiers such as religion. I also accept that this might be considered the best diplomacy model to keep the player engaged in conflict and active while pursuing victory. I just wonder if there could be exceptions without compromising the competitive concept. Sure, an AI that truly allied the player might be putting itself in a position to ignore the fact that the player is outpacing the AI, but in cases such as liberation, should that matter? That civ has already lost the game once. I don't like the fact that they take the competitive spirit to the point of suicide either. Shouldn't the AI value survival and seek out allies that would prevent them from being destroyed? Sure, this takes the nasty competitive edge off a few of the civs in every game. But would it change the outcome of those games?

    Sorry I've rambled.
     
  19. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Gasp, so you got back stabbed before you had time to back stab?
    That actually sounds like a dream AI...
     
  20. spicytimothy

    spicytimothy Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I only wish there's a way to know what I did that cause certain status/reaction.

    For example, if they can tell me on the hovering tool tip something like

    Warmonger:
    "Turn 121, invaded Belgrade, ally of England"
    Covet Lands:
    "Turn 121, settled New York, disputed territory"
    Covet Wonders:
    "Turn 121, built Big Ben, 7 turns from completion"

    Is this too much information??
     

Share This Page