AI Diplomacy, not so bad

[The Pilgrim]

Between 'do nothing at all' and 'conquer their entire empire?' I would think so.

Well, you think wrong. There is a difference between DoWing AI and getting some advantage from doing so and DoWing and getting nothing. It's kinda black and white. If you've managed to benefit from war, you're bastard. Why to ask in the first place then?

This is a magic cycle. We expect AI acting like a reasonable human, AI, on the other hand, 'treats' us as another AI. Expects us to build tons of pikes, move them back and forth and fail to capture a single city. By AI's terms it's a well played war. We'll never understand each other.

 

[CoolLizy]

Yeah that's the kind of hand holding that you don't need. Settlement stealing should be fairly self explanatory.

Also covet land =! settlement penalty.

They will still covet land even if they are far away. The settlement penalty is specific to spots on the map your neighbours want to settle but you steal/take first.

The former is just a general modifier to say the AI likes your territory/want your cities.

The latter is to stop early rexing exploits that have the human player settling directly in the AI's direction to cut them off early.

It's not hand-holding, it's making a broken game mechanic actually work the way it was intended. If Napoleon comes to me whining about how I'm building too close to him and I tell him I won't settle any more cities near him, then he shouldn't come back later throwing a fit about "breaking my promise" when I build another city on the other side of my territory that he still considers too close even though it's really nowhere near him.

Giving the player more information when making a decision is not hand-holding; unless showing the player how much gold they have when negotiating with the AI is also hand-holding.

 

[dexters]

It's hand holding and I've never experienced what you've described over 20 odd starts (not all of them turned into full games naturally) post the most recent patch.

I've also had several Napoleon starts. But he's a warmonger and will usually declare against someone early. I wouldn't care too much what he thinks.

In anycase, the issue really is a player should be able to know settling in choice spots, especially next to a natural wonder will tend to get the closest AIs upset. But since you gave vague details and spoke in generalities, I can't really speak to your issue.

The don't settle near me mechanic works.

 

[chazzycat]

Well, you think wrong. There is a difference between DoWing AI and getting some advantage from doing so and DoWing and getting nothing. It's kinda black and white. If you've managed to benefit from war, you're bastard. Why to ask in the first place then?

This is a magic cycle. We expect AI acting like a reasonable human, AI, on the other hand, 'treats' us as another AI. Expects us to build tons of pikes, move them back and forth and fail to capture a single city. By AI's terms it's a well played war. We'll never understand each other.

The AI just wants you to provide a distraction, they don't want you to steal their spoils of war. Think about what YOUR goals are when you bribe another AI to join a war. Basically, you just want them to create a 2nd front, right? Or, its a desparation move on the defensive side. Either way, you don't want them to actually take cities do you?? The AI is trying to think this way, which is a good thing. The problem is, relative to the human player, they suck at taking cities. This leads to a lot of situations where the AI ends up serving as the distraction while the human player takes the cities instead. Of course, that situation is going to leave an unhappy AI.

As for a real world example, look at WW2. Britain allies US & Russia, inviting them to war, needing assistance to hold off the Nazis. US & Russia help, Nazis are defeated. The US & allied forces in the west liberated the countries such as France and Holland. Russia, on the other hand, basically took the land they conquered from the Axis and added it to the Soviet Union. One of the two parties acted "diplomatically" in Civ sense, ie did not take enemy cities. The other party clearly took a more aggressive stance and took the opportunity to add land to their empire. What was the result? The US remained allied with the West, while the Soviets' empire-building caused fear & resentment, leading to the cold war. That's a gross oversimplification of course, but you can get the point.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

This is a magic cycle. We expect AI acting like a reasonable human, AI, on the other hand, 'treats' us as another AI. Expects us to build tons of pikes, move them back and forth and fail to capture a single city. By AI's terms it's a well played war. We'll never understand each other.

Actually I'd like the AI in a strategy game to act like the ruler of a country or a general within the rules of the game, and not like a (dumd) human playing a game.
It's called immersion, and as soon as I read "they think you're trying to win the same way and they don't like it", or an ally who is weaker and has benefited from trades with me commits suicide by DoW, or an enemy keeps attacking me although I beat him back every time and could easily destroy him, it goes straight to hell.

If I want to be harassed by griefers I'll play multiplayer with random strangers, thank you very much !

 

[King Patrick]

Well, you think wrong. There is a difference between DoWing AI and getting some advantage from doing so and DoWing and getting nothing. It's kinda black and white. If you've managed to benefit from war, you're bastard. Why to ask in the first place then?

This is a magic cycle. We expect AI acting like a reasonable human, AI, on the other hand, 'treats' us as another AI. Expects us to build tons of pikes, move them back and forth and fail to capture a single city. By AI's terms it's a well played war. We'll never understand each other.

I see now why you're having such a hard time with the game.

 

[Pazyryk]

I agree almost entirely with the OP. Most of the rants against the AI diplomacy are either folks who don't understand it ("it's impossible to have a peaceful game") or want a very dumbed down simple diplomacy ("I gave them DoF, why are they so concerned that my empire just doubled in size?").

However, I see two problems (one is really a "limitation") with the current AI implementation.

1. The more serous flaw is that the AI often engages in serial DoWs. It will DoW on 2nd civ (before wrapping up the last war) and then a 3rd, 4th, etc. This is probably just a problem in weighting AI decisions. There should be an increasing inhibition to start new wars while one is still ongoing (especially if going badly).
2. Despite the fact that it is very possible to have a peaceful game (I know there are 1000s of posts here to the contrary, but they are wrong), there really is nothing in the AI behavioral repertoire that resembles alliance. I consider this more of a limitation or a not-yet-implemented feature than a flaw. I don't want a dumbed down version that would please most folks. It should be an alliance that can weaken and dissolve.

 

[The Pilgrim]

The AI just wants you to provide a distraction, they don't want you to steal their spoils of war. Think about what YOUR goals are when you bribe another AI to join a war. Basically, you just want them to create a 2nd front, right? Or, its a desparation move on the defensive side. Either way, you don't want them to actually take cities do you??

Why not? I don't mind. It will be more challenging for me to deal with one stronger opponent than with two weak ones. Sure. But it's my problem. I'll take that chance. AI caught me with my pants down not prepared to defense myself so I need somebody else to come and save me? That somebody gets carte blanche from me. Seriously. I want two neighbors to mess with each other and leave me alone for a while? I'll suck up all the damage inflicted to my plans as a result. That makes perfect sense to me.

The AI is trying to think this way, which is a good thing. The problem is, relative to the human player, they suck at taking cities. This leads to a lot of situations where the AI ends up serving as the distraction while the human player takes the cities instead. Of course, that situation is going to leave an unhappy AI.

Absolutely. Giving penalty for 'stealing' cities is really a must have. I'm afraid though implementing isn't trivial. I doubt game keeps usable tracks of damage done by each player (I would gladly be proven wrong), so figuring out who took down defense and who actually captured the city isn't possible as well.

As for a real world example, look at WW2. Britain allies US & Russia, inviting them to war, needing assistance to hold off the Nazis. US & Russia help, Nazis are defeated. The US & allied forces in the west liberated the countries such as France and Holland. Russia, on the other hand, basically took the land they conquered from the Axis and added it to the Soviet Union. One of the two parties acted "diplomatically" in Civ sense, ie did not take enemy cities. The other party clearly took a more aggressive stance and took the opportunity to add land to their empire. What was the result? The US remained allied with the West, while the Soviets' empire-building caused fear & resentment, leading to the cold war. That's a gross oversimplification of course, but you can get the point.

I totally can. And I don't mind simplification. But I can spend hours pouring out what I really think about non-intervention of these 'diplomatic' states. Next time maybe.

There is something we cannot ignore though. During WW2 neither Franco nor Mussolini scolded Hitler for being who he is. AI does exactly that. Rarely it asks for your help while being a victim, mostly while being an aggressor itself. Even if we assume these are preventive wars. Their point is weakening a real aggressor, isn't it?

Many of the attitude change triggers are quite amateurish and non-creative.
You build your third (not an exaggeration, for all the skeptics amongst us ) city. No! You should be executed.
You've spawned on the other side of the continent, so I deeply covet your lands. I'll denounce you.
That guy from other part of the world has denounced you, he probably got his reason. I'll join the party... etc.

I'm not against strong competitive AI. I'm very much for it. As I've stated many times. Where is it? All the above aren't signs of competition. They don't make the game harder nor more interesting.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Actually I'd like the AI in a strategy game to act like the ruler of a country or a general within the rules of the game, and not like a (dumd) human playing a game.
It's called immersion, and as soon as I read "they think you're trying to win the same way and they don't like it", or an ally who is weaker and has benefited from trades with me commits suicide by DoW, or an enemy keeps attacking me although I beat him back every time and could easily destroy him, it goes straight to hell.

If I want to be harassed by griefers I'll play multiplayer with random strangers, thank you very much !

That's not what I meant. Of course you don't want AI to act like another human in MP. It's a different game. But you do want AI to act according to what you (human) consider as reasonable and rational, don't you?

 

[The Pilgrim]

I see now why you're having such a hard time with the game.

Please enlighten me! Pretty please!

 

[chazzycat]

Why not? I don't mind. It will be more challenging for me to deal with one stronger opponent than with two weak ones. Sure. But it's my problem. I'll take that chance. AI caught me with my pants down not prepared to defense myself so I need somebody else to come and save me? That somebody gets carte blanche from me. Seriously. I want two neighbors to mess with each other and leave me alone for a while? I'll suck up all the damage inflicted to my plans as a result. That makes perfect sense to me.

sure, that's your choice, but is not ideal play. The AI shoudn't be programmed to "want a challenge", but to play well. Trying to start a war between 2 AIs and stay out of it yourself is a very different situation from inviting another civ into a war of conquest. In that case, I agree it wouldn't make sense to have a high diplo modifier. However, I suspect the AI is unable to differentiate between these two situations.

Absolutely. Giving penalty for 'stealing' cities is really a must have. I'm afraid though implementing isn't trivial. I doubt game keeps usable tracks of damage done by each player (I would gladly be proven wrong), so figuring out who took down defense and who actually captured the city isn't possible as well..

Seems like we are agreed on this point

I totally can. And I don't mind simplification. But I can spend hours pouring out what I really think about non-intervention of these 'diplomatic' states. Next time maybe.

There is something we cannot ignore though. During WW2 neither Franco nor Mussolini scolded Hitler for being who he is. AI does exactly that. Rarely it asks for your help while being a victim, mostly while being an aggressor itself. Even if we assume these are preventive wars. Their point is weakening a real aggressor, isn't it?

Many of the attitude change triggers are quite amateurish and non-creative.
You build your third (not an exaggeration, for all the skeptics amongst us ) city. No! You should be executed.
You've spawned on the other side of the continent, so I deeply covet your lands. I'll denounce you.
That guy from other part of the world has denounced you, he probably got his reason. I'll join the party... etc.

I'm not against strong competitive AI. I'm very much for it. As I've stated many times. Where is it? All the above aren't signs of competition. They don't make the game harder nor more interesting.

I disagree that it doesn't make the game harder. If you could turn every collabarate war into a war of conquest with no effects on diplomacy, that would create essentially a giant loophole to reward warmongers.

Franco was dealing with civil war mostly, but Mussolini knew exactly what he was getting into from the beginning. Hitler was always the aggressor, Italy just went along for the ride. There was not a breach of trust in Mussolini's eyes...everything went as expected. If things were switched up, i.e. Mussolini was the agressor and Hitler was invited along for support, you could bet that he would have been pretty pissed when Germany took over most of Europe. I think that would be a lot more analagous to the in game diplo situation you are talking about.

 

[The Pilgrim]

sure, that's your choice, but is not ideal play. The AI shoudn't be programmed to "want a challenge", but to play well. Trying to start a war between 2 AIs and stay out of it yourself is a very different situation from inviting another civ into a war of conquest. In that case, I agree it wouldn't make sense to have a high diplo modifier. However, I suspect the AI is unable to differentiate between these two situations.

It probably is. As many other things. But I'm being real. I don't expect a fully intelligent bot able to have, express and pursue its own personal intentions instead of following if-else logic statements. Unfortunately (or fortunately? ) no machine passed Turing test yet. I won't give up hope though.

There are, however, some things that cannot be that hard to change. Like military potential estimation. Taking in consideration human superiority, tech pace and bankroll will reduce at least amount of suicidal DoW's.

BTW, does AI actually try to bribe someone else to DoW other AI's without taking part in it? Can't remember such thing. This will be cool. Bribing AI to DoW a human would have been cool too if these were actual wars. Not phony ones.

I disagree that it doesn't make the game harder. If you could turn every collabarate war into a war of conquest with no effects on diplomacy, that would create essentially a giant loophole to reward warmongers.

I would say the current diplomacy flatness encourages warmongers more than anything else. What is diplomacy good for? Mainly for RA's. Do you really need them when you own half of the world and generate over 1k PT? Not really. On the other hand, if you go tall, you're unable to generate the same amount of beakers and have to rely heavily on RA's. With wrong mix of civs and circumstances towards the end many of your RA partners will turn on you and you may lose them as they aren't willing to sign a peace treaty for ages without being completely thrashed. Warmongering is much safer bet. There is no practical advantage in playing peacefully other than player's preference. Here TheMeInTeam makes some very good points.

Franco was dealing with civil war mostly, but Mussolini knew exactly what he was getting into from the beginning. Hitler was always the aggressor, Italy just went along for the ride. There was not a breach of trust in Mussolini's eyes...everything went as expected. If things were switched up, i.e. Mussolini was the agressor and Hitler was invited along for support, you could bet that he would have been pretty pissed when Germany took over most of Europe. I think that would be a lot more analagous to the in game diplo situation you are talking about.

Fine. Penalize the human for 'conquering what's supposed to be mine!" even for trying to win similar way not for "you're bloodthirsty s.o.b.' It hurts my intelligence. Truly.

 

[spicytimothy]

Here's a better idea. Before you take action against another civ, check the global politics screen. You should then know exactly why that civ's allies are pissed with you after you've attacked their ally. Instead of the game telling players the most basic information, players should learn to check their informational UI priior to taking actions. That's what I was talking about in one of my posts. Players don't take the time to check their informational UIs and then wonder why things happened the way they did.

On the other hand, some civs will do things randomly. Just like you will say my troops are just passing through prior to attacking, the civs will backstab you. Check the thread with the downloadable flavors spreadsheet. It will give you an idea of each civs' likelihood of taking certain actions. It will give you an idea of how each civ is programmed to respond. There is always a random factor, but flavors are a good guide to reading general and reasonably consistent actions / reactions.

I don't care where they put the info, I just meant what they have right now is not clear enough. When they say they covet my lands, where is it? When they're angry that I'm a warmonger, which war?

Like I said I don't know if that's too much information or maybe it's not even possible, but I wanna know more specifically which particular action caused a certain attitude. I certainly cannot go into the diplomacy screen every frigging turn to track every AI's attitude towards me.

 

[spicytimothy]

Speaking of which, I'd like it if the game would ask me "Are you sure you want to settle here? You told *insert name here* you wouldn't settle by them," so that I wouldn't have to guess whether or not I'm too close.

This will be so helpful.

 

[CoolLizy]

It's hand holding...

How is giving the player information hand holding? Please explain.

I've also had several Napoleon starts. But he's a warmonger and will usually declare against someone early. I wouldn't care too much what he thinks.

I used Napoleon as an example; all the AI players will do it if they're trying to expand. I'm not talking about the AI "coveting land". The AI can covet your land even if you have a single city; that's a whole other issue. I'm talking about when you settle next to the AI and they ask you to stop.

The problem now is that if you tell the AI you're sorry and you won't settle near their land anymore, you are given no indication of what you're agreeing to. How close is too close? Is four tiles away too close? Is six tiles away too close? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? The player is never told or informed. They have to guess and then next thing you know the AI is ticked off about it because you guessed wrong and you get a diplo hit with them over it for the rest of the game.

 

[chazzycat]

It probably is. As many other things. But I'm being real. I don't expect a fully intelligent bot able to have, express and pursue its own personal intentions instead of following if-else logic statements. Unfortunately (or fortunately? ) no machine passed Turing test yet. I won't give up hope though. :

Fair enough.

There are, however, some things that cannot be that hard to change. Like military potential estimation. Taking in consideration human superiority, tech pace and bankroll will reduce at least amount of suicidal DoW's.

Tech level and bankroll are already a part of force determination. Adding a "human superiority" coeffecient is an interesting idea. Kinda weird concept, but could improve things.

I would say the current diplomacy flatness encourages warmongers more than anything else. What is diplomacy good for? Mainly for RA's. Do you really need them when you own half of the world and generate over 1k PT? Not really. On the other hand, if you go tall, you're unable to generate the same amount of beakers and have to rely heavily on RA's. With wrong mix of civs and circumstances towards the end many of your RA partners will turn on you and you may lose them as they aren't willing to sign a peace treaty for ages without being completely thrashed. Warmongering is much safer bet. There is no practical advantage in playing peacefully other than player's preference.

I see where you're coming from but respectfully disagree. For me RA peaceful victories seem to be more efficient. I have had plenty of games where I warmongered too much, my economy stagnated, and I fell behind in tech because no one would sign RAs with me. I can't think of many examples of the opposite.

Fine. Penalize the human for 'conquering what's supposed to be mine!" even for trying to win similar way not for "you're bloodthirsty s.o.b.' It hurts my intelligence. Truly.

I agree, some of the phrasings in diplomacy messages are pretty bad, but that's a pretty minor issue in the grand scheme of thing.

 

[Civsassin]

I don't care where they put the info, I just meant what they have right now is not clear enough. When they say they covet my lands, where is it? When they're angry that I'm a warmonger, which war?

Like I said I don't know if that's too much information or maybe it's not even possible, but I wanna know more specifically which particular action caused a certain attitude. I certainly cannot go into the diplomacy screen every frigging turn to track every AI's attitude towards me.

I don't think everything should be spoon fed. If you are negotiating with someone in real life, you have to know how to influence them or what is important to them. You don't get a pop up to tell you. At some point, players need to understand what causes things by looking at the information available prior to undertaking a course of action. Know that if you have a civ with a high wonder score, they will probably get angry with you if you beat them to a wonder. Know that if a civ has a DoF with another, you will get a diplomacy hit when you attack its friend. Know that if a civ has a high value in CS relations, and you steel a CS from it (or even compete with it for CSs), you will take a diplo hit. All of this information is available if you look for it. Knowing AI flavors isn't available to you in the game, but it is in the forums. If you take the time to research it, you will know that certain actions will affect certain civs in different ways. Some AIs have a tend to backstab; some have a tend to war often; etc.

At some point, players have to take responsibility for their own actions without the game having to spoon feed you. Play a game of chess and see if your opponent tells you when you make a bad move. He/She will simply punish you for making it; same idea.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I disagree with the OP. I never disliked diplomacy in Civ5 because it was "too hard" or because "I didn't get it" (with the exception of my first 2 - 3 games).

I dislike diplomacy because it is extremely limited. There isn't anything fun about it. The only thing diplomacy has going for it is that it is VERY easy to manipulate once you understand some very basic fundamentals. DoF is basically the only thing you can actually do to influence another civ to be friendly. Sure, you can give in to their requests. But that isn't you initiating the diplomacy. Sure, you can join in a war with your friends. But that isn't the PLAYER initiating the diplomacy.

I look at the positive (green) modifiers in the diplo menu, and all I see are "They seek friendly relations with your civ.", "You have signed a DoF with us!", "You have signed DoF with our friends", and the military one about a common enemy.

Trading, open borders, uneven trades (that you almost always have to make to any civ that isn't friendly), and research agreements have absolutely no effect on diplomacy. It's so boring and somewhat pointless since you will eventually be at odds with your old friends anyway.

This game desperately needs an engaging and fun system of diplomacy where more actions than just DoF have a positive effect. Again, it's not about the diplomacy being "difficult" because it is just the opposite. It's a pushover. And pointy stick diplomacy is really the only type that you can count on in the end.

All of this information is available if you look for it. Knowing AI flavors isn't available to you in the game, but it is in the forums. If you take the time to research it, you will know that certain actions will affect certain civs in different ways. Some AIs have a tend to backstab; some have a tend to war often; etc.

Actually, there is no way to determine which lands they covet. And there is absolutely no excuse for the above statement regarding information available on the forums. That's just silly. You don't make a strategy game where information is hidden in the code because the players are expected to join an internet forum to find out what the info is. Nor is it acceptable to expect a customer (who paid for the game) to need to dive into the coding / scripting in order to find the information. It's just plain unacceptable. While I do agree that players shouldn't be spoon fed information that IS available (which you suggested some), there is a HUGE amount of info regarding diplomacy that isn't made privy to the player, in game (such as the weights of particular modifiers and thresholds).

Not that it matters. Diplo is far too easy to manipulate and far too boring to care much about anyway.

 

[XRW175P6MQ4]

If they AI is getting whiny about you settling cities they need to be able to ask you not to settle there and then tell you where to stay away from or how far to keep away.

Something like "don't settle near us" Don't place any cities 6 tiles or close to one of ours.

Or "don't buy land adjacent to our own."

Is it wrong to ask that the AI be able to articulate what it wants?

 

[Civsassin]

First off, you don't have to go to forums or search code. Each AI has its own personality. You can learn a great deal about what an AIs programming is by looking at its UU, UB, and UA. Moreover, they provide information in the Civolopedia for you to better understand your opponents.

The game is modable, and modding is highly encouraged. Infoaddict, I understand, is a great mod for players that want more information. IMO, they don't need to spoon feed. If you play the game casually, you may never learn the subleties of the game. But if you play the game enough, time, experience, and study are the best teachers.

If you need more than this, you can still search forums and code. It is up to you how deeply you research the game. In any case, there are many ways, from simple to complex, to get information. It's simply a matter of how much you want and what you are willing to do to get it.

Don't get me wrong, the game isn't perfect. It does however provide the tools for people to understand the game and mod the game to make it more suitable to players' wants and needs. To me, this seems like a perfectly satisfactory solution.

Not that it matters. Diplo is far too easy to manipulate and far too boring to care much about anyway.

If you feel this way, why did you bother responding???