AI Diplomacy, not so bad

[blitzkrieg1980]

Using words like "spoon feed" on a consistent basis does not make your point any stronger. No one is asking for anything unreasonable. I'm not asking the AI to tell me when it will declare war and for how many turns it will insist upon being in conflict. THAT would be "spoon feeding" as you like to say so often. Asking to have information presented in game that has been posted on the forums (thanks to code diving) that has become a necessary part of properly plotting out diplomacy is not "spoon feeding", it is asking for necessary information with regards to gameplay.

Civ4 presented a "terrific" amount of information regarding diplomacy by showing you just how much of an effect each modifier had on each leader's attitude. Leaders also had flavors and personalities in Civ4, but that didn't stop the developers from granting the player the proper amount of information. There is nothing like this present in-game in Civ5 nor is there any information available at all (in game) about the thresholds the AI utilizes.

It seems to me from your last comment that your position on society as a whole has played a major part in your opinions regarding this topic. It is, although somewhat correct, completely irrelevant.

 

[dexters]

Developers noted they intentionally wanted to make diplomacy a little bit less certian and more opaque than Civ4. And I tend to agree with that. Diplomacy shouldn't be distilled into precise things.

That said, there's a lot they can do to improve diplomacy. More decay values to make AI less hostile in the late game, more things within player control to improve relations, but maybe a bonus over time, like a peace bonus or trade bonus that will accumulate over time, rather than a flat bonus for switching to a religion the AI likes as in Civ4, which made diplomacy too easy to control and doesn't require relationship building, and more like adjusting a series of modifiers.

Generally, the game could use more information and graphs. The 'web of relations' in infoaddict is awesome and is how diplomatic relations should be displayed, not the current lists, which is hard to keep track of in your head. They should include infoaddict-like features as a standard or failing that, just 'borrow' the mod and make it their own.

 

[nokmirt]

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.


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.

I agree with this it is very true. The diplomacy needs to be more in depth, like it is for total war, for example. In that game it feels like your talking to another leader. There are many options open for diplomatic deals, epecially in Shogun 2.

Also @CivAssassin you say each AI civ has its own personality. Dude that is completely false, sorry to tell you. They have differences yes (UA,UB, UU), but they do the same things to each other and the human player. They cannot be unpredictable, because there simply are not enough diplomatic options in the game. The games diplomatic system is based on what the human player does, if the player is a warmonger or starts two wars etc. The AI hates him, or denounces him etc. you get the point. The diplomatic system should be based on the AI's actions themselves and not be guided just by what the human does, but by the situation the AI finds itself in. It should look at more angles than just one, than just what the human does. The AI should look at every neighbor, and look at what its own capabilities are. It should also think before acting, instead of making foolish blind decisions. That is why it is so predictable. Predicting the AI, is like predicting a puppy that is not trained to go outside will pee on the floor. That on top of having no depth for diplomacy, makes diplomacy much more boring than it should be. Then, on top of that, the AI should be programmed to be better at sea invasions, with warship escorts for embarked units. And dammit stop the AI from stack attacking, that is getting old. Friendly words and advice for firaxis.

Someone mentioned AI Ghandi, who is not supposed to be bloodthirsty, but believe it or not ends up there by late game, and threatens opponents which nukes no less. What a philosophy change that is, right? It is not that each AI civ thinks for itself. The AIs all act on a set of boring broad generalized options available, with few choices, diplomatically. This essentially keeps them all the same. Every AI ends up doing the same thing game in and game out, at some point or another. There is no surprise, in anything the AI does.

Also, I feel the graph that shows unit losses for you and AI opponents should be added to the game. I used to love to see how many AI units I killed, and how many I lost.

 

[qemist]

True. However... and it's a biggie... If the asker is 'testing' you this way then your refusal should give you positive modifiers.

With respect to being a warmonger, yes.

That doesn't happen. What happens is AI 'makes notes' for this and for that and somewhere in the mid-late game summarizes them. And what does it see? "Oh no, the human player tries to win! I need to declare him asap!"

I don't know that it works that way.

Seriously, it doesn't take an Einstein to know human tries to win.

That would be the starting assumption in any game. There's no need to "work it out".

But 'making notes' in that matter eliminates diplomacy as total. Since every action of yours will bring AI closer to 'realizing' you're trying to win and actually doing something about it. Meaning the diplomacy has no impact on the gameplay and relations are going to deteriorate linearly regardless what you do. Does it sound reasonable? What do we have the diplomacy for in the first place? Just to say we have it?

I had trouble understanding what you wrote above. If you're talking about the current diplomacy, then it doesn't operate that way. Player behavior impacts the AIs' responses.

 

[CoolLizy]

While I like the idea of an opaque AI, the problem is that the more opaque it is the less engaging the game becomes. If I'm playing a human I can talk to the human. I can't do that with the AI. Even now in Civ V it tends to be hard to figure out why an AI is declaring war on me when it doesn't seem to make strategic sense in the long or short run. You can say "oh, well you just need to look at what's happening in the game", but that doesn't always yield an answer--and furthermore doesn't guarantee the answer one comes to will be the correct one. If you can't tell whether or not an AI is attacking you for an actual strategic purpose or just rolling a die, then diplomacy becomes shallow. That's part of the problem right now. Yes, the AI should backstab the player from time to time, especially leaders like Monty or Bismark. But they shouldn't be gyrating all over the place from friendly to war and back again at the drop of a hat without any clue as to what's going on in their (figurative) heads.

Also @CivAssassin you say each AI civ has its own personality. Dude that is completely false, sorry to tell you. They have differences yes (UA,UB, UU), but they do the same things to each other and the human player.

You're not taking into account the AI modifiers that each leader has that determines how they go about playing the game.

Someone mentioned AI Ghandi, who is not supposed to be bloodthirsty, but believe it or not ends up there by late game, and threatens opponents which nukes no less.

Ghandi has a 12 (of 10) in nuke-building as I recall, a reference to old Civ 1 memes. Other than that, yes he is much less blood-thirsty than the other leaders. Will he declare war on you if you tick him off? Yes, he's trying to win. But he's not as prone to randomly declaring war on you when he's only got three archers and a pikeman against your army of gunpowder units like Monty does, bless his little heart.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

That said, there's a lot they can do to improve diplomacy. More decay values to make AI less hostile in the late game, more things within player control to improve relations, but maybe a bonus over time, like a peace bonus or trade bonus that will accumulate over time, rather than a flat bonus for switching to a religion the AI likes as in Civ4, which made diplomacy too easy to control and doesn't require relationship building, and more like adjusting a series of modifiers.

Don't get me wrong, D, the best thing about diplomacy in Civ5 is that there are no religious blocks that can [almost] guarantee good relations. Although the developers wanted a more opaque diplomacy system than in Civ4, there needs to be more clarity with regards to each AI's weight with a given modifier and thresholds. Although I have an easy time with diplomacy now, there are still circumstances where I will continue being friendly, not settling near them, not becoming friendly with their enemies, and not going to war, but they will suddenly have negative modifiers for desiring my lands. After that, the negative modifiers start to cascade and, suddenly, I'm at war with a civ that was my ally not 30 turns ago.

With the weights and thresholds (and perhaps even lands desired by the AI) shown concretely, the player can more properly manage diplomatic relations. For example (since Firaxis wanted to make Civ5 diplomacy more real): if a similar situation were to develop IRW, civ x has become upset with their friend civ y because they desire some piece of land that civ x has acquired. Civ y informs Civ x what they are upset about. Civ x agrees to allow Civ y access to some of the resources found at that particular city site. Now, instead of a negative "modifier" for desiring Civ x's lands, there is a positive "modifier" for sharing the resources found at that site. Two civs with a solid of good relations would have more of a dynamic like this instead of just starting to hate each other over some resources. Denying the access to the resources, however, is quite UNfriendly and should create a negative "modifier" for acting like an opponent and not a partner.

 

[dexters]

With the weights and thresholds (and perhaps even lands desired by the AI) shown concretely, the player can more properly manage diplomatic relations. For example (since Firaxis wanted to make Civ5 diplomacy more real): if a similar situation were to develop IRW, civ x has become upset with their friend civ y because they desire some piece of land that civ x has acquired. Civ y informs Civ x what they are upset about. Civ x agrees to allow Civ y access to some of the resources found at that particular city site. Now, instead of a negative "modifier" for desiring Civ x's lands, there is a positive "modifier" for sharing the resources found at that site. Two civs with a solid of good relations would have more of a dynamic like this instead of just starting to hate each other over some resources. Denying the access to the resources, however, is quite UNfriendly and should create a negative "modifier" for acting like an opponent and not a partner.

I think you should some sort of UI to tell you if an AI might be interested in some piece of land you will settle. But I'm not keen on hand holding to this. Granted, some people will always have situations where it seems like things are happening for no reason, and perhaps there is a related bug, but generally the system works as is.

Action specific tooltips will make the diplomacy pointless. A broad tip saying the Inca's claim lands as theirs would help, but you run into the problem of, (how would you show it?)

Can the game make references to direction? ie: The Inca's claim lands South of X city as theirs.

All interesting questions, all things I hope the devs consider.


And I want to add one more thing.
To the Devs.
You know when on DoF your friend asks for a gift?
Instead of making it a +15 opinion penalty if you don't help, flip it around and make it a -15 bonus to relations if you help. Implied is, you don't get a penalty if you don't help. This adds one more thing to player's managing relations without adding a new feature. it's just switching the penalties around.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Tech level and bankroll are already a part of force determination.

I'm far from being sure. I've got threats b/c my army is 'weak and puny' when I just wasn't in the mood to upgrade although I could. I tend to be lazy in this department. I'll try to track it down next time I play. In Civ4 you relative 'military might' grew as you've learned military techs. Doesn't seem this is the case about Civ5.

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.

Maybe you haven't warmongered enough? When I'm short on and nobody likes me I know it's time for bloodfest. You'll compensate what you're missing by extra pop. But I get it. I'm not good in going tall and peacefully. I find current AI annoying most of the time, besides seems like I can never get along with enough opponents for peaceful existence to be worthy. It's easier for me to commit euthanasia and spare the misery for both of us. Our playstyles are simply different.

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.

It is minor when you put it this way. But we all are trying to figure out how things work around Civ5 diplomacy and these issues confuse us even more than we already are. It already feels flat and predictable. These comments don't help. It's not high quality work. By any means. The good thing is, all the complains will hopefully force devs to sweat in the nearest future. Like they did with Civ4. Let's not stop complaining.

 

[nokmirt]

While I like the idea of an opaque AI, the problem is that the more opaque it is the less engaging the game becomes. If I'm playing a human I can talk to the human. I can't do that with the AI. Even now in Civ V it tends to be hard to figure out why an AI is declaring war on me when it doesn't seem to make strategic sense in the long or short run. You can say "oh, well you just need to look at what's happening in the game", but that doesn't always yield an answer--and furthermore doesn't guarantee the answer one comes to will be the correct one. If you can't tell whether or not an AI is attacking you for an actual strategic purpose or just rolling a die, then diplomacy becomes shallow. That's part of the problem right now. Yes, the AI should backstab the player from time to time, especially leaders like Monty or Bismark. But they shouldn't be gyrating all over the place from friendly to war and back again at the drop of a hat without any clue as to what's going on in their (figurative) heads.



You're not taking into account the AI modifiers that each leader has that determines how they go about playing the game.



Ghandi has a 12 (of 10) in nuke-building as I recall, a reference to old Civ 1 memes. Other than that, yes he is much less blood-thirsty than the other leaders. Will he declare war on you if you tick him off? Yes, he's trying to win. But he's not as prone to randomly declaring war on you when he's only got three archers and a pikeman against your army of gunpowder units like Monty does, bless his little heart.

Yes I do, but what you don't realize is that not all modifiers work. The xml is pieced together, there was a post about it awhile back. Firaxis said not to trust all xml code, it does not all work, much of it has not been applied from civ 4. They used the old civ 4 code for this game, you do realize that? We know that the AI has some unique options, but the way it plays is really based on what the human player does. The human players moves really dictate the AI's reactions over the game.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I don't know that it works that way.

Nobody knows exactly how it works. We're speculating. You're the one suggested it's possible and makes sense that AI get cautious when you willingly declare war on somebody. I agreed. In the same manner it does make sense AI get cautious about all other things that lead you to victory.

That would be the starting assumption in any game. There's no need to "work it out".

Of course. Does it mean AI should hate you from turn 0 since it 'knows' you're there to beat it? No, it doesn't. So it's pretending not to hate you at the beginning and then things escalate gradually. It 'looks for' excuses to start hating you. Yeah, they differ from leader to leader according to their flavors, major. The outcome is the same anyway.

I had trouble understanding what you wrote above. If you're talking about the current diplomacy, then it doesn't operate that way. Player behavior impacts the AIs' responses.

Not really. In short term only. In long run AI will hate you regardless. You cannot call short term diplomacy a real diplomacy.

 

[Ginman]

And I want to add one more thing.
To the Devs.
You know when on DoF your friend asks for a gift?
Instead of making it a +15 opinion penalty if you don't help, flip it around and make it a -15 bonus to relations if you help. Implied is, you don't get a penalty if you don't help. This adds one more thing to player's managing relations without adding a new feature. it's just switching the penalties around.

There is already a bonus to relationship if you help during a DoF. I think this bonus is implemented since last patch; before i´ve never recognized one at least.

You cannot call short term diplomacy a real diplomacy.

Hmm ... and because of this France and Germany are still hating each other? The turkeys try to invade Austria or Spain? What about England and the USA?

 

[NotSure]

What would you suggest as a fix? I don't think the devs should be balancing a game on diety either.

And IIRC, AI's in previous Civ games on Diety or Sid in Civ3's game aren't much better and I highly doubt narrative players are in the diety league. Most play prince++ (prince to Emperor) for the right amount of challenge, with slack to story telling. And I'm defining narrative players as those who ascribe stories/intent/grudges and grand arching geopolitical narratives to their play.

Unless you mean narrative players as in the brag posts about OCC on diety and the tales of doing so. If that's the case it's been done with Civ5 too.



I am in agreement about adding more positive modifiers. Which Is why I made this post on the suggestions forums, and a facsimile post on the 2K forums.

The encouraging thing is that they are moving in that direction. The July patch added an additional modifier. If the AI gets a good deal, out of a trade or a peace treaty (they offered 10 cities, you took only 2) you'll likely max out on -30 modifier

In Firaxis fashion, the UI tooltip on the diplomacy page says 'we have traded recently' which is a misnomer. It should really say 'you have bribed me recently'.

I'm not sure how it decays, but apparently, the bonus does decay over time.

Another aspect I think that can be worked out is a lot of grievances appear to have no decay values, so that means grand strategic grievances (wonder spamming, covets your land, competing for same city states, warmonger) tend to build and build. There should be certain conditions where they decay, or there should be a small amout of decay to keep enmity in check. Here's to hoping they add more modifiers in future patches.



Thanks for your note, I'm generally not the first one to say 'diplomacy is perfect' but when the alternative point of view is 'diplomacy is broken' followed up by trolls who appear to not have played the game in months making generalized comments (not in this thread mind you but it's happened fairly recently in in others); it's often easier to present the opposing view rather than a nuanced view. I actually appreciate this rather productive back and forth with players who clearly want to talk about the way diplomacy works in this game, it brings out the nuanced perspectives.

You’re right that AI behavior on Deity is not a good example, but what goes on in Deity (presumably to make it more challenging) carries over poorly to other levels. The tactic of early rushes appears to have been created to slow Deity builder games. That's fine, but the AI is making the same calculations on lower levels. Rushes come on every level. Without it's staggering bonuses, the AI rush is a miserable failure that fouls diplomacy all over the map and leaves the AI underdeveloped, out-teched, or conquered. Again, I’m conflicted because I believe AI aggression actually makes for a better game. But I don't think widespread cave man rushes are good for the game below Deity, or maybe Immortal. After the dust clears, there are these negative modifiers that seem to float on forever, and few opportunities to do anything interesting with diplomacy.

Negative modifiers are good. The AI needs to compete and recognize when you're a threat. I just don’t like some of the negative modifiers and I don‘t like the imbalance. I don’t like that the AI can’t know if I do something really offensive like selling massive quantities of strategic resources to one of their enemies, but will get all bent out of shape because I picked a policy in Patronage. Maybe if open borders led to fair trade, trade routes, and knowledge of all trade arrangements then it would have both economic and strategic value. Right now it seems the AI just wants open borders to see if you‘re vulnerable, they’re vulnerable, or so it can park it’s units in your territory to slow you down a little. The only reason the human cares about them is to get some gold every 30 turns. Your thread in Ideas & Suggestions is exactly what I had in mind.

The AI can still have it’s flavors. Some can be routinely bad trade partners and there would still be occasional back stabbers. But if there were more positive modifiers then the player could have a chance at least, to manipulate a positive relationship with even a neighbor. As it stands now, a neighbor will likely get disgusted with you because you’re going to win and will suicide their soldiers at your borders as you near the finish line. I’d love the option to try to effect that through diplomacy. The sweet trade deals (bribes) don‘t seem to have much impact in contrast with the negative modifiers earned (and, for some reason, never decayed) along the way.

I really liked the idea about agreements to liberate other civs or city states. It should be a significant boost to influence with the liberated civ and a major step in winning a diplomatic victory. Simple city state bribes should be reduced in value (with regard to UN votes/points). Mutual efforts to disarm and/or contain the warmongering civs would be another major UN boost (but I recognize this would be hard to score). A diplomatic victory under these conditions would be fun. Bribing city states is boring.

Oh, and I would even pay for a diplomacy patch that added the option to insult the AI.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

You know when on DoF your friend asks for a gift?
Instead of making it a +15 opinion penalty if you don't help, flip it around and make it a -15 bonus to relations if you help. Implied is, you don't get a penalty if you don't help. This adds one more thing to player's managing relations without adding a new feature. it's just switching the penalties around.

I like this idea, big time.

I still think that there should be another dynamic with regards to the "we covet your lands" coming from a friendly AI. Why does the AI desire that particular parcel of land? Is it b/c of resources? They should ask for a share of that particular resource, in this case. If the response is "no", then a diplo hit for "not sharing your resources with a friend" is added to the "we covet your lands" modifier. However, if the resource IS shared, it should eliminate the "we covet your lands" modifier (at least until the deal finishes). Just an ambiguous "we like your land" isn't diplomacy, it's positioning. Although all diplomacy is, in essence, positioning, this kind of position should really only be adopted without any method to rectify the situation if the AI intends to win the game via domination.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Hmm ... and because of this France and Germany are still hating each other? The turkeys try to invade Austria or Spain? What about England and the USA?

Yeah. And let's restrict nukes too. Many can build them but only America is allowed to use them. Also Civ5 game takes 6000 real life years...

 

[CoolLizy]

Yes I do, but what you don't realize is that not all modifiers work.

Whether or not all of them work is a moot point. As long as some of them do, they affect the behavior of the AI. Thus leaders like Alexander and Monty are more prone to war than Washington or Ghandi, and leaders like Hiawatha and Cathrine like to build cities very quickly in the early game.

 

[chazzycat]

short term only. In long run AI will hate you regardless. You cannot call short term diplomacy a real diplomacy.

I think your playstyle is heavily influencing your opinion of the diplomacy system. It's really not very difficult to retain friendly relations with AIs from the very beginning of the game all the way through the end (on immortal at least). But you can't play as a warmonger and expect this to happen. Any time you grow too large & powerful, or backstab someone, the other AIs will resent and hate you. This is perfectly natural behavior.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I think your playstyle is heavily influencing your opinion of the diplomacy system. It's really not very difficult to retain friendly relations with AIs from the very beginning of the game all the way through the end (on immortal at least). But you can't play as a warmonger and expect this to happen. Any time you grow too large & powerful, or backstab someone, the other AIs will resent and hate you. This is perfectly natural behavior.

Not really. I would say my playstyle is heavily influenced by diplomacy system. Seriously. I'm not near to be a true warmonger. In Civ4/3 I couldn't bring myself to fight. Maybe 15% of all my games ended up with Domination/Conquest victories. In Civ5 maybe 15% don't. Did I fall and hurt my head a year ago? I don't think so. I can play with 2 cities and get multiple DoW's anyway for tons of different reasons. Which are not a threat, just an annoyance. Proactive warring is the safest and the only logical way to avoid annoyances of this kind. Does it annoy me more than some other players? Maybe so. But obviously I am not the only one annoyed.

 

[qemist]

Hmm ... and because of this France and Germany are still hating each other? The turkeys try to invade Austria or Spain? What about England and the USA?

Equally, how many pairs of countries who were allied 400 years ago have been allies ever since? Pilgrim seems to be in the group who want a diplomatic formula that will make AIs your BFF and have them pave the way to victory for you. I think that would be poor for both realism and gameplay. Diplomacy can be meaningful because the game has more than two players. Sometimes it is in the interests of two players to cooperate.

 

[qemist]

Yeah. And let's restrict nukes too. Many can build them but only America is allowed to use them. Also Civ5 game takes 6000 real life years...

Now you're just being childish. You're the one who implied "real diplomacy" is alliances that last forever.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Now you're just being childish. You're the one who implied "real diplomacy" is alliances that last forever.

I did? When? Where?
I only implied that signing DoF and 20 turns later DoWing b/c opponent found his 3rd city isn't real diplomacy. It's straight forward algorithms with constant outcome.

Equally, how many pairs of countries who were allied 400 years ago have been allies ever since? Pilgrim seems to be in the group who want a diplomatic formula that will make AIs your BFF and have them pave the way to victory for you. I think that would be poor for both realism and gameplay. Diplomacy can be meaningful because the game has more than two players. Sometimes it is in the interests of two players to cooperate.

Or maybe you just read between the lines something that isn't there.
I get what you two mean, but proportions are way off here. It's somehow applicable on marathon speed, not on standard. According to this logic everybody should be at war with everybody in first 20 turns or so. When during the history two countries were at peace for more than thousand years? Cannot happen, right?
I want diplomacy to be interactive and beneficial. Currently it is neither. War has significant advantage over short term trading which can be broken any moment. There is no real point in investing in good relations since it's a dead end anyway.