AI Diplomacy, not so bad

[dexters]

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.

We had this thread, some AI flavours can and do declare war within the first 50 turns.

I generally agree that Civ5's diplo AI is geared more towards understanding the game as it is, instead of being an actor in stage to be defeated.

We'll see what they can do with the game in the future patches, but certainly, I'd advocate more options to give players more control over relations, and as I suggested, flipping the DoF gifting from a penalty for not helping to a bonus for helping. And add some more diplomatic options.

 

[nokmirt]

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.

By the end of the game they hate you. Junk diplomacy!

 

[headcase]

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?

You can pillage them. This gives some gold, not a lot, but maybe enough to justify the losses (if you don't lose any good units), and it also limits the Civ's ability to cause you trouble.

Act like the ruler of a country or a general [...] and not like a (dumb) human playing a game.

You talk about them like they're so different

 

[apocalypse105]

By the end of the game they hate you. Junk diplomacy!

The problem with civ 5 is the AI plays like a human player there is no personallities(The leaders do all the same they dont act differently) they all do the same they want to win and backstab you and declare on everybody if it is in there favor...

If I want to play against a human player I play multiplayer but I play single player for the one thing that is missing in multiplayer diplomacy... But now it doesn't give any difference because the AI acts like a human.


So for this topic diplomacy isn't that bad Its true If you see single player as a substitute for multiplayer.... But some players don't and thats what this hole discussion is about.

firaxis should you immediatly make it a multiplayer game only


Nuf said

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I don't think anyone wants to see a multiplayer ONLY game for civ. I know I would abandon it immediately.

Although I had originally suggested that the AI in this game was desperately trying to be human (therefore making the SP play more like MP), but it isn't true. The AI do have different personalities. For example, Monty is very likely to DoW on you for seemingly no reason. Gandhi is very unlikely to declare war on you. Catherine is likely to settle lots of cities early. Alexander is likely to try to gain the favor of many CS. The idea is to get to know your AI counterpart personalities and bend to their style of play in order to maintain diplomacy long enough to set up your victory.

Don't settle too close to any AI lands. Don't DoW aggressively if you don't plan on winning a domination game. Check to see who has relations with different CS and avoid supplanting them as allies.

I do think that the game needs a drastic overhaul with respect to "You have built wonders that they want!" and "They covet our lands!" modifiers. These can pop up at any instance. I had remained capital only (1 city) for a while in my last game and I discovered that Oda Nobunaga coveted my lands. The "wonders" modifier should really fade with time. If the leader isn't going to act quickly on gaining the advantage of that/those wonder(s), then they should get over it already. It's annoying to see that same comment 100 turns after building a wonder.

As to the coveting lands modifier, we should have more information as to what land they mean. Perhaps there could be a "gift resource" event to allow the AI access to the resources in that particular plot of land which would get rid of this modifier for the length of the deal (45 turns).

 

[CoolLizy]

By the end of the game they hate you. Junk diplomacy!

What does that have to do with AI personalities?

I had remained capital only (1 city) for a while in my last game and I discovered that Oda Nobunaga coveted my lands.

The same thing happened in my OCC recently. Everyone on my continent coveted my lands. Which was actually kind of hilarious since I thought my spawn point was really mediocre.

 

[dexters]

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..

A few UI features for talking would be possible, but a more opaque diplomacy system involves bluffing and lying, if you take your 'talking' to the human analogy into account.

Real fun diplomacy involves some level of opaqueness and uncertainty. I do not consider discrete diplomacy and knowing every little effect of your actions as realistic, strategic or 'fun' in any way.

It may appeal to a subset of Civ players who likes number crunching but that's never been the purpose of diplomacy. For exmaple, Civ3 diplomacy, which doesn't show you all the values of AI modifiers, and what Civ5 diplomacy is based on, is still almost always far more dynamic than Civ4. Part of it is structure (no vassals) the other part is the AI operates in a sandlot concept where everyone's in a sandlot jostling for survival. There is almost a kind of evolutionary survival of the fittest effect in Civ3 games, especially if you run a debug game and just watch the AI go at each other without human play.

 

[The Pilgrim]

We'll see what they can do with the game in the future patches, but certainly, I'd advocate more options to give players more control over relations, and as I suggested, flipping the DoF gifting from a penalty for not helping to a bonus for helping. And add some more diplomatic options.

Yeah, this community members came up with so many great creative ideas devs don't even need to force their imagination work extra hours. We'll see what they choose to implement.

You can pillage them. This gives some gold, not a lot, but maybe enough to justify the losses (if you don't lose any good units), and it also limits the Civ's ability to cause you trouble.

You'll gain much more from trade than from pillaging.

 

[CoolLizy]

Real fun diplomacy involves some level of opaqueness and uncertainty.

Granted. I don't think the AI should be completely predictable or always give away its true feelings. I also don't think showing the actual value of diplomacy modifiers should be brought back from Civ IV, although it would be nice if there was a way to tell the computer's minor issues and major issues with me apart (say if one were yellow and the other red; maybe even making unforgivable issues a dark maroon).

But when the computer goes to war with me, it really needs to lay all its cards on the table. I shouldn't have to guess why it declared war, especially when the AI never seems to have an actual war goal in mind.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I have definitely noticed a wider variety of different AI responses in diplomacy from game to game in Civ5. In Civ4, you could basically count on the same types of things happening from the same leaders (ie Tokugawa is nearly impossible to open borders & likes to isolate, Monty would declare war and spam units which usual destroyed his economy from the start, Cathy would backstab you if you were in the way of her settlers, Isabella always goes for early religion, etc etc etc)

There is much more of a dynamic feel to Civ5 diplomacy/leaders. However, being a number cruncher at heart, I do miss those modifiers. I'm getting used to it, though, and it's becoming more fun. I just hope to have some more control over the more ambiguous diplo hits that seem to initiate the failure of diplomacy (such as coveting lands and wonders) so you can actually keep your friends for a while and still build the HG and settle 2 friggin cities

 

[nokmirt]

The problem with civ 5 is the AI plays like a human player there is no personallities(The leaders do all the same they dont act differently) they all do the same they want to win and backstab you and declare on everybody if it is in there favor...

If I want to play against a human player I play multiplayer but I play single player for the one thing that is missing in multiplayer diplomacy... But now it doesn't give any difference because the AI acts like a human.


So for this topic diplomacy isn't that bad Its true If you see single player as a substitute for multiplayer.... But some players don't and thats what this hole discussion is about.

firaxis should you immediatly make it a multiplayer game only


Nuf said

I agree, I misread the post completely. LOL! I am sorry man , its been a long day for me today. I don't see single player as a substitute for multiplayer. I feel they can make the AI better, they can make diplomacy better. A lot of posters feel that change in diplomacy is not needed. I just cannot fathom that reasoning. Right, on your final point. If they cannot fix whats wrong, perhaps they should make it multiplayer only. The thing is apocalypse, multiplayer is broken as well.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Another thing that needs to be severely tweaked is the "They believe you are trying to win the game in the same manner as they are and THEY DON'T LIKE IT". I got this diplo hit before 1AD. This is horrible design work. It may be that the human has an idea about how they want to win the game by 1AD but this is far from the truth in plenty of my games. Not to mention the strategy for winning can change a couple times over the course of the game.

The AI shouldn't be handing out these diplomatic hits until the path to victory is actually being played out (IE you have a massive tech lead after 1000AD, you have captured 33% of the capitals, you have adopted more social policies than everyone else AND you have the highest rate, you have made allies with 40% of the CS in the game). There is so much wrong with this particular mechanic.

I know there are going to be plenty of people who defend this one, but I assure you, it needs fixing. Not only have I gotten this diplomatic hit (causing a complete diplomatic mud slide) with good Friendly civs, but I've gotten it before I've made ANY sort of moves towards ANY sort of victory besides growing my capital fast. In fact, most of the time when I see this modifier (in the first half of the game), I'M not even sure what victory condition I'm going for. This modifier is a little out of control as it has caused diplomacy to slip with civs I intended on keeping until the last minute when I've sacrificed relations with other civs (war/denouncing/etc).

It needs MAJOR tweaking and it surely shouldn't be handed out so frequently before the AD years. I've no problem with it scaling to difficulty (IE on deity, this modifier appears much sooner than on lower levels), but it definitely has to be tweaked.

 

[apocalypse105]

Another thing that needs to be severely tweaked is the "They believe you are trying to win the game in the same manner as they are and THEY DON'T LIKE IT". I got this diplo hit before 1AD. This is horrible design work. It may be that the human has an idea about how they want to win the game by 1AD but this is far from the truth in plenty of my games. Not to mention the strategy for winning can change a couple times over the course of the game.

The AI shouldn't be handing out these diplomatic hits until the path to victory is actually being played out (IE you have a massive tech lead after 1000AD, you have captured 33% of the capitals, you have adopted more social policies than everyone else AND you have the highest rate, you have made allies with 40% of the CS in the game). There is so much wrong with this particular mechanic.

I know there are going to be plenty of people who defend this one, but I assure you, it needs fixing. Not only have I gotten this diplomatic hit (causing a complete diplomatic mud slide) with good Friendly civs, but I've gotten it before I've made ANY sort of moves towards ANY sort of victory besides growing my capital fast. In fact, most of the time when I see this modifier (in the first half of the game), I'M not even sure what victory condition I'm going for. This modifier is a little out of control as it has caused diplomacy to slip with civs I intended on keeping until the last minute when I've sacrificed relations with other civs (war/denouncing/etc).

It needs MAJOR tweaking and it surely shouldn't be handed out so frequently before the AD years. I've no problem with it scaling to difficulty (IE on deity, this modifier appears much sooner than on lower levels), but it definitely has to be tweaked.

True it seams the AI gets this modifier just to hate you...

sometimes it dont even care if you addopted all you're social policies then it doens't get the modifier you aren't trying to win the game in the simular way and they dont like it I never had this modifier when I finished apolo programme or adopt 4 total social policies and so on...

This thing needs to be fixed It would actually be awesome if the AI would hate you for that because russia and america hated eachoter to for the race to the moon for example...


But not in the beginning when you are in the ancient era when they just discovered argeculture like hey its a civilization others then us they want to be a great civilization kill them!!!!!!!

 

[nokmirt]

True it seams the AI gets this modifier just to hate you...

sometimes it dont even care if you addopted all you're social policies then it doens't get the modifier you aren't trying to win the game in the simular way and they dont like it I never had this modifier when I finished apolo programme or adopt 4 total social policies and so on...

This thing needs to be fixed It would actually be awesome if the AI would hate you for that because russia and america hated eachoter to for the race to the moon for example...


But not in the beginning when you are in the ancient era when they just discovered argeculture like hey its a civilization others then us they want to be a great civilization kill them!!!!!!!

Please re-read post #114. I reanswered your quote because, I foolishly read it wrong.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Just started another game tonight and had the same thing happen with the "They covet your lands" from 2 civs before I had my second city and I got a "They believe you are trying to win the game..." in 1250 BC. Is this something that can be tweaked with modding or will we have to wait until the DLL comes out? It's quite annoying.

I was able to pull something quite unlikely, though. I had no iron, and a pretty lame start (lots of plains, and quite a bit of tundra). Alexander was REXing pretty hard (settled 4 cities) and captured Persia's capital all before 1000BC. He was spamming Hoplites and archers. I had a couple archers a spearman and 2 warriors. He DoW on me and I was able to hold him off (despite his sending 4 hoplites & 3 archers) until buying Alliance from Rio & they gave me 6 iron. I quickly built 2 cats 1 sword and upgraded 2 warriors to swords.

I am now the proud owner of Athens. How's that for coveting lands, jerk face!

 

[MasterWoland]

I have troubles with AI "stubbornness".
Sometimes and only in the the early game when AI attacks me and I manage to defend myself to make peace AI would offer me his gold/gold per turn and resources to please me so I won't launch a counter-attack. But later in the game when I invade other civs and when all its army is crushed an a city is about to be puppeted I would try to make peace but I would ask for gold and luxuries in return, but the stupid AI keeps telling me it's not fair and "stubbornly" refuses to give till the end.
What's up with that? Is the AI programmed to be all that " William Wallace" and rather die as a free man then leave as a slave or somebody found a solution how to extort gold and luxuries from other Civs?

 

[dexters]

Just started another game tonight and had the same thing happen with the "They covet your lands" from 2 civs before I had my second city and I got a "They believe you are trying to win the game..." in 1250 BC. Is this something that can be tweaked with modding or will we have to wait until the DLL comes out? It's quite annoying.

I was able to pull something quite unlikely, though. I had no iron, and a pretty lame start (lots of plains, and quite a bit of tundra). Alexander was REXing pretty hard (settled 4 cities) and captured Persia's capital all before 1000BC. He was spamming Hoplites and archers. I had a couple archers a spearman and 2 warriors. He DoW on me and I was able to hold him off (despite his sending 4 hoplites & 3 archers) until buying Alliance from Rio & they gave me 6 iron. I quickly built 2 cats 1 sword and upgraded 2 warriors to swords.

I am now the proud owner of Athens. How's that for coveting lands, jerk face!

Without specific detials this doesn't say much. So you started next to Alex again and don't like that he's being a warmonger.

I'd be more impressed if he played a peaceful builder game and complelely fooled you into thinking he was a warmonger.

 

[nokmirt]

Just started another game tonight and had the same thing happen with the "They covet your lands" from 2 civs before I had my second city and I got a "They believe you are trying to win the game..." in 1250 BC. Is this something that can be tweaked with modding or will we have to wait until the DLL comes out? It's quite annoying.

I was able to pull something quite unlikely, though. I had no iron, and a pretty lame start (lots of plains, and quite a bit of tundra). Alexander was REXing pretty hard (settled 4 cities) and captured Persia's capital all before 1000BC. He was spamming Hoplites and archers. I had a couple archers a spearman and 2 warriors. He DoW on me and I was able to hold him off (despite his sending 4 hoplites & 3 archers) until buying Alliance from Rio & they gave me 6 iron. I quickly built 2 cats 1 sword and upgraded 2 warriors to swords.

I am now the proud owner of Athens. How's that for coveting lands, jerk face!

This sounds exactly like every game I've played. After all this time I would have figured they would have this fixed by now.

Somebody asked you about specific details, that doesn't matter. The same thing always happens. That is one reason that I don't play much anymore.

 

[nokmirt]

Without specific detials this doesn't say much. So you started next to Alex again and don't like that he's being a warmonger.

I'd be more impressed if he played a peaceful builder game and complelely fooled you into thinking he was a warmonger.

Details do not matter this type of things happens so much, you pretty much can depend on it. Also, it does not matter who you start next to.

 

[chazzycat]

playing as a true diplomat, you would declare peace in that situation after repelling the invaders. Once you set on the offensive warpath its hard to get off of it. But the game doesn't have to play out that way. Just don't invade people if you want to play peacefully...no matter the excuse they give you.