AI Diplomacy, not so bad

[dexters]

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.

Yeah I've already made this point. Being declared on used to be an excuse to conquer, it was seen as a freebie from the AI. There was no diplomatic penalty, and actually a lot of bonuses to this. Allies in a war will like you more, all the while, the human player is growing larger and larger.

Now there is a penalty and allies will turn if they see the war as being only advantageous to one party. People need to adjust.

 

[chazzycat]

Yep, pretty much exactly my thoughts on this subject. Getting the opponent to declare on you first in civ4 was basically a huge loophole.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Yep, pretty much exactly my thoughts on this subject. Getting the opponent to declare on you first in civ4 was basically a huge loophole.

Not that it's too hard now. Denounce them, make few stupid demands, steal their CS's and 20 turns later you'll probably get the same result. Studying the flavors actually is very helpful in this scenario. Ironically, more helpful than when you try to make them like you.

 

[chazzycat]

Right, its still easy to get the AI to DOW you. But, they fixed the diplomatic effects so that the moment you become the aggressor (take cities) you start suffering diplomatic penalties.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

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.

Uh... I pretty much just told a story about how I recovered from being extremely weak militarily to capturing Athens (a warmonger's capital). I didn't have an opinion on Alexander. He was the only land coveter. I was quite happy with the results of his foolishness.

However, both Suleiman and Alex both had the "we believe you are trying to with the game in the same manner..." diplo hit before 1250BC when I still only had my capital city, no CS allies, pretty even in the science dept., adopted less policies than everyone else b/c I was saving them to find the most optimal strategy, and had a relatively small army. In other words, there wasn't ANY sort of victory condition being worked towards. I was just trying to get my civ online. This is an example of the horrible broken-ness of this particular diplomatic feature.

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.

This isn't always true. The results of my capturing Athens had no real effect on the diplomacy with the other civs. I only captured one city and sued for peace. I got a good chunk of change and a lux resource in return for peace. Alexander's position was pretty badly weakened, as well. I received no diplomatic penalties for capturing his city. I probably could've grabbed another without incurring a penalty. 1 or 2 cities isn't bad. Any more than that (or 1 CS) and you're in danger of being a war monger. I was able to grab a 2nd capital, though, so it was worth it, anyway.

 

[headcase]

They should remove the "they believe you're trying to win in the same manner" penalty. There's not much defense for it; all AI and people are (should be) aware that everyone else is trying to win and who cares if they're trying to win the same way?

Only a dom-minded player should care about that, and there's already the warmonger penalty for that situation. (I think it'd be funny to have a hit called "They believe you are a warmongering menace to the world, and they feel that's their job!")

 

[Bechhold]

The Diplomacy is still a shambles. Defense Pact, one would think the other AI's would know said status of their agreements as well as ours especially when one AI attacks the other. When an ally attacks an ally, both will see you in the negative for attack even with DP in effect. It's stupid.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

The Diplomacy is still a shambles. Defense Pact, one would think the other AI's would know said status of their agreements as well as ours especially when one AI attacks the other. When an ally attacks an ally, both will see you in the negative for attack even with DP in effect. It's stupid.

That's a shame. I've never tried Defense Pacts, so I didn't know about that. Diplomacy definitely still needs work; no one is arguing otherwise.

 

[qemist]

I did? When? Where?

That's how I interpreted this statement.

You cannot call short term diplomacy a real diplomacy.

I'm sorry if I took that wrong, but all real diplomacy is short term over the time scales of ciV. It is in the nature of the game that all alliances will be temporary unless the AIs are programmed to act against their own winning chances.

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.

I generally don't have that problem. In some games I get gang banged early. I lose and move on. You can cook the starting conditions to make early war much less likely if you wish. For example a large map with a standard number of civs. I did this once and gave up because it was too boring.

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?

Of course it can. So long as they don't know each other.

Making war or not is part of the game. If the player can DoW the AI whenever he wants why shouldn't the AI be allowed to do the same?

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.

I think our playing styles or map choices must be different.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Once the more random diplo modifiers ("trying to win the game the same way" & "they covet our lands!") are removed or altered drastically, diplomacy will be much better. As it is, it's quite easy to make friends as long as you pay attention to what's happening in the game. However, the modifiers listed above can cause relations to be sour before you even have a chance to make them good. Change those and add a couple more options for the player to actively build relationships (however short termed they are) and we're looking at a fairly great diplomacy system.

Perhaps they could add in more options that the player has to erode relations with a particular civ that would, in turn, build positive relations with their enemies (like Denouncing). Trade embargoes and sabotage missions could be a couple options. Adding a spy unit for sabotage missions would be great. I may try to mod one in.

 

[qemist]

Once the more random diplo modifiers ("trying to win the game the same way" & "they covet our lands!") are removed or altered drastically,

I never understood the first one. The second is a valid motivator for their strategy, but not something that should be reflected in diplomacy. It's a reason to DoW, not a reason to be a btich. If you want to take your neighbor's lands, diplomacy isn't going to do it for you.

diplomacy will be much better. As it is, it's quite easy to make friends as long as you pay attention to what's happening in the game. However, the modifiers listed above can cause relations to be sour before you even have a chance to make them good. Change those and add a couple more options for the player to actively build relationships (however short termed they are) and we're looking at a fairly great diplomacy system.

Perhaps they could add in more options that the player has to erode relations with a particular civ that would, in turn, build positive relations with their enemies (like Denouncing).

At the moment too many diplomatic modifiers are applied indiscriminately without regard for whether each AI would benefit from the player's action. For example, a DoW may be generally frowned on, but the civ who's getting whipped by the recipient of the DoW is going to be happy about it, not angry. Also the settling too close logic is just buggy. It should be triggered by the player settling close, not the AI settling close to the player. I just got the settling too close complaint at least 100 turns after I last settled a city.

 

[Trias]

I never understood the first one.

The first one ("trying to win the game the same way" ) is phrased oddly. What it is expressing is that the AI views you as one of their prime rivals to victory. (The fact that it only looks at rivals for the same victory type is in part an example of the simple mindedness of the AI, in part to prevent every game ending in a giant world war because all AIs gang up on the player about to win.) The modifier would probably face less resistance if it was called "They view us as their prime rivals to their cause". (or something similar). It most certainly is a valid motivator for them to not want to deal with you.

The second is a valid motivator for their strategy, but not something that should be reflected in diplomacy. It's a reason to DoW, not a reason to be a btich. If you want to take your neighbor's lands, diplomacy isn't going to do it for you.

Unless the AI is specifically trying to decieve, it will follow the pattern of ing before DoWing, this to prevent getting a reputation of being deceptive.

At the moment too many diplomatic modifiers are applied indiscriminately without regard for whether each AI would benefit from the player's action. For example, a DoW may be generally frowned on, but the civ who's getting whipped by the recipient of the DoW is going to be happy about it, not angry.

There is definitely room for improvement in the area of identifying the AI's best interest. This is something that is traditionally hard for an AI.

Also the settling too close logic is just buggy. It should be triggered by the player settling close, not the AI settling close to the player. I just got the settling too close complaint at least 100 turns after I last settled a city.

This could also be a case of a too generic response to a sophisticated detection algorithm. (i.e. the message doesn't quite cover the content of the behaviour that is identified.) But in all likelihood this is bugginess on behalf of the algorithm that the AI is using to determine that the player is expanding aggressively.

Once the more random diplo modifiers ("trying to win the game the same way" & "they covet our lands!") are removed or altered drastically, diplomacy will be much better. As it is, it's quite easy to make friends as long as you pay attention to what's happening in the game. However, the modifiers listed above can cause relations to be sour before you even have a chance to make them good. Change those and add a couple more options for the player to actively build relationships (however short termed they are) and we're looking at a fairly great diplomacy system.

Your underlying assumption here seems to be that it should always be possible for the player to build good relations with all players.

I don't think this is desirable from either a realism of a gameplay perspective. Realism: I don't think history knows any examples of successful civilizations that did not make enemies along the way. Gameplay: the Human player in many cases is the foremost rival to victory in the game, it is not in the interest of the AIs to just play along.

 

[tommynt]

OK here is how I play sometimes (espacially deity games):
starting unit and 2nd units goes to find as many AIs as possible (prio over huts/barbs/CS).
As soon as AI 1 got around 200 gold (usually like turn 15) I trade all my gpt for its money and buy worker with that money and go work some lux and DOW (make sure scout isnt close to a ai warri)

I work 1 or 2 Lux and go find more AIs - at around turn 30 usually most ais are found (if 1 Landmass) and 1 or 2 Lux are worked.
Now go seell all your money and lux to AI1 for all its gold -->DOW
Same for AI2 --> DOW
...

Have 1000+ gold - buy whatever u want (but some military aswell)

As u seem now pretty strong and are a "threat" (even when miles away - AI is dumb ..) and most AIs will be happy to have Peace 10-20 turns later.
Just some warmmonger civs might stay in war (they build more units and arent afraid).
But being in war doesnt mean at all that ai will attack - in fact opposite might be true.

Even on top of that some civs will start like u now as u can resell your luxes to them and you are in war with the warmmonger civ (which may very likly be in war with some other ais).

well if this system isnt broken ...

 

[tommynt]

well topic of thread is: AI, Diplomacy not so bad.

If you have to set your own rules - the game and its rules is obviously broken!

Same is for so many other stuff, worst is that DoW from AIs is totaly independent from its trading, therefore weired stuff like Dows the turn before RA ends or AI declares war the turn after it have given u all its money for lux itself can happen.

The main problem is the coding making trading and denounces, DoWs independent of each other when in fact it should be 1 system (which should also include demands).

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Your underlying assumption here seems to be that it should always be possible for the player to build good relations with all players.

No, my underlying assumption is that it is a game and there shouldn't be things like "You are trying to win the game the same way that I am!" or "we covet your lands" happening before I've even settled a second city. There are plenty of sour relations that can occur for REAL reasons (like you've made friends with my enemy or you are competing for my ally CS). What isn't realistic is the AI souring relations b/c of victory conditions before I've even chosen a third social policy. In half my games, I cannot build any sort of diplomatic relations with at least 1 or 2 of my neighbors b/c they think I'm winning the game like they are and I don't even know where my third city is going to settle!

My points are valid. I'm starting to believe that there is a sort of defensive trigger point with some of the members of civFanatics when it comes to this very subject. There is obviously broken portions of diplomacy. There ARE a limited number of options for players to build positive relationships with the AI and too many options to actively build NEGATIVE relations with the AI. I wish there to be a more even number of positive or at least for more negative options to have a positive effect on friends for having common enemies (like Denouncing).

This is a game. If I want a war every 20 - 30 turns, I'll play multiplayer. I'd rather be able to at least try to build relations with a leader of a civ instead of them using supposed victory conditions to guarantee early DoW. If I'm good at diplomacy, let me be good at it. Or overhaul the diplomacy system so it isn't so easy to manipulate.

 

[tommynt]

This is a game. If I want a war every 20 - 30 turns, I'll play multiplayer.

Well, in fact it seems to me that u dont want ai DoW you even when your building Space Ship and having 0 military just cause it likes you - d winning not be too easy?

There are lot possibilities to not have war every 20-30 turns - but u have to fullfill several condition:
not be a threat but neither be a easy or the only target (and there is much more stuff)

 

[Trias]

No, my underlying assumption is that it is a game and there shouldn't be things like "You are trying to win the game the same way that I am!" or "we covet your lands" happening before I've even settled a second city. There are plenty of sour relations that can occur for REAL reasons (like you've made friends with my enemy or you are competing for my ally CS). What isn't realistic is the AI souring relations b/c of victory conditions before I've even chosen a third social policy. In half my games, I cannot build any sort of diplomatic relations with at least 1 or 2 of my neighbors b/c they think I'm winning the game like they are and I don't even know where my third city is going to settle!

Question: Have you ever disliked an AI simply because of the location where it spawned or because it took an early lead? Even if the answer for you is no, for most human civ players is yes. This is exactly what these two messages express for the AI. They might trigger to often and/or in the wrong circumstances, but they certainly are perfectly legitimate reasons for the AI not to like you, and if they they do dislike you there is (and should be) very little you can do about it.

Note that the fact they you do not know what your grand strategy for the current game is, does not mean that the AI cannot think that you will be the greatest competition for the strategy they have chosen.

You still seem to be approaching the AI too much as a game mechanic, rather than as an AI trying to play the game. Your suggestions therefore do not stroke well with improving the AI in line with its design. Instead they are pleading for a step backwards to the civ4 non-AI. Improvement of the current situation should (IMHO) not be sought in straightjacketing the AI in a game mechanic, but in improving its strategical evaluation and decisions. The result of which should be an AI that is more rational (although also unpredictable).

My points are valid. I'm starting to believe that there is a sort of defensive trigger point with some of the members of civFanatics when it comes to this very subject.

Great "I don't understand the arguments being made, so the people making them are crazy" response.

There is obviously broken portions of diplomacy. There ARE a limited number of options for players to build positive relationships with the AI and too many options to actively build NEGATIVE relations with the AI. I wish there to be a more even number of positive or at least for more negative options to have a positive effect on friends for having common enemies (like Denouncing).

This is a consequence of the fact that within the current game there is little (long term) reason for players to cooperate. And since human players on average are backstabbing SoBs, it is natural for the AI to be cautious of them.

 

[The Pilgrim]

That's how I interpreted this statement.

I never said that. I did say, though, multiple times, AI's attacks, justified or not, don't lower your chances to win. They are not threatening in the vast majority of cases, just annoying.

I'm sorry if I took that wrong, but all real diplomacy is short term over the time scales of ciV. It is in the nature of the game that all alliances will be temporary unless the AIs are programmed to act against their own winning chances.

Sure. Since it's not a diplomacy. It's just called that way. You don't do anything to build relationships with potential allies nor do anything to ruin them. AI loves your for absolutely no reason (pretends to love) and then starts hating you also for no reason. Solely because it's time to start hating you. Easy comes easy goes. How can it be long term?

We've already established that human player plays to win from turn 0, therefore, should AI never cooperate with him on any level? AI doesn't benefit from the system too. Money milking is very much against it, yet it willingly allows you to exploit that for a long time. Human aggressively spams RA's with PT + Rationalism, AI willingly agrees. There are a lot of things AI should/not do if it tries to prevent human from winning, however it chooses to do/not things that don't have significant impact and ignores most of the important ones. And all the advocates of the system try to sell us that they actually do.

I generally don't have that problem. In some games I get gang banged early. I lose and move on. You can cook the starting conditions to make early war much less likely if you wish. For example a large map with a standard number of civs. I did this once and gave up because it was too boring.

Actually, I have less problems with an early war than with later pointless wars. At least on higher difficulties at the beginning you're vulnerable and almost defenseless, so AI's chances to crash you aren't that bad. It's unfortunate that due to this not every game has a potential to become a full game, but it is what it is. Eliminating possibility of early DoW's will screw more than fix.

Of course it can. So long as they don't know each other.

Hah... Do you think fortifying in the capital and hoping nobody will ever find you can be a viable strategy?

Making war or not is part of the game. If the player can DoW the AI whenever he wants why shouldn't the AI be allowed to do the same?

Well, because the game is about player's experience, not AI's. I'm a cruel dude, but I couldn't care less about AI's civil rights.

I think our playing styles or map choices must be different.

I usually play with very standard settings. Standard speed/size non-archipelago maps.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Question: Have you ever disliked an AI simply because of the location where it spawned or because it took an early lead? Even if the answer for you is no, for most human civ players is yes. This is exactly what these two messages express for the AI. They might trigger to often and/or in the wrong circumstances, but they certainly are perfectly legitimate reasons for the AI not to like you, and if they they do dislike you there is (and should be) very little you can do about it.

The answer is yes, I have. However, it usually is a result of the AI being so close to me that I am able to warrior rush them before they can stop me. I wouldn't be concerned or confused with the modifiers [being discussed] if this was the situation for the AI. If there is a civ between myself and the civ that is coveting my land, then your explanation is moot. The civ should covet the land between us before coveting my land (and providing early troubles with diplomacy for both of us).

There is absolutely no excuse for receiving a penalty for "trying to win the game the same" before any victory condition is being worked towards. I cannot comprehend how this is acceptable. Sure you can excuse it or make excuses for it, but in the end, it is simply ridiculous. If you want to have guaranteed bad relations with at least 1 civ from the start, then have a modifier "We just don't like you" and be honest about it. Since there is no such modifier, I must assume that the "winning the game the same" is broken.

Note that the fact they you do not know what your grand strategy for the current game is, does not mean that the AI cannot think that you will be the greatest competition for the strategy they have chosen.

Really? That's interesting. What's the basis for their logic? Is it the civ's UA, UU, UB? Again, this is broken. It isn't playing optimally, for if I am NOT trying to win in the same manner, the AI has eroded relations with a potential trading partner/RA partner and, possibly, forcing me to mark them as my first target if I DO choose to warmonger. Sloppy, sloppy.

You still seem to be approaching the AI too much as a game mechanic, rather than as an AI trying to play the game. Your suggestions therefore do not stroke well with improving the AI in line with its design. Instead they are pleading for a step backwards to the civ4 non-AI. Improvement of the current situation should (IMHO) not be sought in straightjacketing the AI in a game mechanic, but in improving its strategical evaluation and decisions. The result of which should be an AI that is more rational (although also unpredictable).

Understanding what you say, and agreeing for the most part, I must disagree with your evaluation of my suggestions. Changing the "winning the game the same" mechanic and the "covet your lands (prior to having more than 2 border pops)" isn't "straightjacketing" the AI game mechanic, it's fixing a broken one. A person can enjoy the game without having to defend broken concepts. Most the members of this forum loved Civ4, but most of us can agree that the vassal system was pretty busted up even with the final patch of the final expansion. I, personally, think vassals were fun, but I can also acknowledge that they (and their implementation) weren't very well designed.

Great "I don't understand the arguments being made, so the people making them are crazy" response.

I don't appreciate being fed words that were never said. This is also a stock response when someone points out the inability to objectively view a situation because of an apparent bias in their opinion. I enjoy this game, as well, and have started enjoying diplomacy more, however, I can also see where improvement is needed.

Oh, and I don't think you're crazy and I understand your arguments, I just disagree.

This is a consequence of the fact that within the current game there is little (long term) reason for players to cooperate. And since human players on average are backstabbing SoBs, it is natural for the AI to be cautious of them.

Yes. There is very little (long term) reason for players to cooperate. So there should be a reason. There needs to be a mechanic built in that encourages building long term relations with the intention of taking part in a victory. I would gladly accept a permanent alliance with a militarily strong civ and share the victory spoils if it means I can win my Culture victory without having to build an army for those final desperation DoW.

It isn't natural for the human player to backstab in this game unless they plan on domination or are so far ahead militarily/victory condition-wise that they aren't worried about diplomacy. A backstab garners a pretty big hit diplomatically with the whole world (as it should). If I'm playing domination, you bet there will be backstabs since it is impossible to win a domination game without DoW (or at least going to war) on everyone including your friends. But not every game in domination. In fact, far less games are won by domination in Civ5 than in Civ4 (at least in my games)... and my strategies were generally those of a warmonger.

 

[qemist]

The first one ("trying to win the game the same way" ) is phrased oddly. What it is expressing is that the AI views you as one of their prime rivals to victory. (The fact that it only looks at rivals for the same victory type is in part an example of the simple mindedness of the AI, in part to prevent every game ending in a giant world war because all AIs gang up on the player about to win.)

That would be rational behavior.

The modifier would probably face less resistance if it was called "They view us as their prime rivals to their cause". (or something similar). It most certainly is a valid motivator for them to not want to deal with you.

Only to an extent. Why is my being their main rival with respect to win method A more of a valid motivator than my being close to victory by method B? In general it is rational to avoid trades with a player who is close to victory. However, the modifier comes into play long before anyone is close to victory.

Unless the AI is specifically trying to decieve, it will follow the pattern of ing before DoWing, this to prevent getting a reputation of being deceptive.

OK, that makes sense. ("ing"? Learn to spell, you silly Cnut. )

This could also be a case of a too generic response to a sophisticated detection algorithm. (i.e. the message doesn't quite cover the content of the behaviour that is identified.) But in all likelihood this is bugginess on behalf of the algorithm that the AI is using to determine that the player is expanding aggressively.

It happens with monotonous regularity after an AI settles close to the player, so I am sure it is a bug.

Your underlying assumption here seems to be that it should always be possible for the player to build good relations with all players.

I don't think this is desirable from either a realism of a gameplay perspective. Realism: I don't think history knows any examples of successful civilizations that did not make enemies along the way. Gameplay: the Human player in many cases is the foremost rival to victory in the game, it is not in the interest of the AIs to just play along.

Here I am in complete agreement.