Why should the AI try to avoid being a target?
I've never said that its working fine. In fact, I've repeatedly said that it needs improving. (As do most AI algorithms) I've been combating your repeated assertion that having a modifier of this type at all is utterly ridiculous.
Such a modifier would make no sense at all from the point of view of the AI. Introducing such an arbitrary modifier to the AI, would be a huge step backwards for the AI.
I'm not sure if we're actually having a discussion at this point, or if we're just flinging words at each other. Why should anyone avoid being a target? Well, I'd say to work towards a victory condition or to build/expand your empire, or to get a wonder or two, or to avoid having to pay more maintenance for units b/c of an impending DoW. There is a pretty long list of reasons to NOT be a target in this kind of a game. I'm really not sure why you'd post something like this.
You're giving the diplo/trading system way too much credit. There are basically two levels of trade in this game. The first is an even trade where the AI gives an excess lux resource and the AI gets an excess lux resource (also seen as the RA for RA trade). In this trade, the AI receives 4
from the trade, and the AI gives another player 4 from the trade (or you both get research boost from the RA). Then, there is the horribly lopsided trade. At this level, the AI wants several lux resources (often they want a resource for which you only have 1 source), a strategic resource, open borders, and a hefty chunk of gold for their 1 excess lux resource. This level can also be seen as the RA for RA and a chunk of gold. lux trading. Let's not forget that excess contributes to more/faster Golden Ages. Since the AI already gets plenty of boosts, their getting more GA from smart lux trading is only going to help them further., so why bother trading at all? Maybe the AI should only accept horribly lopsided lux or RA trades. That would make the game more fun and realistic... wait... no it wouldn't... not even a little bit. I'm pretty sure we've all covered the "long term" diplomatic plans. The long term diplomacy is guaranteed to fail eventually since either you will be winning (and the AI won't like that) or the AI will be winning (and you will not like that). Long term is pretty much set in stone... bad relations are on the horizon.
I think we're just talking in circles now, man. I've continuously posted how this algorithm needs changing and more constrictions for it to come at a time when it ACTUALLY makes sense. You've been trying to say that it makes sense for the AI to have this modifier before the player even has a victory condition in mind. It's been repeated several times throughout the thread. Go check.
Really? I thought the reason that the modifier was acceptable to pop in 2000BC (before ANY victory conditions are even being decided on let alone actively worked towards) was because
Which is why i suggested the arbitrary modifier. It was to satisfy a [logical] point you made in the discussion. However, such things should most definitely not be reflected in a 2000BC "We think you're going to try to build the space ship and we are, too!"Trias said:
Hey guys,
This is my first post after lurking for about a month. I first bought Civ5 about a month ago after reading about the last big patch. Originally I heard Civ5 was terrible but when I heard all the changes I decided to buy (the Steam summer sale helped seal the deal, too).
Reading posts on these forums I've seen a lot of people bash and rant against the Diplomacy system and how flawed, pointless, and terrible it is. I had to agree with them for a while as I couldn't make heads or tails; AI Civs would constantly declare war on me and continually denounce me all game. Eventually I got more accustomed to the game and soaked in all the wonderful info here, and soon I discovered the problem: it's not really the game, but me and how I play.
Basically, if you act inconsiderately to other civilizations and play like a bully, they're not going to like you. It's actually quite realistic in that sense; they pay close attention to what you do and how you act, and your relationships with other civilizations. I wasn't doing the same and always kind of did my own thing, how I wanted to, never thinking of the consequences.
I would frequently accept many Declarations of Friendship thinking that this is the way to good diplomacy and relations -- but in fact it's really a trap when I was accepting them indiscriminately. You will quickly begin to rack up a list of AIs that don't like you because you're becoming buddy-buddy with their enemies, and before long very few will like you at all because you never were really friends with anyone.
Once I begun to pay close attention to the way the AI handles itself, who they make friends with, and who they make enemies with... Diplomacy became much easier to handle for me. I began to accept much fewer, if any at all, DoFs -- and would only accept them under a few circumstances: they are not enemies with anyone I'm not already enemies with, and they're not an expansionist civilization that will be declaring war on people. This really helped a lot.
I also started not to just expand everywhere and be more selective of where I settle. Plopping a city next to a neighbour is a sure-fire way to create some tension... particularly if you cut them off and don't give them anywhere else to settle that's at least decent. They will begin to covet your lands, giving you a diplomatic penalty. That alone is enough to make them Guarded after a little while. If they're militarily stronger than you it won't be long before they decide to take the land they see as theirs. So be more careful where you settle and be mindful to leave the AI some breathing room. Buying up a lot of tiles near the AI's border, if they could work them by their city, is another way to raise tension.
The computer can also covet your wonders if you beat them to building one they were constructing. I've also been more selective in which wonders I build and usually leave several for the computer to build. This will not only save you the diplomatic penalty for having wonders the AI wanted-- but save you a lot of hammers when you eventually take these wonders from them.
Purely defensive wars are safe to wage and will almost never incur a diplomatic penalty; so long as you only destroy an AI Civ's units and don't take their cities. If you take/raze some of their cities they will remember the war and dislike you. But if your units only fight it out for a while until peace, they will hold no hard feelings. However declaring wars will net you a penalty with everyone (warmonger) after a few, even if you declare against City-States that have no protectors/allies. Similarly wiping out a civilization completely will quickly give you the warmonger penalty, so it's best to leave them a minor city somewhere.
I also find trading frequently to help your relations, so don't hesitate to sell luxury and strategy resources you don't need. I don't worry much about selling iron/horses/oil because any units they build with those resources will become much weaker when they don't have that resource anymore. I don't trade coal, aluminum, or uranium though because they can construct buildings (or nukes) that continue to operate at full strength (when they no longer have that resource). Also if you want a strong relationship with an AI Civ you should give them luxury resources/gold when they come asking for them; it gives you a positive diplomacy modifier. They will usually only ask for them if you have a Declaration of Friendship together, though!
Anyway, that's my observations on the Diplomacy system in Civ5. I find if I act poorly to my neighbours my actions will foster poor relations, while if I pay attention and act smartly in the diplomatic arena, it pays off.
Ultimately we all need to realize wars can and will happen, and friendly civilizations can and will backstab you. Pay special attention to expansionist civilizations like Russia, Mongolia, America, France, etc. because these are the most likely wanting to expand their borders through conquest. King difficulty (what I play on) has taught me to keep a strong military always, otherwise I start to look like a juicy target for such expansionists. Essentially; be prepared, don't be surprised. "If you want peace, prepare for war."
You can always monitor your positive, neutral, and negative diplomatic modifiers with another civilization by hovering your mouse cursor over their "emotion state" (Friendly, guarded, hostile, etc). This helps a lot to keep tabs.
Thoughts?
Firaxis should add some real individualism to the way AI leaderheads make choices. If Ghandi and Napoleon sat at dinner together. I am sure their views on military matters would vary like night and day. Also, Napoleon loved to wage war. He is not going to be all fired upset at the Chinese leader, halfway across the world who is waging her own war, for her own benefit. I feel Napoleon who say exactly this, "BRAVO MON CHER!" But not in CiV, Napoleon is madder than hell at someone exactly like himself. To me it makes no sense. Civs that far apart should affect diplomacy to make it so, it is harder for civs farther away to get upset. Local diplomacy should remain the same. When you share local borders, tension bulids much easier. The solution, or at least a big step forward in fixing diplomacy, would be distance modifiers. These would help reduce the chance of civs far away, ruining good relations, due to a far away civs local concerns. In other words, a civ that is across the world, who cannot directly influence another civs choices, should not be overly concerned if they are waging war or not. It does not make sense for the Iroquois all the way in North America, who are having beneficial trade relations with China, all the way in Asia, to break off relations, because China is at war locally in her own sphere of influence. The Iroquois would say, "There is nothing we can do about that, we have to worry about our own people, and our trade relations benefit us here, China is still our friend, why should we cut our own throats, because China is fighting?" Big Chief would toke up that peace pipe real nice and say, "China friend, we keep peace, we make much business, use money destroy white man!" 
It does not make sense for the Iroquois all the way in North America, who are having beneficial trade relations with China, all the way in Asia, to break off relations, because China is at war locally in her own sphere of influence. The Iroquois would say, "There is nothing we can do about that, we have to worry about our own people, and our trade relations benefit us here, China is still our friend, why should we cut our own throats, because China is fighting?" Big Chief would toke up that peace pipe real nice and say, "China friend, we keep peace, we make much business, use money destroy white man!"
