An attempt at understanding diplomacy in civ V

These aren't diplomatic insights, these are Civ behaviors.

Understanding the AI behavior IS a view into diplomatic insight.

In CIV IV, you have certain leaders who loved religion, some who attacked no matter what, some were tech whores, some unreliable, some illogical, etc...

The point in this game is DO NOT TRUST ANYONE. You can tolerate some leaders through good diplomatic actions, but you will ALWAYS have to be on your guard.

Sounds better than paying off half the world with diplomacy and teching towards space.

ONce again, the city states are the key to understandable diplomacy.
 
The AI's not erratic in diplomacy. They are, however, playing to win. Just because the somewhat like you, doesn't mean they won't attack if they perceive you as a threat, or as being weak.

In my current marathon game, I'm the Romans. I'm friendly with Catherine, after saving her empire from Ghandi's warmongering, and Ottoman, despite sharing a game-long border with him. They're great trading partners, allowing me to sell my excess strategic and luxury resources.

Ghandi's the second most powerful civ. He DoW'd me after absorbing two other civs (Japan, who itself had absorbed the Babylonians, and the Songhai, who I took half of), as he had a larger, though less advanced, military than I. Since I destroyed his army, and took several of his cities...he's been quiet as a lamb (though now that he's got infantry...I worry).

The English were somewhat friendly, but they DoW'd on Catherine while I was saving her from Ghandi, so I retaliated. At one time Sulieman, Elizabeth, and Catherine made great trading partners, but now it's just the Sulieman and Catherine.

Other civs: Montezuma rampaged, taking out most've the Chinese before I backdoored them and took his capital (and only non-puppet city). Ramses DoW'd early on, and lost for it, as he was my neighbor. The Chinese got mostly wiped by the Aztecs, then finished off by myself and Sulieman. The Japanese were wiped by Ghandi, after they had in turn wiped out the Babylonians.

I have noticed the AI likes to gang up on the perceived weakest/least-liked civ: I think most've the civs ganged up on poor Noba, due to his warmongering ways. I had figured he was a powerful civ, so had worked on improving relations with him (he was on the opposite side of the continent on Terra map, so I figured it was safe). Sucked that he got wiped!
 
I successfully had almost all the world love me (calling me friend) for an entire game minus America (who had the misfortune of being in the path of my ever expanding cultural border). It's pretty simplistic though to simply not form pacts of secrecy, trade all the time, set up research agreements and keep up a strong front (lots of money, a decent military).

Various AI's would ask me to join in their wars but I'd simply decline politely. Eventually, a huge world war started and the world consolidated into 3 AI superpowers and 3 small powers (including me). The city states actually banded together against one of the superpowers because they were so aggressive (which annoyed me because my allied city states were getting conquered and I couldn't do much about it since it was the other side of the world).


America was the most hilarious. I crushed them early on in order upgrade my military units before making peace with them. They kept bumping into my uber culture, slowly got pissed and as soon as their army was significantly larger than mine, declared war only to be beat down into submission again. Happened three times lol. Too bad more units can't defeat elite equivalents or even slightly inferiors on their home turf.

The AI ended up too busy fighting each other to stop me from getting the cultural victory. I wish Civ V didn't have such a pathetic winning screen. I like being able to see the course of history on the map timeline.
 
Wow, real complex and compelling diplomatic insight there. :lol:

Well, it's true! Seriously, if all the other leaders are realistically trying to win the game isn't that better? Keeping the AI off your back is much more challenging in this game. If you want loyal followers in this game befriend the city-states.
 
Well, it's true! Seriously, if all the other leaders are realistically trying to win the game isn't that better? Keeping the AI off your back is much more challenging in this game. If you want loyal followers in this game befriend the city-states.

Aggressive AI accomplished the same thing. And if the AI were trying to win then it shouldn't fail so hard at doing so against the human player. Just because an AI will backstab doesn't mean it actually advances the goal of victory.
 
Well then we can agree to disagree then. An AI that will attack a weak or threatening human is a good thing to me, especially if I cannot easily get them ultra-pleased via religion and civics. As I can see the AI does plays a smarter game, they are cleaning out their neighbors first and NOT launching oversea invasions

The Civ IV Aggressive AI was broken and unlike this game. THey created large armies and killed their own research. Simple diplomacy and out-teching them made victory easier.
 
Culture Bomb is what they really hate. I bombed Roman land cutting deep into his city radius and Ceasar immediatley came over and said "If you are trying to start a war, you are doing a good job".
 
Well then we can agree to disagree then. An AI that will attack a weak or threatening human is a good thing to me, especially if I cannot easily get them ultra-pleased via religion and civics. As I can see the AI does plays a smarter game, they are cleaning out their neighbors first and NOT launching oversea invasions

The Civ IV Aggressive AI was broken and unlike this game. THey created large armies and killed their own research. Simple diplomacy and out-teching them made victory easier.

Mutual alienation at all times is so boring as a mechanic though. Alliances should form based on common interest and mutual cultural values. As much as people hated religion for forming blocs it at least had a basis in reality and it had a basis in strategic gameplay. Could the AI in Civ IV be exploited? Absolutely. But I don't find the exploits in diplomacy in placating the AI to not attack you (which seems to be a fundamental goal of using diplomacy in the first place) to be as bad as the AI playing to win and not having the capability to do so.
 
It also seems like the AI hates when you backstab them. For example, last night I made no pacts nor engaged in trade with the AIs near me with the idea that I was going to invade them all. I crushed all of them but Rome and when I was mounting my troops to take the last civ, they asked if I was planning on waging war against them. I said yes, and their leader remarked that 'at least I was honest'.

In other games where I make pacts of cooperation and trade extensively, the leaders say something along the lines of 'you have betrayed your word' when I declare war on them. I'm guessing there's some kind of universal diplo hit for not being a man of your word.
 
Also some AIS do things I never would have thought in Civ IV. Agustus purposely dropped a city between two of mine early on instead of expanding peacefully in the other direction, then when relations soured badly sent in the Legions. While Julius in Civ IV may send a stack of doom, Agustus in Civ V drive specifically for cities that he wants!

I think this is bad play. Someone just did this to me on King. I had a natural expansion site on the other side of my cap (4 gems and 4 sheep) and a AI dropped his first settler right there.

I am Germany and after I made a puppet of one other AI, I easily captured that size 2 city and annexed it. After he made a few improvements, of course. The worker is mine now too.
 
@MRT144: I agree there needs to be improvement on forming diplomatic ties with an AI, hopefully in patches/updates. Forming military ties or long times of useful productive trade without impeding on each others lands should count for more than what I am seeing. MY main point is that Civ V Diplomacy is exists, but different from Civ IV. We gotta think differently ourselves.

@Budweiser, yeah the AI seams to agressive pursue resources, true to history I guess. In my case the new Roman city was not the issue, it the was the powerful Approaching Roman army that was and I quickly lost New York. Agustus knew what he was doing, triggering a war. If I had a sizeable army I wonder if he would have done that.
 
@Budweiser, yeah the AI seams to agressive pursue resources, true to history I guess. In my case the new Roman city was not the issue, it the was the powerful Approaching Roman army that was and I quickly lost New York. Agustus knew what he was doing, triggering a war. If I had a sizeable army I wonder if he would have done that.

In my case it was a beautiful city site, but it was on the other side of Berlin from his capitol. I think he went for it as soon as he saw it. I didnt have much of an army when he founded it. But the AI must not have considered that it was next to Germany and there was a potential for barb farming to go on. It fell very easily and he was soon suing for peace, giving me a luxury for 30 turns and all his gold just so he didnt lose his capital.
 
+ Leave your cities undefended and having too few units (this is basically an invitation to be conquered)

I actually don't think this factors in to the AI at all. I won a Culture victory on Emperor surrounded by (seriously) Monty, Napoleon and Japan, while I had zero combat units. Not one. None of them (nor anyone else) ever declared war on me or tried to stop me winning.

I'm fairly sure everyone who believes this to be the case, or anyone arguing that 'the AI is just playing to win' is just simply wrong.
 
In my Gandhi game I have 3 cities that are in the middle of all wars it seems, I have open borders with everyone, and they all pass through to fight other civs without attacking me. I always have some kind of trade with them, and lend them gold or resources when they ask it.

At one point, all civs starting telling me how weak I was, that someone was going to put me out of my misery. So I started building some military, made a slingshot towards riflemen with Oxford University and strengthen my defenses. And now Monty, who is the biggest warmonger in my continent with Alexander, says he fears me. Actually, the description in the diplomacy screen says that, when he talked to me he liked my boots, telling me how great I am :lol:
 
I appreciate your effort in studying the diplomacy in this game. But in my opinion, all the AIs are the same - the same warmonger who believes war is the only way to settle all the disputes and fulfill their ambition.

THis is a war game, not a 3x game like CIv4 anymore. I really feel bored and unmotivated because every game would be all about war. Even though I am the builder-type of Civ player, I don't find any difficulty in beating the AI in a war if they come one after one because they suck at war(but they love it)

What makes diplomacy more terrible is that it seems they like signing the damn pact of secrecy against me because I am labelled as a "player" which is the biggest threat to their already big empire two or times bigger than mine. I am done with this game at this moment until they fix the combat AI and give some sense of diplomacy to the AI. The game right now looks like a "tower defense" game to me, i have to build a lots of archers(upgraded with promotuons) to defend against the never-ending but brainless horde.


You realize this is not true plenty of folks have won space and cultural victories and prince level and perhaps even higher without firing a shot. I listened to one podcast where the guy finished the space race in just under two hours and only build a few military. I am planning on playing my next game as India for cultural victory and


I suspect to do this you have to be very careful about any agreements you enter into and probably never sign and open borders agreement.
 
I actually don't think this factors in to the AI at all. I won a Culture victory on Emperor surrounded by (seriously) Monty, Napoleon and Japan, while I had zero combat units. Not one. None of them (nor anyone else) ever declared war on me or tried to stop me winning.

I'm fairly sure everyone who believes this to be the case, or anyone arguing that 'the AI is just playing to win' is just simply wrong.

Well, I was going to point out that they can play to win with a non-militaristic victory. But I can't explain Monty, Napoleon, and Oda all doing that.
 
I seriously wonder if this is explainable or a bug.

I have a city near the Ottoman's territory. Naturally, they are upset about this and hate me for it. Suleiman does not like, he has the angry/pose voice and refuses to do much in the way of trading. He starts trash-talking me, and occasionally declares war to have his 8-10 units die to a single catapult/trebuchet in the city and some token bombardment from a caravel/tireme (for some reason in my experience the AI is REALLY hesitant to attack a city even when they have it surrounded and could easily take it if they simply attack with all their units).

Anyways, while we're at peace, I culture-bomb a great artist to grab some of the tiles that were taken by his nearby city. He tells me if I'm trying to provoke a war, I'm doing a good job. But then, from then on, he's all smiles when it comes to diplomacy. He dropped his "angry" pose and is acting very agreeable.

Then he declares war on me again, suicides his units again, and we make peace. He's back to smiles and happy faces and even trading. I don't get it. Did culture-bombing to steal his territory actually make him LESS mad at me?
 
Back
Top Bottom