Another perfect example of diplomacy SUCKING

[Sherlock]

I'm trying to keep the peace and defend the little Civs.

The little Celts are attacked by the Mayans. I bribe the Mayans to stop.

The Celts are attacked by Russia. I give the Celts 4 units and 3 turns later the Russians give up the attack.

Arabia, formerly an ally of mine, but now being a major dick, attacks the Celts. I'm BFF with the Celts, so I declare war on him. He's now too busy with me to attack the Celts.

I SAVED THE CELTS FROM THE MAYANS. And get no credit for it.

I SAVED THE CELTS FROM THE RUSSIANS. And get no credit for it.

I SAVED THE CELTS FROM THE ARABIANS. And they hate me because 'I attacked someone I'd been allies with' or something like that.

What a load of cow chips. If the British were attacked by Germany, and you said, 'We're allies, I'll help you -I'm declaring war on Germany and will go fight them for you'. Would the British then say, 'Gee, you're a warmonger'.

I'm really tired of the 'whatever you do, they hate you' stuff in this game.

 

[Putmalk]

There needs to be an option to open up diplomacy with a civ, tell them "We will defend you against your neighbors" and allow you to declare war through that screen (obviously against civilizations that are at war with the protected civ). That will definitely help diplomacy for a few reasons:

- the computer really doesn't have to do any logic here. The computer will know if you're helping out just by the virtue of you TELLING them you're going to war to defend them. No guesswork needed.
- the other AI need not use this mechanic because we don't have access to the other civs' diplomacy. AKA we don't care if they hate each other for stupid reasons
- it will allow you to shape your diplomacy via conquest, which is impossible at the present moment (not: non-protected civs can see this as warmongering (if they don't like you/already have warmonger points) or not care (if they like you) to support (if they like both the protector and the protected)

 

[Halcyan2]

Well, even if the Celts are being attacked, maybe they don't mind. Maybe they (wrongly) see it as an opportunity to take some cities from the Mayans/Russians/Arabians, and they *don't* want your interference.

I often avoid DoW's because of their diplomatic penalty so I often *welcome* it if another civ DoW's me. I would be annoyed if a third party got involved and forced peace in that situation. If you go through the posts, you will see a few cases where players have complained about Team games with AI's as their partners since their partner often forces peace when they don't want it.

*However,* I do agree that it would be nice to have better communication with the AI's. If the AI's do want peace against an aggressive opponent, then yes, you should be getting some positive modifiers for helping to save them (like what is already done with Liberation).

Another subtlety that the AI doesn't get is that sometimes you are *helping* them by blocking off their city with your units to prevent enemy units from taking it. Unfortunately, the AI usually just sees lots of "suspicious" units in their territory and start mentioning about how the positioning of your military is worrisome.

 

[Sherlock]

There needs to be an option to open up diplomacy with a civ, tell them "We will defend you against your neighbors" and allow you to declare war through that screen (obviously against civilizations that are at war with the protected civ). That will definitely help diplomacy for a few reasons:

- the computer really doesn't have to do any logic here. The computer will know if you're helping out just by the virtue of you TELLING them you're going to war to defend them. No guesswork needed.
- the other AI need not use this mechanic because we don't have access to the other civs' diplomacy. AKA we don't care if they hate each other for stupid reasons
- it will allow you to shape your diplomacy via conquest, which is impossible at the present moment (not: non-protected civs can see this as warmongering (if they don't like you/already have warmonger points) or not care (if they like you) to support (if they like both the protector and the protected)

When the Russians attack the Celts, or attack CS, etc, you should be able to say, 'If you do not stop this I will declare war on you'. Then if they keep going and you go to war with them you get DIPLOMATIC PLUS'S INSTEAD OF MINUS'S.

The other Civ's would then say, 'You defended a weaker Civ' and like you better.

Rather than 'you're a warmonger'.

It's really hard to protect other Civs in this game without turning into a Pariah. And that's just not right and not fun.

 

[Putmalk]

Well, even if the Celts are being attacked, maybe they don't mind. Maybe they (wrongly) see it as an opportunity to take some cities from the Mayans/Russians/Arabians, and they *don't* want your interference.

I often avoid DoW's because of their diplomatic penalty so I often *welcome* it if another civ DoW's me. I would be annoyed if a third party got involved and forced peace in that situation. If you go through the posts, you will see a few cases where players have complained about Team games with AI's as their partners since their partner often forces peace when they don't want it.

*However,* I do agree that it would be nice to have better communication with the AI's. If the AI's do want peace against an aggressive opponent, then yes, you should be getting some positive modifiers for helping to save them (like what is already done with Liberation).

Another subtlety that the AI doesn't get is that sometimes you are *helping* them by blocking off their city with your units to prevent enemy units from taking it. Unfortunately, the AI usually just sees lots of "suspicious" units in their territory and start mentioning about how the positioning of your military is worrisome.

That's not how AI works. In this case all that is happening is that the player's warmonger threshold has been hit and the Celts now view them as a warmonger. There is no "I want the player to do this/I don't want the player to do this".

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's not how AI works. In this case all that is happening is that the player's warmonger threshold has been hit and the Celts now view them as a warmonger. There is no "I want the player to do this/I don't want the player to do this".

But there is a strong argument being made that it should be like this. I understand the warmongering mechanic - but in situations where you are jointly warring with an ally and even defending them from stronger opponents, crossing a warmonger threshold while doing so is not cool at all.

 

[Sherlock]

Well, even if the Celts are being attacked, maybe they don't mind. Maybe they (wrongly) see it as an opportunity to take some cities from the Mayans/Russians/Arabians, and they *don't* want your interference.

I often avoid DoW's because of their diplomatic penalty so I often *welcome* it if another civ DoW's me. I would be annoyed if a third party got involved and forced peace in that situation. If you go through the posts, you will see a few cases where players have complained about Team games with AI's as their partners since their partner often forces peace when they don't want it.

*However,* I do agree that it would be nice to have better communication with the AI's. If the AI's do want peace against an aggressive opponent, then yes, you should be getting some positive modifiers for helping to save them (like what is already done with Liberation).

Another subtlety that the AI doesn't get is that sometimes you are *helping* them by blocking off their city with your units to prevent enemy units from taking it. Unfortunately, the AI usually just sees lots of "suspicious" units in their territory and start mentioning about how the positioning of your military is worrisome.

Celts had one city. Russians had nine. Catherine was going to take them like Grant took Richmond. Yeah, I know what you mean about the blocking off the city thing. I had open borders with the Celts and placed units around her capital so the Russians couldn't get to it. Then, when the time was right, gifted them to her so she could go on the counter-attack. Saved her bacon big time.

Oh, and later, after I'd taken Moscow I helped the Celts take back their other city from Catherine.

 

[Putmalk]

But there is a strong argument being made that it should be like this. I understand the warmongering mechanic - but in situations where you are jointly warring with an ally and even defending them from stronger opponents, crossing a warmonger threshold while doing so is not cool at all.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

[plumsmugler]

I completely agree. If you look up the list of diplomatic modifiers possible you'll see that negative modifiers outnumber positive ones about 3 or 4 to one. This means that it's much easier for a Civ to not like you than like you. Add to that that there are so many ways for you to help a Civ without them acknowledging it that it makes it near impossible to maintain friendly relations unless you literally do nothing but trade luxury resources and maintain a large but unused army.

I really want more options for maintaining better diplomatic relations. They should really take a page from the CS diplomatic options and have other Civs give you quests in order to improve relations with them.

I also like Putmalk's suggestion that you are given the option to provide reasons for going to war or making other decisions which will affect your diplomatic relations with other Civs.

Also, is there even a diplomatic modifier for gifting military units to other Civs? It's pretty stupid if there isn't. Even CS's like you more for gifting them units.

 

[Heerlo]

I remember something that happened to me that was annoying.

I was in a DOF with Russia and with Persia, and I had a defensive pact with Persia, but not with Russia.Russia declared war on Persia, which, in turn, caused me to automatically declare war on Russia.So I got a penalty for attacking someone I was friends with.

I'm not sure if I ever had so many people denounce me in my life.

But, I agree, that diplomacy needs some work.

 

[Putmalk]

I remember something that happened to me that was annoying.

I was in a DOF with Russia and with Persia, and I had a defensive pact with Persia, but not with Russia.Russia declared war on Persia, which, in turn, caused me to automatically declare war on Russia.So I got a penalty for attacking someone I was friends with.

I'm not sure if I ever had so many people denounce me in my life.

But, I agree, that diplomacy needs some work.

Never EVER sign DPs. Let that be a lesson.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I completely agree. If you look up the list of diplomatic modifiers possible you'll see that negative modifiers outnumber positive ones about 3 or 4 to one. This means that it's much easier for a Civ to not like you than like you. Add to that that there are so many ways for you to help a Civ without them acknowledging it that it makes it near impossible to maintain friendly relations unless you literally do nothing but trade luxury resources and maintain a large but unused army.

Not only that, but IIRC, the negative modifiers also have much bigger penalties associated with them relative to the positive ones. Haven't seen anyone post the modifiers since G&K however.

Never EVER sign DPs. Let that be a lesson.

Hahaha rofl. It just sucks that this statement is true. I don't have any good ideas on how it could be different though, except that you shouldn't get diplo hits for honoring a Defense Pact even if it's a civ your friendly with that you have to DoW. I mean, everyone knows who has what DP with whom - and if you don't honor the DP, you get a diplo hit IIRC. Really dumb.

 

[Lord Kid]

What I don't like is having a Civ come to you requesting your help going to war with another civ, and if you agree they hate you after the war is over.

 

[Sherlock]

What I don't like is having a Civ come to you requesting your help going to war with another civ, and if you agree they hate you after the war is over.

They see me rolling, they hating.

 

[Sherlock]

I completely agree. If you look up the list of diplomatic modifiers possible you'll see that negative modifiers outnumber positive ones about 3 or 4 to one. This means that it's much easier for a Civ to not like you than like you. Add to that that there are so many ways for you to help a Civ without them acknowledging it that it makes it near impossible to maintain friendly relations unless you literally do nothing but trade luxury resources and maintain a large but unused army.

I really want more options for maintaining better diplomatic relations. They should really take a page from the CS diplomatic options and have other Civs give you quests in order to improve relations with them.

I also like Putmalk's suggestion that you are given the option to provide reasons for going to war or making other decisions which will affect your diplomatic relations with other Civs.

Also, is there even a diplomatic modifier for gifting military units to other Civs? It's pretty stupid if there isn't. Even CS's like you more for gifting them units.

I could be wrong, but I think you only score points for gifting units to CS's if they have asked for them.

 

[Halcyan2]

When the Russians attack the Celts, or attack CS, etc, you should be able to say, 'If you do not stop this I will declare war on you'. Then if they keep going and you go to war with them you get DIPLOMATIC PLUS'S INSTEAD OF MINUS'S.

The other Civ's would then say, 'You defended a weaker Civ' and like you better.

Rather than 'you're a warmonger'.

It's really hard to protect other Civs in this game without turning into a Pariah. And that's just not right and not fun.

Foreign military intervention is often viewed disfavorably, even if it is done for arguably humanitarian purposes. Even if your goal is to "liberate" the people from an "unjust regime," it's very easy to be labeled as a foreign aggressor. There are plenty of examples (especially in Africa/Middle East/Central and South America) of this. "Peacekeeping" forces have a habit of quickly wearing out their welcome.

There are reasons why many major powers decided to sit on the sidelines during the Arab Spring (or aren't doing more about Syria right now). Even if they do get involved for humanitarian reasons, it would be all too easy for critics to accuse them of having underlying motives.

A country that constantly gets involved in the affairs of city states (even for the purpose of "protection") will often get labeled imperialistic and viewed as overly meddling. The other major powers aren't going to like it.

Plus, not all civs would necessarily see "defending a weaker civ" as a positive. For example, the greeting message you get from other Autocratic civs if you choose Autocracy is all about ensuring that only the strong civs survive.

 

[Halcyan2]

But there is a strong argument being made that it should be like this. I understand the warmongering mechanic - but in situations where you are jointly warring with an ally and even defending them from stronger opponents, crossing a warmonger threshold while doing so is not cool at all.

I agree that getting warmonger diplomatic hits from your friends/allies that you are helping, is a bit annoying.

But looking at it another way:

In one game, there was a three-way Declaration of Friendship between me, Germany, and Polynesia. Polynesia was competing with me on some wonders so I wanted to slow them down (and isolate them diplomatically), so I bribed Germany to backstab/DoW Polynesia (in contrast, Polynesia was not willing to DoW Germany).

Even though Germany DoW'ed Polynesia on my behalf and I maintained a DoF with Germany, this did not give me a very favorable impression of Germany. If it was willing to DoW its Friend Polynesia, what makes me think that it won't DoW me (also a Friend) at some future point in time.

If a civilization repeatedly requests Friend A and Friend B to go to war (against Enemy C). Friend A is always eager to join in on the war, while Friend B always refuses. It's somewhat reasonable for Friend A to get somewhat of a warmonger reputation (which will get partly get ignored as long as they are still on good terms).

 

[Halcyan2]

Not only that, but IIRC, the negative modifiers also have much bigger penalties associated with them relative to the positive ones. Haven't seen anyone post the modifiers since G&K however.

Hahaha rofl. It just sucks that this statement is true. I don't have any good ideas on how it could be different though, except that you shouldn't get diplo hits for honoring a Defense Pact even if it's a civ your friendly with that you have to DoW. I mean, everyone knows who has what DP with whom - and if you don't honor the DP, you get a diplo hit IIRC. Really dumb.

I do think Defensive Pacts were much better done in Civ IV.

The AI's actually evaluated the combined strengths when determining whether to go to war. (In Civ V, it doesn't seem to care too much about the strength of Defensive Pact partners).

In addition, you got a diplomatic bonus over time for maintaining a Defensive Pact. In fact, maintaining a Defensive Pact or sharing a common foe during war was a pre-requisite to the Permanent Alliance.

 

[Sherlock]

Foreign military intervention is often viewed disfavorably, even if it is done for arguably humanitarian purposes. Even if your goal is to "liberate" the people from an "unjust regime," it's very easy to be labeled as a foreign aggressor. There are plenty of examples (especially in Africa/Middle East/Central and South America) of this. "Peacekeeping" forces have a habit of quickly wearing out their welcome.

There are reasons why many major powers decided to sit on the sidelines during the Arab Spring (or aren't doing more about Syria right now). Even if they do get involved for humanitarian reasons, it would be all too easy for critics to accuse them of having underlying motives.

A country that constantly gets involved in the affairs of city states (even for the purpose of "protection") will often get labeled imperialistic and viewed as overly meddling. The other major powers aren't going to like it.

Plus, not all civs would necessarily see "defending a weaker civ" as a positive. For example, the greeting message you get from other Autocratic civs if you choose Autocracy is all about ensuring that only the strong civs survive.

It's all about stopping runaway Civ's.

What would you rather have - Russia with a score of 1200 and Celts with a score of 400?

Or Russia with a score of 1600 and no more Celts?

 

[Halcyan2]

I completely agree. If you look up the list of diplomatic modifiers possible you'll see that negative modifiers outnumber positive ones about 3 or 4 to one. This means that it's much easier for a Civ to not like you than like you. Add to that that there are so many ways for you to help a Civ without them acknowledging it that it makes it near impossible to maintain friendly relations unless you literally do nothing but trade luxury resources and maintain a large but unused army.

I really want more options for maintaining better diplomatic relations. They should really take a page from the CS diplomatic options and have other Civs give you quests in order to improve relations with them.

I also like Putmalk's suggestion that you are given the option to provide reasons for going to war or making other decisions which will affect your diplomatic relations with other Civs.

Also, is there even a diplomatic modifier for gifting military units to other Civs? It's pretty stupid if there isn't. Even CS's like you more for gifting them units.

While there technically are more negative modifiers than positive ones, it's not too hard to manipulate the system to favor the positive ones:

- "We've traded recently," just gift them a luxury or some gold. Easy.

- "We've denounced the same leaders," see who they've denounced and do the same. Super easy.

- "We have made a Declaration of Friendship" and "We have made Declarations of Friendship with the same leaders," and "You have made Declarations of Friendship with our enemies," can be carefully manipulated. Sometimes getting the first DoF may be hard, but it gets much easier. You have to be a bit strategic but it's do-able, especially if friend blocs have already formed.

- "We have happily adopted your religion in the majority of our cities," and "We are trying to spread our own religion but you are converting us." Once you have your own religion, you can get additional bonuses by spreading your religion to civs that have *not* founded a religion yet. However, you will get a penalty if those religions have their own founded religion.

- "We fought against a common foe." Pretty easy to do if you are willing to DoW or willing to bribe AI's to enter wars.

- "You've shared intrigue with us." Once you hit Renaissance, send your spies to neighboring/enemy AI's of that civ and share any intrigue you find.

- "You have both chosen Order/Autocracy/Freedom." "You have chosen a different Order/Autocracy/Freedom." This is trickier if you are the first to hit Industrial, but once other civs start to make their choice, you can wait and choose O/A/F based on what they choose.

- "You freed our captive civilians." I've found that this is one of the strongest positive modifiers and it doesn't degrade over time. It's a bit tricky since it is reliant on barbarians, but if you really want, you should try Raging Barbarians and look out for camps with captured workers/settlers. AI's don't prioritize rescuing their own civilians, so it's a pretty easy way to score diplomatic points.