Best version of Civ EVER.

[zonk]

I was all for the removal of transparent diplomacy modifiers, but that does *not* mean that I agree with the totally Opaque &-quite frankly-random seeming diplomatic system they've adopted for Civ5. It simply is the case that it *feels* like nothing you do actually matters. It would at least be nice if you got some kind of reminder of the things you've done for/to the AI, & some kind of idea of whether that's had a positive or negative influence on their view of you-*without* revealing the specific +/-. As it currently stands, the AI feels as random as it was in Civ3, which is *Not* a good thing!!!!

Agreed.

Sorry - but in IV, "friendships" meant something... Did religion form too large a role in that "friendship"? Perhaps... but that doesn't change the fact that, even setting aside religion, if you consistently traded fairly with another AI -- perhaps tossed them a bit of help now and again -- you could develop long-term alliances or at least reliably peaceful coexistence with another Civ.

You cannot in V. Sign all of the pacts of cooperation you want. Sign pacts of secrecy and stick to them. Give that same civ advantageous trade deals.... Then - when they ask for help in war - agree to help them out and try razing a few cities of your common enemy.... Or worse - keep a captured city near your supposed ally.

You'll be at war before too long, with your 1500 year ally calling you the 'bloodthirsty one' because you ummmm.... entered the war he invited you into and helped win it.

Forget the showing of the details - fine - I couldn't care less about the +/- of relations expressed in numbers.

The IV AI could be reasoned with.

The V AI is simply a sociopath.

I'll take an addled, but reasonable AI over an addled sociopath AI any day of the week.

 

[Roxlimn]

zonk:

The reason you can't reason with the Civ V AI is because you can't see the modifiers. If you could see them, you'd be able to manipulate them just as easily as you do the Civ 4 AI. In fact, it's completely possible to play an entire game of Civ V to completion and victory without having a single Civ declare war on you. I'd wager that this is actually easier in V than in IV.

 

[cwcaesar]

I think Civ 5 is the best Vanilla version. It is visually better with the hexagonal tiles. I love combat more in this version as well.

 

[zonk]

zonk:

The reason you can't reason with the Civ V AI is because you can't see the modifiers. If you could see them, you'd be able to manipulate them just as easily as you do the Civ 4 AI. In fact, it's completely possible to play an entire game of Civ V to completion and victory without having a single Civ declare war on you. I'd wager that this is actually easier in V than in IV.

I'm sorry, but I have seen zero evidence of this.

After the patch last week - I playtested some diplomatic actions (not played a game, but created scenarios to test specific things).... I was testing mostly on immortal/deity -- but I found zero evidence of sustained friendships having any value to the V AI. Didn't matter if I signed pacts of cooperation, secrecy (and stuck with them). Didn't matter whether I was winning, tied, or losing. I was specifically looking at RAs -- and I'd get the same "you throw in X bold plus open borders" (or X + {value of open border} for the friendly civ I already had open borders with) response. There was NO value I could find in "befriending" an AI.

By the same token - and this, I did not test as rigorously, but still experimented -- the AI gets upset when you capture other cities... even if those other cities belong to another AI that your supposedly FRIENDLY AI invited you to war against.

Easy/Hard isn't the fundamental problem.

I play - and enjoy - plenty of games where it's necessary to implement house rules to avoid taking advantage of the AI. I'd rather I didn't have to, but if the overall game is good -- I'll live with it.

Diplomacy in Civilization used to have meaning... ESPECIALLY if you weren't a warmonger. Setting aside the influence/over-influence of religion -- it WAS possible to cultivate long-term friendships.

Diplomacy was more than just "give me your X for my Y".

For a builder, strong relations with other Civs might mean protection from the Monties and Mongols of the world....

Right now - it's pointless.

If I wanted to be cruel -- oh, forget it, I WILL be cruel -- the AI in V is a perfect match for V. It's simplified and optimized for people that think "Civilization" is/should be a wargame with enough non-war 'annoyances' to qualify it as something more than a 'wargame'.

 

[Roxlimn]

zonk:

I would broadly say that it's not that the AI is precoded to favor war, but that the tactics and preferred manners of winning by players who prefer Immortal and Deity settings are tripped to make the AI hostile.

For instance, it's "optimal" to take cities when in war, but you don't have to. You can simply destroy the enemy AI's units and not take any cities. This should net you a positive influence with the Civ AI that asked you to join in the war.

Diplomacy in Civ used to be a mechanism by which high diff setting players indirectly controlled AIs which were supposed to have handicaps to make the game harder. Whether or not this relationship had meaning depends on how you think real relationships are. It's about about manipulating other AIs to do your bidding, and really, little else.

 

[zonk]

zonk:

I would broadly say that it's not that the AI is precoded to favor war, but that the tactics and preferred manners of winning by players who prefer Immortal and Deity settings are tripped to make the AI hostile.

For instance, it's "optimal" to take cities when in war, but you don't have to. You can simply destroy the enemy AI's units and not take any cities. This should net you a positive influence with the Civ AI that asked you to join in the war.

Diplomacy in Civ used to be a mechanism by which high diff setting players indirectly controlled AIs which were supposed to have handicaps to make the game harder. Whether or not this relationship had meaning depends on how you think real relationships are. It's about about manipulating other AIs to do your bidding, and really, little else.

This has some truth --

But the problem is, netting cities seems to the only way to get a reasonable peace. I didn't playtest this as much as trading generally -- but if you're not capturing/razing cities -- the AI wants your arm and leg for signing peace.

Now - if you ally with a stronger civ who can make the offending AI suffer, this equation changes... but it basically means you SHOULD ONLY ally with a powerful civ.

One thing I'd do a lot of in IV is forge coalitions with weaker civs -- I'd, in effect, become their protectors, but at the same time -- the AI coming after me would mean a bunch of buzzing hornets. It had a balancing effect -- our alliance would be left to do our building, while the remaining civs fought it out. Of course, you always had the occasion when one of the alliance would do something really stupid and drag you all into war.... but that was part of the fun.

 

[Rexflex]

I voted Civ 4 vanilla, but I can't help but feel that part of the reason why I liked it more from the start was because Civ 3 never engaged me and I was more inclined to accept Civ 4 vanilla flaws and all right at the start.

Meanwhile for Civ 5, I still have Civ 4 BTS to look back upon as something that developed nicely and has kept my interest all this time. There are some things I think Civ 5 does better than Civ 4, but the things it is still missing or needs work on are more on my mind.

 

[Roxlimn]

zonk:

Your assertion is probably true at Immortal and Deity, which speaks to my opinion that the AI isn't properly coded to play well at those settings. I suspect that the AI is being so stingy about peace terms because it's been retweaked to be that stingy after players complained about too-good peace terms, and because it's got a gazillion units because of the AI handicaps.

I get reasonable peace terms when I defeat AIs on King, and I'm generally good about gifting cities back to AIs, or to rival AIs. I don't like having to war all the time, so I'm good about not getting my borders where lots of AIs can see it.

The diplomacy game is generally better when you're not out to conquer the world. If you are, then pretty much all the Civs see you as a threat, and act accordingly. It's a reasonable behavioral code when the AI's not receiving stupid levels of handicap bonuses.

 

[Guardian_PL]

This has some truth --

But the problem is, netting cities seems to the only way to get a reasonable peace. I didn't playtest this as much as trading generally -- but if you're not capturing/razing cities -- the AI wants your arm and leg for signing peace.

Now - if you ally with a stronger civ who can make the offending AI suffer, this equation changes... but it basically means you SHOULD ONLY ally with a powerful civ.

One thing I'd do a lot of in IV is forge coalitions with weaker civs -- I'd, in effect, become their protectors, but at the same time -- the AI coming after me would mean a bunch of buzzing hornets. It had a balancing effect -- our alliance would be left to do our building, while the remaining civs fought it out. Of course, you always had the occasion when one of the alliance would do something really stupid and drag you all into war.... but that was part of the fun.

This whole "diplomacy" thing boils down to basically when you're winning (like leading in demographics) then others are "trying to win" and s*** hits the fan - all the previous good behaviour is getting scratched, while when you're midpack/dead last and not a threat to other AI's while not being a tasty treat at the same time by having a weak military (kind of difficult to achieve on Immortal+) you can live with them for some time.

It's like they can hit you, but you can't hit them back cause that'll make you eeeeviil...

 

[Roxlimn]

Guardian_PL:

Total nonsense. All the Civs are generally very hostile towards any warmongering, large Civ, AI or no AI. In fact, the City States are generally that way as well, for some reason, so any runaway Civ is quite likely to have wiped away all traces of anything other than his Civ on his own Continent.

It's not just towards the player that they're like that. Seriously, though have you played enough Civ games that didn't end up in constant war to be talking about this? I get the impression that most Immortal and Deity players just never see the AI in a situation where it's reasonable.

I suspect that high diff AIs are slightly disposed to be more friendly to other AIs because their armies are of a comparable size, so they don't get that particular diplo hit. At the lower settings, you don't get this problem because the AIs don't have handicap bonuses that allow them to amass such large armies.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Guardian_PL:

Total nonsense. All the Civs are generally very hostile towards any warmongering, large Civ, AI or no AI. In fact, the City States are generally that way as well, for some reason, so any runaway Civ is quite likely to have wiped away all traces of anything other than his Civ on his own Continent.

Total nonsense. Nappy or I think Toku couldn't care less about your warring, especially if they're not direct neighbours. If you're winning however, gaining cities and points etc increases your demographics and THEN they'll inevitably get and declare/get hostile.


I don't deny that peaceful game in Civ5 is a possibility, but honestly it never happened in my games while I can assure you that I'm not a horsemen-rush-mop-my-landmass player.

You can read numerous posters telling us that when asked by other AI to join war and agreed a few turns later said AI cancels all deals because it "couldn't overlook your warmongering". Like you said - if you're wiping only units you're not gaining so much in points/production/land etc so the AI's are not annoyed. Then as soon as you'll start doing it "I'm playing to win " kicks in and ensues.

 

[Dumanios]

The poll forgot Alpha Centauri and FfH.

 

[Wardog]

I have a doubt: all the people who voted IV or V really played II and III?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have a doubt: all the people who voted IV or V really played II and III?

I played Civ2 & Civ3 &-whilst both definitely held great appeal for me-I still consider Civ4 to be the very pinnacle of the Civ Franchise (even before the expansions!)

Aussie.

 

[eviltypeguy]

I have a doubt: all the people who voted IV or V really played II and III?

I voted for V, but I've played every version of Civilization since the original (including Revolution).

 

[Voltron81]

I love Civ5 the best since Civ2. Yeah it can be be buggy but so was Civ4 in the beginning and everyone nows says it was sooo "polished". I love the one unit per tile. You have to think instead of breaking out the old SOD. There is something about surrounding a city with swordsmen and pulling catapults and archers behind them and smashing it all to peices. THATS glorious....

I played all Civs too. Still voted for 5. THough i do miss the civ2 nuke sirens...

I hated civ3. i bought it (and all expansions) and tried to play it but just didnt like it went back to civ2 until civ4 came out.

 

[SMA333M]

I liked Civ 4 BTS, not vanilla...

 

[Hacksaaw]

Civ 2 hands down, i play Civ for the experience and that was the one that kept me at the computer for hours on end. Civ III failed, Civ IV was allright on launch, and Civ V well it destroys the whole experience with the disconnect between single unit in a hex in the ancients period and the scale of the kind of game.

falls flat on its face Civ V does.

 

[fantsu]

I can't believe that Civ5 has more votes than 2. Of course these forums are now full of 10 to 14 year olds after the release, but still....
There is just no logic to that vote at all. Shame. Shame for them.

 

[SerriaFox]

Civilization was the first "war" game where peace was an option, not a very realistic option but an option.

Each version of Civ made the diplomacy more important and peace a more viable option. until Civ 5.

I like to build a civilization, in a competitive environment. And building a civ, to me, means living with other nations. I don't know if it is the Language barrier, or the total lack of other cues but the AI feels flatter even though it is in 3d.

I am reminded of something I read in a book, nations relationships are always most proper right before war. In the game it always feels like you have a "most" proper relationship to the AI.