"Care to Negotiate?" for request to declare war???

[Astalder]

you can always hit F4 (foreign advisor), even when these pop up. took me way too long to realize this.

You're my hero for the day.

 

[shadow2k]

You say there's no penalty for the AI to ask you for stuff. But whenever they ask me for tribute I always mentally mark them as my next target for annexation.

Yeah, no doubt. If some civ is demanding stuff from you, I have a really hard time believing there's no negative thoughts creeping into your head every time it happens. You don't want to smack Monty around when he starts making early demands? You don't start calling Izzy names when she demands you switch to her religion, and goes on her little crusades?

Same goes for the Red Out option. When you go to war, do you normally declare on your trading buddies, or the ones who's whole damn screen is red? Yeah, I know which ones I kill off first.

Just because there isn't a little list for you to look at, it definitely doesn't mean these things don't have any affect on your thoughts on that civ. I'd say the computer is more at a disadvantage here. The AI has no clue what you really think of it, and the human is far more likely to backstab his friends out of the blue. What's worse, your list tends to carry over from one game to another...

Couple other things:

You do have the option to go to war for another AI a few turns after they ask. You simply tell them no, and then declare later. You get a much larger bonus for being a war ally than you did for saying no initially. I would guess that if there were an option to say, "Yes, I'll fight for you, but wait 5 turns"...that you'd still get a slight negative modifier while they waited on your butt, just like you do now.

And yes, you can make demands to have an AI go to war for free, and they will even say yes if the circumstances are right.

The only real valid point I've seen at all is that you cannot negotiate a price for you to go to war for them when they ask. Maybe they should just take that option away from humans also, and only allow us to ask them to do it for free as well.

 

[zeise]

Someything else that really gets me boggle up, is when the AI comes demanding a tech of resource that you've just got that very same turn, before you even have the chance to do anything else with it.

 

[joethreeblah]

I think Shadow2k is correct and all of the rest of you are INSANE.

Your "annoyed", "friendly", etc. emotions happen IN YOUR BRAIN. That's right, you are a human being. It really isn't a disadvantage.

If you want the AI to be more penalized for saying no to your demands, go ahead and give yourself a -100 modifier against that computer player. And if you don't like the RED blocked situation, you can add another -900 to your emotions and declare war immediately.

I can't believe everyone goes along with this rubbish.

Frown and growl at the screen all you want

 

[jefmart1]

It has nothing to do with "negative" or positive modifiers on the player end, it is the negative modifiers you get on their end for not complying with a ridiculous request.

Example: I was playing Earth 1000 AD as Mali. About 10 turns in I encounter Isabella, who immediately, immediately requests I go to war with Saladin.

Right...my skirmishers vs camel archers, my civ that has 2 cities that were just built against the Arabian Empire. We have no other relationship, yet going forward I now have a negative because I refused to declare war on someone that would wipe me out. OH, and I get nothing for doing that since I tried it and she wouldn't trade me any tech "because we just don't like you eneough..."

VERY unrealistic and ridiculous. If I couldn't ask them to do something, then they should not be able to ask me to do something. Very simple.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I agree with joethreeblah.

The diplomatic repercussions are asymmetrical because the AI just can't see what you think about it. It has to test your attitude by asking you questions like: would you help me against my enemy, will you give me this technology, etc. The human player can silently hate another nation and plan to conquer it. The AI will never know that you're planning to do this. The questions that it asks you are just some tests on what you think of them. If these requests were not in the game, then the AI would be at a massive disadvantage as the player can clearly see what the AI thinks of them, but the AI cannot see what the player thinks of it. With the various requests, the AI has a chance to see what you're thinking and the playing field is leveled a little. Although the human player in my opinion still has an advantage in diplomacy.

If you think that I'm talking nonsense, then imagine a multiplayer game where every player is hooked into some futuristic device that can read your mind and show your thoughts about the other players by showing an attitude number on the screen. If one player was able to rig the device and show false attitude numbers, then this would clearly be an advantage for that player. The other players might find the true intentions of this player by requesting some things and noticing that the attitude number doesn't seem to fit with the replies from the player. Just like the AI does in the game. It's a quite natural way for the game programmers to solve the problem that the AI doesn't know as much about your attitude as you know about the AI's attitude.

 

[shadow2k]

It has nothing to do with "negative" or positive modifiers on the player end, it is the negative modifiers you get on their end for not complying with a ridiculous request.

Example: I was playing Earth 1000 AD as Mali. About 10 turns in I encounter Isabella, who immediately, immediately requests I go to war with Saladin.

Right...my skirmishers vs camel archers, my civ that has 2 cities that were just built against the Arabian Empire. We have no other relationship, yet going forward I now have a negative because I refused to declare war on someone that would wipe me out. OH, and I get nothing for doing that since I tried it and she wouldn't trade me any tech "because we just don't like you eneough..."

VERY unrealistic and ridiculous. If I couldn't ask them to do something, then they should not be able to ask me to do something. Very simple.

You missed the whole point. When they make that "ridiculous request" for whatever, that you would have redded out if you could, it gives them a negative impression of you, right? What in the heck do you think you do when you see something in red from them? It's the same thing. Except that your opinion of them forms without ever having to ask, because you already know they won't give it to you.

Not to mention that you are very biased regarding what's "fair". You consider it to be ridiculous for another AI to ask you for help in a war where you aren't ready. Do you sit there and consider the AI's position when you ask them to go to war for you? You don't care, you just want them to declare.

Try playing a game where you don't allow yourself to form any opinion of an AI based on things they have redded out. Seriously, try it. Because their "redded out" options are the same thing as you thinking they shouldn't be allowed to ask you to war someone who will kill you. You'd red it out if you could, but I guarantee that if they gave you that option, it would come with a negative relationship modifier.

 

[Nilrim]

This is part of the problem which I generally call: "Diplomacy in Civ4 sucks"

Yep I can't agree more it is by far the weakest part of the game. There should many MANY more Diplomatic choices and don't even get me started on the LAME UN, what there is no way to tell the UN to stuff it LMAO.

 

[CVDon]

Agree totally with initial poster. Every time I get invited to join a war, I want to ask for something, just as the AI Leaders do. Sometimes they ask for a hell of a lot.

On a related topic, sometimes I declare war just to keep relations good, then adopt a defensive stance. I might send a ship to raid fishing boats, but that is all. It would be nice if you got Diplomacy bonuses for RESULTS instead of just sitting there.

+1 You helped us in a war.
+2 You captured two cities in that war.
+1 You destroyed 50 points of enemy troops in that war.

-- or --

+1 You helped us in a war.
-3 But then you just sat there and watched.

-- and --

+1 You refused to join Monty in making war on me when he asked.

 

[Kerrang]

It would also be nice to be able to respond with economic aid for their war effort rather than actual physical involvement.
"Sorry, I just don't have the troops to help right now but I do support your efforts so...maybe this Oil would be of some use to you..."

Although you cannot do this immediately from the Diplomacy Screen, you can use other methods to acheive the same effect. Simply refuse the war, but then start giving the civ techs, money, or units for free (or for very little). The bonuses you will get for aiding them will make up for the negative you received for initially refusing their request.

An example from the most recent game I played. Catherine and I (as Ghengis)were the two top Civs, and she was staying a few hundred points ahead of me at this point in the game due to her research. She was always a couple of techs ahead of me, but my Civ was larger. I was playing the Highlands map on Large, and we were on opposite sides of the map. Catherine went to war with her closest neighbor, Hatty, who was one of the worst Civs as far as score and research go. This was just after the time I had discovered Gunpowder, and Hatty was way behind, and so had basically no defense, and she was a smaller Civ to boot.

Of course, as I was the closest competitor to Catherine and had a Pleased realtion with both Civs, Hatty asked me to go to war with her against Catherine. I declined, as even though I was far away from Catherine, we had good trade relations and I did not want to go to war with her and lose that income. Instead, the very same turn Hatty asked me to go to war with Catherine, I started selling military techs to Hatty at a very low cost, as well as providing some free resources she needed, and gifting the occasional unit or two that I could spare.

I am sure Catherine was expecting a quick victory over Hatty, but due to my efforts they ended up in a war of attrition that lasted for hundreds of years, and ultimately allowed me to surpass Catherine as far as the score was concerned (I never caught up on tech until the Internet). Catherine never took Hatty out, she ended up hanging on with 2 cities until Catherine made peace, and then Mao came in and obliterated Hatty a few years later. I wasn't concerned with Mao, so I let him do it.

In the process, Hatty became my best friend, and closest ally, but Catherine never caught on entirely, she just kept asking me politely to cancel my deals with Hatty, but every time I refused and attempted to make up for the relationship negative by offering her a trade somewhere else.

I agree with many of those that posted here to say that the AI asks you these question as a way to guage how you feel about them, and it is really the only way they can do so. I would like to see some varitey in what they ask, and I do agree that we could use a few more options when dealing with the AI. As humans, though, we are at a great advantage when it comes to being sneaky, underhanded, and entirely unpredictable in diplomatic relations.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

@shadow2k: You sold me on your "red out" argument. I thought this was a stupid implementation, but in the end it saves you time and accomplishes the same thing. Nice perspective.

I do agree with the original post. This is the only thing that comes to mind where the AI can ask something that you can't ("red out" issue aside). I don't agree with that, especially when the AI is quick to cash in on you when you make such a request.

@Kerrang: So things you do outside of the diplomacy screen affect the relations modifiers? If I keep marching units into their territory and gifting them, that will improve relations? I never thought to try that.

 

[Kerrang]

@Kerrang: So things you do outside of the diplomacy screen affect the relations modifiers? If I keep marching units into their territory and gifting them, that will improve relations? I never thought to try that.

I am not sure if gifting the units helped as far as Diplomacy modifiers are concerned, but they sure helped to keep Catherine from conquering Hatty. It was offering techs at ridiculously low prices, and giving resources without asking for anything in return that had a definate improvement on my relations with Hatty. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

 

[Nilrim]

I am not sure if gifting the units helped as far as Diplomacy modifiers are concerned, but they sure helped to keep Catherine from conquering Hatty. It was offering techs at ridiculously low prices, and giving resources without asking for anything in return that had a definate improvement on my relations with Hatty. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

That is a GOOD question, does gifting military units help with Diplomancy rating? If it doesn't it sure should!! You can keep a Civ alive by doing it, I have done it in several games. In my last game I gave Gandi a bunch of Inf and Arty units to help fight back Kattie.
Of course if you gift militray units to a Civ and get good standings with them, if they are at war with another Civ then you should get Bad standing with them Fair is fair.

 

[jefmart1]

You missed the whole point. When they make that "ridiculous request" for whatever, that you would have redded out if you could, it gives them a negative impression of you, right? What in the heck do you think you do when you see something in red from them? It's the same thing. Except that your opinion of them forms without ever having to ask, because you already know they won't give it to you.

Not to mention that you are very biased regarding what's "fair". You consider it to be ridiculous for another AI to ask you for help in a war where you aren't ready. Do you sit there and consider the AI's position when you ask them to go to war for you? You don't care, you just want them to declare.

Try playing a game where you don't allow yourself to form any opinion of an AI based on things they have redded out. Seriously, try it. Because their "redded out" options are the same thing as you thinking they shouldn't be allowed to ask you to war someone who will kill you. You'd red it out if you could, but I guarantee that if they gave you that option, it would come with a negative relationship modifier.

AH, but I try to change their opinion to un "red out" that option rather than hold it against them. The AI never tries to get on your good side A human multiplayer would. A human multiplayer also would realize you were unready for war or that the request was ridiculous and not hold it against you. Or you would talk it over with the human player, ie wheel and deal, negotiate, con, etc.

Why would a real world leader form a negative opinion of another leader because the leader refused a ridiculous request?

"Hey Bush, can we have some nuclear weapons and control of New York?" -Kim Jong Il

Bush would die laughing...and Kim Jong Il would just shrug

BTW, I wouldn't hold the AI not declaring war against them if it was really not in their interest. Thats just common sense. Same thing with tech requests.

 

[Sgt Froggy]

The current diplo system definitely has some elements that are just plain not fun. And it's a shame, because they seem pretty simple to fix.

1) An AI should never be able to ask (as help or tribute) for a tech that you hold a monopoly on.

2) The AI's should almost always offer you something in exchange for helping with a war. I have never, ever been offered any incentive to declare. And yet the AI's almost always (say 4 times out of 5) demand a tech in exchange for their help.

Actually, that's about all I'd ask. There are a couple of other things that are pretty clearly stacked against the human player, like the whole "human can't red out techs" issue. But I don't really care about fairness - that's what the difficulty slider is for. Having to overcome obstacles is OK, provided they're fun obstacles. The current situation just makes you feel like a punching bag with no genuinely good choices.

I don't agree with the first one. I mean, if I was starving, and the civ next to me had biology, I would ask them to help.

 

[shadow2k]

AH, but I try to change their opinion to un "red out" that option rather than hold it against them. The AI never tries to get on your good side A human multiplayer would. A human multiplayer also would realize you were unready for war or that the request was ridiculous and not hold it against you. Or you would talk it over with the human player, ie wheel and deal, negotiate, con, etc.

Why would a real world leader form a negative opinion of another leader because the leader refused a ridiculous request?

"Hey Bush, can we have some nuclear weapons and control of New York?" -Kim Jong Il

Bush would die laughing...and Kim Jong Il would just shrug

BTW, I wouldn't hold the AI not declaring war against them if it was really not in their interest. Thats just common sense. Same thing with tech requests.

I think you expect too much from a computer AI. If you want realism, then by all means, play multi-player. But with the limited capabilities of an AI, there has to be some concessions made to make the game balanced, so human players don't just take advantage of the AI at every turn (although this still happens).

The AI will try to get on your good side. It will give you techs without you asking, it will give you tribute, it will try and trade and have open borders with you. And I've seen numerous cases where they will change religions in order to try and stop me from murdering them. Pretty funny actually. But it does happen.

As far as real world goes, leaders make what other leaders consider to be ridiculous requests all the time. Sometimes, the option might as well be redded out, and they know it without even asking, which would be the example you mentioned. If you think it doesn't annoy other nations that the US or some other country won't share certain technologies, you couldn't be more wrong. They may know it's no use to ask, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make them mad.

 

[jefmart1]

I've never had them try to get on my good side. Never had them give me anything unsolicited. As a matter of fact, my closest allies voted against me in the UN in a recent game.

That did cause a negative reaction! I steamrollered them in ten turns.

If they gave stuff to make nice or even occassionally gifted me stuff when I asked, I would be less "bitter" about the diplomacy system. But it seems very one-sided.

If we assume the negative reaction on the players part, then shouldn't the AI go, "Hmm don't want to anger him, I better make the deal" or "Hmmm I want better relations, so ok"?

BTW, the religion switch was probably because you captured or killed most of the people that subscribed to the other religion, leaving yours the dominant one in their remaining cities.

Part of it may be that I play on huge maps and I am aggressive (warmonger). But I have seen lots of complaints about trying to stay neutral and how that angers everyone. I seriously doubt anyone is plotting to wipe out Switzerland right now because they are neutral.

I think everyone should agree that the Diplomacy needs tweaking. What those tweaks are, we could debate until Civ V comes out....

 

[Abdomination]

This is part of the problem which I generally call: "Diplomacy in Civ4 sucks"

Along with how they took out your foreign advisor giving you advice on what the AI would accept, before you asked them. This is inexplicable

 

[TheNiceOne]

Along with how they took out your foreign advisor giving you advice on what the AI would accept, before you asked them. This is inexplicable

I disagree, and rather think that was a good decision. That advisor was unrealistic, unfair, and made the trading a chore.

It was unrealistic, because it is unrealistic to have someone telling you exactly what your opponent may accept.

It was unfair, because it gave the human player an unfair advantage. You could always press the deal to exactly the most favourable (to you) that the AI was willing to accept - even though you would probably accept a less favourbale deal.

It made the trading a chore, because you had to narrow it down by trial and error, to find the best deal. The cIV trade is much better, where you must actually use some brain to suggest a deal you think is good for you - and your trading partner.


At the same time, they have made it easy to see what the different techs are worth, on the trading screen - which is an important improvement.


I agree that it's a pity that we don't get to negotiate and ask for something when the AI wants us to declare war though.

 

[megabrainz]

Why would a real world leader form a negative opinion of another leader because the leader refused a ridiculous request?

"Hey Bush, can we have some nuclear weapons and control of New York?" -Kim Jong Il

Bush would die laughing...and Kim Jong Il would just shrug

Although it's true that the real world is hella more complicated than Civ (big surprise!), it's not as big a difference as you are claiming here. Iran, for example, desperately wants to get nuclear power. The West wants to stop this, because they suspect Iran of wanting nuclear weaponry with it. Iran's opinion of the West is certainly very low, and vice versa. This isn't because of some specific transaction where Iran comes to the West and says "Can we have nuclear power please" and the West says "no", causing a 2 point drop in opinion - it's more subtle than that. But as others have said, it would be damn near impossible to measure this kind of subtlety with an AI - the AI has to ask for something in order to assess the human player's opinion. Iran's low opinion of the West is partly due to our opposition to their plans.

OTOH it would be neat if you could red out certain options - would save constant pop-ups, which do get a bit wearing.

I am very happy with how Civ IV has improved diplomacy. The red-out options save me constantly asking for stuff I won't get, while the visible modifiers on the AI's opinion (e.g. -3 "you declared war on us!") are very helpful in trying to improve my diplomatic standing in the world. I especially like being able to ask "what do you think of X", so I can figure out who I can attack with the least diplomatic fall-out. My main beef with it was the lack of foreign advisor, which has now been solved by the "f4" tip - nice one!

It would be better if one could negotiate the war requests though. It is true that you can just initiate a new dialogue and offer a variant deal/gift yourself, but it's a bit clunky that you can't go straight there from the original dialogue screen. Definitely a candidate for a nice, simple mod.