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

[Brighteye]

I agree that nations who won't trade anything are likely to be my next targets, but it'd be nice if I had some mechanism for extortion without having to beat them up and then make peace. I often have a big army, and I can't see how to demand or ask for a tech or two if it's in red.
The AI can demand one of my techs if it thinks it has a big army and can overpower me, but I can't. That is what annoys me. The option to have the AI appease me by giving the techs immediately is not there, so I have to destroy most of his civ in order to have a chance of extorting the techs, and the war might well be more costly than just researching the technologies in the first place.
The point is that I want to be able to demand things but not always have to carry out the (implicit) threat, just as the AI does.
I also find that the AI never does anything nice for me. I'm always the one giving it gifts if I want to be friends. If I'm the most powerful I have to try to make friends, if I'm the most cultured, if I'm the most advanced, or if I'm none of these, the AI always expects me to be investing in its friendship. It rankles a bit.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

I agree that nations who won't trade anything are likely to be my next targets, but it'd be nice if I had some mechanism for extortion without having to beat them up and then make peace. I often have a big army, and I can't see how to demand or ask for a tech or two if it's in red.
The AI can demand one of my techs if it thinks it has a big army and can overpower me, but I can't. That is what annoys me. The option to have the AI appease me by giving the techs immediately is not there, so I have to destroy most of his civ in order to have a chance of extorting the techs, and the war might well be more costly than just researching the technologies in the first place.
The point is that I want to be able to demand things but not always have to carry out the (implicit) threat, just as the AI does.
I also find that the AI never does anything nice for me. I'm always the one giving it gifts if I want to be friends. If I'm the most powerful I have to try to make friends, if I'm the most cultured, if I'm the most advanced, or if I'm none of these, the AI always expects me to be investing in its friendship. It rankles a bit.

When you open the diplomacy screen up and what you want is red-out, you assume you asked and they said no. It steals away from the feeling of asking and seeing them say no, but it does save time. All the while you're remembering who refused to give you tribute etc.

 

[megabrainz]

What AlphaBeta said is correct. Would you rather that you had to demand the AI gave you stuff, only to find out that yes, s/he wasn't prepared to hand them over? The red-out is just a time-saver.

True about the AI never giving gifts though. On my last game Catherine repeatedly asked me for free technology (in fact, she asked for the same tech multiple times!), and when I answered in the negative she always said "well, see if we help you out when you're in need!". Yeah. Right. Like you were ever going to give me a free tech.

If you think about it though, even this pattern makes sense. If the AI gives you a gift it has no guarantee that you'll be grateful. If you give a gift, you can see the effect your gift-giving has had on their attitude. Likewise, if they ask for one and you refuse, you see them get more annoyed. This makes for good game-play, because it's often worth giving away crap tech or surplus goods to improve your diplomatic standing, reducing the need to go to war (or the risk of war being declared on you), and adding to your list of potential allies. It also specifically improves your chances of victory using the UN. You get to weigh up the advantages of being ahead on tech against the diplomatic benefits, which makes for fun decisions. So all in all I'm pretty happy with the result.

 

[The Camel]

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.

You have some very valid points, and what you said is 100% correct. But here is my problem, if i ask for a non-redded out tech, or war agreement and the AI denies me, i won't get mad. if i have to trade for it, i wont get mad. if they ask for it then they WILL get mad if i decline. it would be nice to have an option for nagotiating it. The human player is willing to 'nagotiate' for something, often trying many different trade items untill they get what they want, and not get mad every time the AI says no. but the AI wants it right now, no questions asked, and if we say no then they get all pissy and make it even harder for the human to make a fair trade in the future.

So that i don't seem like i am just trying to argue with you, I do agree that they have no other way of seeing what the human has "redded-out". But having a 'care to nagotiate?' option would still give that same effect. If the human won't even trade for the request then that would be fine and dandy that they get upset about it because I have made a personal choice not to do business with them.

Also another point i want to make about 'redded out' stuff, if I am going to declare war on someone, then they usually are not my friend in the first place, so naturally their view of me would be low. So I don't even have an option to say 'give me this or i will declare war on you!' because i can't ask for it. this is rediculous,i should be able to 'demand' anything i want to, that is the point of a demand, to give something that you wouldn't give otherwise. So they made it that the only way to get what you want from someone you don't like is to attack them and get them to give you the item of interest in exchange for peace.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

Also another point i want to make about 'redded out' stuff, if I am going to declare war on someone, then they usually are not my friend in the first place, so naturally their view of me would be low. So I don't even have an option to say 'give me this or i will declare war on you!' because i can't ask for it. this is rediculous,i should be able to 'demand' anything i want to, that is the point of a demand, to give something that you wouldn't give otherwise. So they made it that the only way to get what you want from someone you don't like is to attack them and get them to give you the item of interest in exchange for peace.

All the red-out means is that you asked and they said no. The red-out simply removes the satisfaction of asking, which is what bothers most of us with this issue I think.

 

[Roland Johansen]

You have some very valid points, and what you said is 100% correct. But here is my problem, if i ask for a non-redded out tech, or war agreement and the AI denies me, i won't get mad. if i have to trade for it, i wont get mad. if they ask for it then they WILL get mad if i decline. it would be nice to have an option for nagotiating it. The human player is willing to 'nagotiate' for something, often trying many different trade items untill they get what they want, and not get mad every time the AI says no. but the AI wants it right now, no questions asked, and if we say no then they get all pissy and make it even harder for the human to make a fair trade in the future.

So that i don't seem like i am just trying to argue with you, I do agree that they have no other way of seeing what the human has "redded-out". But having a 'care to negotiate?' option would still give that same effect. If the human won't even trade for the request then that would be fine and dandy that they get upset about it because I have made a personal choice not to do business with them.

Of course diplomacy can always be improved. It would be nice if some negotiation were possible.
Remember that diplomacy is naturally a difficult notion to program into a game because the values 'fair' and 'honest' are typical human values and thus difficult to program into numbers. Still some improvement might be possible. Maybe the negative diplomacy modifiers should depend on the value of goods that the AI offers in return for the values of goods that you offer. If their offer is about equal to yours and you refuse than the negative modifier should be big. On the other hand when their offer is nothing while yours is an expensive technology, then the diplomatic modifier should be small if you refuse.
Note that negotiation would not be always possible because the AI doesn't always have something to offer in return.

My previous post was simply there to explain the reasons for the assymetric nature of diplomacy in Civ4. Some people don't understand this. They don't understand or are not willing to see the advantage of the human player in diplomacy.

 

[Alcatraz]

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.

I'd be ok with this exception if what the computer says it thinks about you rationaly matched its actions. I've been attacked out of the blue by a "pleased" or "friendly" AI far too many times to give this argument any real credence.

The list of probelms with the diplomacy system is far too long for just one post. My favorite is the elephantine memory. Deny someone a tech in the bronze age and 2000 years later they're still pissed about it. Some of the closest allies today were once bitter enemies, and that's not well reflected in the game.

 

[neriana]

My last game, Washington was already annoyed with me when we met because I'd traded with Genghis Khan in the past. I was at war with Genghis Khan at the time -- he'd attacked me when he was "pleased" with me. Though I never traded with Khan again, Washington never, ever forgot that I had traded with him in 1600 B.C. I hate "you have traded with our worst enemies" with a passion. The only time there should be a negative number there is if they've already asked you to stop, and it should fade a lot more quickly than it does.

The AI should also offer money, techs, etc. for you to declare war on someone. Didn't it do this in Civ 2?

 

[polypheus]

While I understand and agree somewhat with the complaint people have Civ4 diplomacy, it is still orders of magnitude better than any previous Civ model (and as good as I've seen in most games though I'm sure there are better ones). It is far more coherent than in the past and much more sensible for the most part. The major weakness I would say is in the lack of multilateral diplomacy (although I think you can sort-of mimic it with a string of bilateral pacts).

Anyway, I think one thing people here on this thread have failed to realize is that what matters is the net diplomatic score not the negative hits you take here or there because you refused a "ridiculous" request. Yes you do take hits but generally, I find you are more or less near net zero which is what it should be if you are playing a neutral diplomacy. In many games, I often refuse ridiculous requests but usually I am near zero or even somewhat above it which is what "neutrality" means!

Now as far as trying to please everyone goes which is what I think some people are hoping to be able to do, it isn't possible, in Civ IV or even IRL diplomacy. Whatever you do is going to please some and anger others. At least the designers are making it coherent and transparent and honestly I think the programming makes sense. I mean, sure, some options are "redded out" but I'd definitely understand in many cases cause a human player would do the same.

So you have to decide who you'll mostly support and who you'll mostly deny. Try to please everyone and you'll be at best near zero everywhere. Try to please some you will anger others but you have to make a choice and this is the way the game designed it to be unlike in Civ3 where you could be friendly with everyone.

A third point to realize about "pleased" relations declaring war, stopping trade with you, etc. is to understand what I believe to be going on. The vast majority of the time, it is happening because an AI that you are at war with has an even better relation with your backstabber than with you and was asked to do so. Therefore it is always important, I have found to study the diplomatic relations carefully on between AI civs to realize that if you're pleased with someone but you're at war with someone they're friendly with, well, they'll back them over you even though it might appear to be backstabbing to you.

 

[Freedom]

I can understand a civ redding out cities. But techs, maps, and all that? Surely if I were to offer them half my empire and a million gold/turn any leader would accept even if I am "their worst enemy". I think a much better way of handling it would be for the AI to value it much higher than it would normally if you were on better terms. That would actually give dimplomacy more importance. If you have good relations with a civ you get better deals. It makes sense, at least more than the current system in my opinion.

 

[Alcatraz]

Anyway, I think one thing people here on this thread have failed to realize is that what matters is the net diplomatic score not the negative hits you take here or there because you refused a "ridiculous" request. Yes you do take hits but generally, I find you are more or less near net zero which is what it should be if you are playing a neutral diplomacy. In many games, I often refuse ridiculous requests but usually I am near zero or even somewhat above it which is what "neutrality" means!

Now as far as trying to please everyone goes which is what I think some people are hoping to be able to do, it isn't possible, in Civ IV or even IRL diplomacy. Whatever you do is going to please some and anger others. At least the designers are making it coherent and transparent and honestly I think the programming makes sense. I mean, sure, some options are "redded out" but I'd definitely understand in many cases cause a human player would do the same.


A third point to realize about "pleased" relations declaring war, stopping trade with you, etc. is to understand what I believe to be going on. The vast majority of the time, it is happening because an AI that you are at war with has an even better relation with your backstabber than with you and was asked to do so. Therefore it is always important, I have found to study the diplomatic relations carefully on between AI civs to realize that if you're pleased with someone but you're at war with someone they're friendly with, well, they'll back them over you even though it might appear to be backstabbing to you.

Ok, riddle me this one then...

In one game I was at peace with everyone, and in fact had never been at war. I was at +12 with Mansa Musa and in fact had NO negative modifiers with him at all. Furthermore he was halfway across the world (on a huge panagea map). Suddenly out of the blue 12 of his axemen show up at my borders and declare war.

There is no logic to it. The best that can be said is that he was being opportunistic, sensing weakness in an opponent and exploiting it. Of course he was unable to take advantage over any gains he made since he couldn't possibly hope to hold any cities so far from home and he put his entire military at risk to attack from the 4 civs he had to march past to get to me.

My best guess is that he decided to go to war with me 40-50 turns earlier (the length of time that it would have taken him to march across the map) and at that point our relationship was nascent, with only a few if any positive modifiers. Having made that decision he then ignored any new diplomatic developments and continued to blindly march across the world to his eventual doom.

On that note, has anyone else noticed a propensity for the AI to attack from the far end of the map? I suspect that whatever calculations the AI uses to determine distance when deciding to go to war are done as the crow flies, so that if you're on one end of a panagea, the AI on the far end thinks that it's close to you - despite the fact that you're seperated by non navigable ocean tiles.

 

[TheNiceOne]

I'd be ok with this exception if what the computer says it thinks about you rationaly matched its actions. I've been attacked out of the blue by a "pleased" or "friendly" AI far too many times to give this argument any real credence.

I did exactly the same in my current game. I only shared borders with the Chinese. They had adopted my religion, and was generally nice with me, so I was certainly pleased with them, but I just wanted their land anyway, because that was the logical direction for me to expand. I think it makes good sense that the AI behaves this way as well. They rather attack an enemy than a friend, but if the friend is the best target, then that's too bad...

The list of probelms with the diplomacy system is far too long for just one post. My favorite is the elephantine memory. Deny someone a tech in the bronze age and 2000 years later they're still pissed about it. Some of the closest allies today were once bitter enemies, and that's not well reflected in the game.

In real life, the leaders die after 40+ years, unlike cIV where the same leader remains during the entire game.

I remember which AI civ that pissed me off 2000 years ago, and it would be inherently unfair if my sins was forgotten by the AI while I could - and do - keep my grudges.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Ok, riddle me this one then...

In one game I was at peace with everyone, and in fact had never been at war. I was at +12 with Mansa Musa and in fact had NO negative modifiers with him at all. Furthermore he was halfway across the world (on a huge panagea map). Suddenly out of the blue 12 of his axemen show up at my borders and declare war.

(the rest is snipped)

Now this is an example of a malfunctioning AI. The cIV AI may well be better than older to plan ahead, but they still need to consider distance, and also to change their plans, and not make stupid attacks against friends.

 

[megabrainz]

I don't see a problem with a "pleased" or even "friendly" AI to attack, if it makes strategic sense for them to do so. Think about it - you'd at least consider invading a strong ally if they had a resource that you badly needed and other routes seemed too difficult to contemplate. So the only question in such cases is, has the AI actually made a good strategic calculation - it isn't a question of the AI's skill at diplomacy, but rather its skill at warfare.

 

[Alcatraz]

The problem isn't a pleased or friendly AI attacking to get a resource, or because they need to expand and I'm in the way.

The problem is the early game rushes for no apparent reason across half the map for cities that don't have any critical resources, or the mid/late game attacks from civs that have to march through 2 others to get to me, even though we're supposedly friendly.

And yes, some AI's are more apt to do these sorts of things than others and we all know who they are. Incidentaly, playing with barbarians on will more or less prevent this because the barbs won't give the army free passage across the entire map and the AI will be forced to keep more of its units at home for a longer period to defend against the barb hordes. Since learning to deal with the barbarian rush, I've seen a marked decrease in early game stupidity.

The elephantine memory is still illogical, often in funny ways. Went to war with Mansa and talked Victoria into joining in the fray. 500 years later she's still mad at me for attacking her friend (Mansa) but happy with me because we shared a joint military venture. Went to war in another game with Saladin and got Mansa to join in the fight. We crushed him leaving him with one city left on a distant island. Shortly after we all made peace, Saladin converted his one city to Mansa's religion and I suddenly became a pariah in Mansa's eyes for having attacked his bretheren.

Went to war with Frederick. Made peace around 700 AD, leaving him 3 cities once again on an island half way around the world. 1000 years later, I still have 2 unhappy faces in the largest of the cities I took from citizens that yearn to rejoin the motherland. This would be akin to modern day Londoners wanting to be Roman citizens once again.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Went to war with Frederick. Made peace around 700 AD, leaving him 3 cities once again on an island half way around the world. 1000 years later, I still have 2 unhappy faces in the largest of the cities I took from citizens that yearn to rejoin the motherland. This would be akin to modern day Londoners wanting to be Roman citizens once again.

This depends a lot on the amount of culture that you build in these cities. You can see the percentage of citizens that still consider themselves German in these cities. If the percentage is close to 0, then you will not have any complaints anymore.

It's really difficult to compare a simple game with the real world. Another real world example would be the Jews in Israel who still consider themselves to be descendants from an empire (also called Israel) that existed 2000 years ago, but didn't exist from something like the last 2000 years. In civ terms this would be very unlikely as the last 2000 years are a lot of turns, a lot more than the period of 1000 years that you described.
Disclaimer: It's a bit of a controversial example and I hope that nobody is insulted by this example. It's just an example of a people longing for their own nation.

 

[shadow2k]

I still don't get it. The red out option is nothing but a time saver. Under no circumstances, including your threat of war, is the AI going to trade you that tech. So what difference would it make if it was an option to ask for, if you were only going to get told no, despite anything else you did? That's a complete waste of time.

Yet despite the complaints, some of you still wish you had this option...to save time. Makes no sense.

Maybe the negative diplomacy modifiers should depend on the value of goods that the AI offers in return for the values of goods that you offer. If their offer is about equal to yours and you refuse than the negative modifier should be big. On the other hand when their offer is nothing while yours is an expensive technology, then the diplomatic modifier should be small if you refuse.
Note that negotiation would not be always possible because the AI doesn't always have something to offer in return.

The above wasn't directed at you, I just didn't want to make a separate post to reply to this part.

This is very, very different from what we have now. You propose the smallest hits to relations for things like denying tribute demands, and the biggest for denying fairly equal trade proposals. Right now, the only hit comes when you deny tribute, and that's only a -1.

In a tribute demand, you're going to piss the other leader off because you don't respect/fear/like/whatever them enough to give in to the demand. In reasonable trade negotiations, people don't get upset, they (in theory) just continue negotiating.

I don't see the logic in giving you negative relation mods for not accepting a proposed trade (not tribute, trade). Especially when you are talking about AI reasoning here. For instance you will value things differently than what they will.

Take a very simplistic example. The AI is Rome, and the thing they want from you is Iron. The AI will value it based on a lot of things, but normally, will want to give you one, maybe two resources for something like this in the early game. And many times, they'll offer you resources you actually have, but just don't have hooked up. The AI will see it as "fair", but you and I both know it's not.

Right now, there's no hit for that, unless the AI demands you give him Iron for free and you say no.

 

[Alcatraz]

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.

I have never once been given tribute by another Civ except for during peace negotiations. During negotiations I've only once managed to get a leader to give up a tech, and only once a city, no matter how badly they were being destroyed by the war. When an AI has switched religions as part of a trade negotiation, they have inevitably switched back at the earliest available moment.

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.

I think you helped me put my finger on why the system bothers me. It isn't so much that my refusal to help annoys them, it's the wording. "You refused to give me tribute" instead of "You monopolized the worlds supply of iron"

 

[Nilrim]

While I understand and agree somewhat with the complaint people have Civ4 diplomacy, it is still orders of magnitude better than any previous Civ model (and as good as I've seen in most games though I'm sure there are better ones). It is far more coherent than in the past and much more sensible for the most part. The major weakness I would say is in the lack of multilateral diplomacy (although I think you can sort-of mimic it with a string of bilateral pacts).

Ok well the main problem I have with it is it really has no ''memory.' As an example, last night I was playing a game, it was about mid game, I had a friendly relationship with the Americans, we had been trading and I even helped him in a war against Monty. Out of the clear blue Roosevelt declares war on me, now why he did it can be for another discussion and is a minor flaw in diplomacy, we fought a short meaningless war and declared peace. Just a few turns later he comes to me hat in hand acting like we were good ole buds and wants me to give him a tec, a few turns later he wants me to go to war with him against Monty again, there is just NO logic to this, and you can give me all the arguments you want it is just plain bad.
When I play a aggressive game and screw over the AI on a regular basis the AI just does not seem to take my past actions with other AI's into account, NO memory.
Then there is the UN, geeee where do I start with how bad the UN is, first and foremost there is no way to tell the UN to stuff it! I should have the option to ignore UN resolutions PERIOD. Secondly as Sectary General I should have a right to call for a vote on ANY form of government or economics and religion should NEVER be allowed to be voted on, that should have NO part in the UN.