Catherine you ungrateful b... and some other comments on the patch...

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Menzies, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Apr 27, 2007
    So, here's what happened. I started on a continent which had 5 city states, Russia and Rome. There was a land bridge (about 10 tiles from my capital) on the other side of a city state to the rest of the world, but I didn't notice until around 800-1000AD. Anyhow, Russia did bugger all, didn't even bother to claim El Dorado (about 5 tiles away from her capital) and as such allowed Rome to become a run away monster whilst she was sitting there getting ready for complete annihilation. After some time there was me with about 5 cities, Rome with about 8-10 and Russia with 3 or 4. Rome then proceeded to bulldoze Russia and then move onto me.

    Allied with a few city states I decided to help myself to one of the city states that was trying desperately to end my existence. I was as such, labelled as a war monger for all of time. During this time Russia and I become close allies. About 20 turns later after somewhat of a stalemate the war died down. Rome however thought that it was just insulting to them for me to not give them my entire empire and all its riches for peace despite a shot not being fired in a lot time (about 10-15 turns at this point).

    Rome then decided enough was enough and helped themselves to the rest of Russia and sent a small killsquad up to "finish me off". After they lost these 10 odd units in quick succession my army of camel archers (I was arabia) then turned the tide and we quickly moved the boarders down to what was Russia taking 4 cities in the process. Here they finally accepted a "fair" treaty whereby nothing was given to either party.

    All well and good. It was at this time I noticed a city state right next to me had lost most of its health and I suddenly met Persia. They was slowly killing them. I then realised they were on a land bridge and couldn't get any units there to attack the city, hence it just sat there. Realising the strategic advantage and the fact that Persia hated me for being a warmonger and had a quite large empire I quickly seized upon the oppertunity with an idle warior left over from previous times. Probably a good time to point out that there was no iron in my empire, Rome, Russia, Persia or any of the city states! I had been taking cities just with camel archers and a couple of spearmen/pikemen. With this city in hand I fortified this board, now having complete control of the bay and the land bridge I felt confident that Persia wouldn't bother me.

    So, where does Catherine come into this. Shortly after this all happened I met India, Denmark and they along side Rome then decided to dog pile me to show me that I'm evil and wicked etc. Babylon sent a unit or two who were massacred by my defence on that land bridge. I then met France and we were united in our great evil (they truly were, having taken some 5 city states it turns out). He joined my war against Rome and kept them busy on one front while I bulldozed back through some 10 cities. One final city on Rome's east remained, a remnant of Russia. Not having any use for the City I decided to liberate Russia (having already gotten control of the rest of her Empire having taken it from Rome).

    Catherine came back to life and then proceeded to berate me about being too friendly with one of their former city state allies. She was already concerned that I was building cities too quickly. She was the closest thing I had to an ally early in the game, I liberated her, she only existed again because of me and yet she doesn't really care. This slight dislike turned to hatred rather quickly.

    I finished off Rome and now had an enormous empire, by far the largest on the planet (though not in population). Rome right to the last thought that paying me for peace wasn't a good idea. Babylon strangely enough had a similar attitude, thinking that a war where the only action had been at this one land bridge where some 10-20 units of his had died for no reason or gain was greatly in his favour. So much so that he demanded all my cities, all my gold, 160ish out of my 180ish gold per turn, all my luxuries, all my other resources apart from 2 horses (???) and pretty much anything else he could ask. I remained stunned by this as the war continued for a very long time.

    Denmark became the whipping boy of the West continent and whilst holding this great title did his masters India and Babylon's bidding. It also turns out that the Inca, whom I never met had been massacre about 2 cities in by my blood hungry friends France, who was now enjoying the most bloody war I've seen in this game with a certain pacifist.

    Suddenly, from nowhere Babylon send a rampaging kill party at me. They actually snuck it around my ships, up north and down as to take me by surprise. Whilst desperately trying to get some defences up to the threatened city he quickly got to work taking it. It was a 2 population little hole of a city in the middle of a desert with no resources or strategic valley. I called the Jimrock because I was calling all my cities Jim for some reason... I am still yet to figure out why. Anyhow, I managed to beat most of his army but the city was so weak that he managed to just take it and before I could recapture my beloved Jimrock they razed it. I then finished off their troops and fortified the area before normal service resumed and now a steady trickle of about 2 units every 3 turns scarified themselves to my land bridge defences. I founded a new city in that desert that I called New Jimrock, in honour of the brave souls that died in that great sneak attack. I can see why some 15 units and ships were worth razing that worthless rock.

    At this point Russia denounced me and France, and well... Let's just say that it expired after 3 turns.

    Time passed, my empire became a run away power along side France and Babylon lost many many troops to that land bridge. After a while I relocated some of the New Jimrock defence force to more useful assignments protecting targets of actual value. This is exactly what Babylon wanted apparently. This time they got an even bigger army in and caught me ever so slightly off guard. Whilst they never said anything, I'm fairly sure Babylon was thinking "Hahaha! I bet you'd never think we'd try exactly the same thing again?!?!". This time it was around 15-20 units, a massive army (I really have no idea how they produced this many troops!). They lost most of them and New Jimrock was safe for another day.

    After this failed invasion of New Jimrock I asked them for peace. First they said it was impossible, and the next turn they again asked me for my empire and all its riches. Whilst this was a tempting offer considering the threat that they and their upward of 1000 year war (at this point) was to my empire I decided to "go down fighting".

    The situation changed with the advent of battleships, planes, nukes and the like. This time they went for what was Rome (this being on the south side of the land bridge). I should have guessed something was up when the trickle of units into my defences stopped. This was an even bigger army, and in truth could have been a problem. Oh wait, no it couldn't, because I had around 8 battle ships stations a mere turn away and 2 nukes. A turn later their army was no more.

    After once more being asked for my entire empire I decided enough was enough, this game was moving too slowly (I was coming up to a time victory, that's how slowly) and as such I decided it was time to fight back. I nuked Babylon and their other biggest city from around 25 down to 5, then took that other city, and razed it whilst screaming (metaphorically); "FOR JIMROCK!!!" The turn after this they offered me peace for... nothing. Oh well! The next turn I won by time and was filled with an overwhelming sense of... boredom. I won with a far greater score than everyone else. To summarise the final state of affairs:

    France - Too busy trying to tasting the blood of anyone that moved to care that I was going to win by time
    Babylon - Too busy sacrificing endless armies of units on my land bridge to do anything about me winning
    India - Too busy fending off France
    Denmark - Making Babylon a coffee
    Rome - Where my biggest threat until they attacking me that time and wouldn't let me out of that war while they had an empire
    Russia - Could have been spared, but apparently I shouldn't have allied myself with a city state they once "had relations with" after they no longer exited. Apparently reviving them was unimportant as well.
    Inca - ...

    Overall whilst the diplomatic AI has gotten better I am completely baffled by peace treaties and reviving nations!

    - Why on earth did I had civilizations demanding literally my lands and all my riches for peace in even wars?
    - Why did they never offer me anything even when they were on their knees?!
    - Why did Russia hate me and never even acknowledged that I saved them?

    On the plus side:
    - The new diplomatic modifiers are good
    - The tactical AI actually can make plans

    On the down side again:
    - Whilst it can make a decent plan, some plans should definitely have been rethought
    - Jimrock with its several tiles of desert on the empty coast was not worth the units they wasted
    - Then again, neither was attacking that land bridge

    Long story short (and sorry if that's a tad long), this game has gotten better, but the AI is still a bit...

  2. Hakizo

    Hakizo Chieftain

    May 10, 2011
    1 & 2 Is because the AI sucks. I've only gotten them to give me something early on in the game (warrior+Archer rush)
    3 Liberation has no positive modifier. Always Puppet/Annex Never Liberate

    Ai is Ai, Fireaxis has a long way to go before they become competent.
  3. Jaybe

    Jaybe civus fanaticus Supporter

    Sep 24, 2001
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ever notice that any game where you reign supreme, the game is more boring? To restrain boredom, you must walk the fine line between overwhelming superiority and falling too far behind in what turns out to be a crucial area.

    In other words, if you play for high score (which I do), that may conflict with low boredom thresholds.
  4. Mods

    Mods Warlord

    Feb 13, 2011
    Nice writeup :goodjob:
  5. Keejus

    Keejus Prince

    Mar 6, 2011
    The AI will never pay for peace if you have the warmonger modifier with them. Ever. The behavior itself is sensible enough, I think. Well, I guess they could assume it'd be 10 turns of you not attacking and they should pay however much they think that's worth.

    The issue lies more in how easy it is to get the warmonger modifier in the first place. I'd like it if the diplomacy around war was a lot better at reading context, overall. The common foe one is a great step in the right direction, though.
  6. Misterboy

    Misterboy Modern Major General

    Oct 12, 2010
    You know, I had completely forgotten about this. My last game I couldn't get a favorable peace deal and couldn't figure out why. Thanks.

    And I agree, the factors leading to being a "warmonger" are a bit screwy. I wish there was more understanding of "defensive" wars, etc. Though, truth be told, war is war. :eek:
  7. Furycrab

    Furycrab King

    May 26, 2011
    Liberating a Civ will make it that the Civ will vote for you almost regardless of how much they hate you in a UN Vote. If you don't plan on a UN vote, if you have diplomatic victory turned, and if you don't see yourself ever coming close to losing because of a diplomatic victory... Don't liberate. Especially if the newly liberated Civ is going to be sandwiched in your territory.
  8. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    May 7, 2007
    Yeah, I noticed the "We will never pay for peace" problem post-patch too. Originally the issue was they gave too much, now they give nothing, LOL. So I murder them. See, I can understand that Firaxis wouldn't want to make the game easy by having the AI hand over their empires while they are (in imminent danger). BUT if it just happened with some AI, and not with others, and if the whole empire wasn't given, just some cities, gold, resources....I think the diplomacy would make more sense.

    One way to happily handle some of these problems is to have a U.N. resolution or such that could stop wars that immediately resumed after a peace treaty broke. I remember Civ IV had that option, and it took some wheeling to get them working, so the manipulation required added some interesting dimensions to the diplo game.
  9. MadDjinn

    MadDjinn Deity

    Jan 28, 2011
    and the worst part is that they won't even spend their money on defense while they're getting killed; which would be a better plan as then they'd really have nothing to give you and a straight peace deal would be appropriate. (or cities/etc, but you know...)
  10. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Mar 31, 2008
    Maybe if the AI would hand over resources/luxuries/gold/everything not cities after the first war, things would be much better. Or better yet, if the AI doesn't hand over cities unless the city is about to fall anyway.
  11. Revoran

    Revoran Prince

    Sep 18, 2010
    This one has been answered time and time again. After you have proven yourself a warmonger there is literally no reason for an AI to give you anything for free when you will just attack them again when the peace treaty is up. They know you will just attack them after 10 turns based on your past warmonger actions, so they want to make you fight tooth and nail to get anything from them.

    Sure it's unrealistic (in a historical simulation sense) - but it's very logical and consistent with the "AI plays like a human player - to win" design philosophy.

    Whether or not that design philosophy is actually good, though, is another matter.

    Also the liberals are a terrible party interested mainly in lining the pockets of the rich (and in turn having their own pockets filled) and the carbon tax will ultimately be a good thing for both Australian business and the environment. Not that labour is particularly great either.

    What, did you expect people to not comment when you chose that name and avatar? :p
  12. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Mar 31, 2008
    Certainly isn't good. It is to the AI's best interests to survive.
  13. Furycrab

    Furycrab King

    May 26, 2011
    It does if it feels like you will just attack it again in 10 turns and whatever you give him will just help him and give him 10 turns to heal up/get new forces.

    In extreme cases it might be 10 more turns of living, but at that point any human player would give up and just hope that by dying 7-8 turns quicker you make everyone else hate that one guy a little bit more.
  14. bcaiko

    bcaiko Emperor

    May 9, 2011
    Washington, DC
    There's a large falacy here: if the AI is wiped out, it CANNOT WIN. Therefore, on the verge of being wiped out, it should be looking to stall you, recoup its losses as best it can and live to fight another day. Yet, the AI stubbornly refuses to do ANYTHING (even by defensive units, at least!) with its resources in the face of annihilation.

    All because you attacked a City State 1000 years ago. Both unrealistic and very much NOT playing to "win."
  15. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Mar 31, 2008
    I guess. Though, the AI really shouldn't be playing like a player. The AI needs to learn to find allies and sign defensive pacts instead of just trying to spite the player.
  16. Kerosene31

    Kerosene31 Prince

    Nov 12, 2001
    I've only played a few gamer since the patch, but it isn't even a warmonger problem. I never attack anyone, yet nobody will offer peace to me on even terms. Catherine came after me with a decent sized army which I fought off. I started into her territory and she was basically defenseless. I don't want to be a warmonger, so I ask for peace on even terms, and she refuses.

    Peace in general just seems a lot harder now. I could usually go the first few thousand years without getting attacked, but now I am at war almost immediately.
  17. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Feb 15, 2005
    Vancouver, Canada
    The problem is that the AI is "playing to win".

    Picture the game as a marathon bicycle race.

    As you are cycling along, one of your competitors gets into an accident with another bicyclist and falls. Being a good Samaritan, you stop and offer them a hand only to have them slap it away and curse in your face. They then proceed to punch you as hard as they can in the kneecap, shove you aside and resume the race.

    Playing with a bunch of psychotic a-holes. Doesn't sound like fun to me at all. :sad:
  18. dayfax

    dayfax Chieftain

    Oct 20, 2002
    This is my favorite part.

    Great write up and that sounds like a really fun game.
  19. Baleur

    Baleur Prince

    Jul 9, 2010
    Qingdao, China
    The entire problem about the AI and diplomacy in Civ5 is that the game designers thought it was a good idea for "challenge" to make the AI into an insane megalomaniac nutjob. Yeah, thats "fun".... Sigh.

    They will never act reasonable because that would be too "easy" for the player. (even though we have 10 difficulty levels....)
    They will never behave according to how a self-protecting nation would behave, that would be too "easy" for the player.

    They just rush rush rush to whatever win conditions the GAME has set. No heed for reasonable diplomacy or behavior, no immersive nation to nation negotiations, because there is none. It just turned into a game of chess where even the game itself keeps reminding you that it is in fact just a game based on getting a friggin high score..

    God i miss the diplomacy of Civ4. God i love the diplomacy in Europa Universalis 3, Galactic Civilizations and even Sword of The Stars (using drugs to get the enemy addicted on your trade? why not!). Heck even the mixed-opinions Armada 2526 has better diplomacy, seeing as how the AI actually behaves in a logical self-preserving manner, conceding defeat to live to fight another day.

    All that every single session of Civ5 boils down to is a rush to the win condition, just like in a board game. There is no more enjoyment of the journey, there is no more forging a great civilization and managing relations with the other nations.
    It's just a rush to victory in a world filled with AI maniacs that run towards the edge of the cliff like lemmings.

    Thormodr summed it up well. I still after all these months can not understand why the Civ5 devs thought it was a good idea. I really dont.
    Civilization has never, ever, in the history of ever, been about rushing to victory. It has always been about building a civilization and enjoying the JOURNEY, not wanting the game to end.

    But recently i watched a Civ Revolutions lets play on youtube. It disgusted me how much of it was similar to Civ5, leading me to the conclusion that it was Civ Revolutions that in fact "ruined" Civ5's game design theory. They took the lessons learnt from an xbox live arcade game (nothing bad about those games, but civ has no place in it and it has no place in civ), and applied it to the full Civilization experience. With ridiculous consequences.
    It is the Dungeon Siege 3 syndrome.
  20. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Dec 27, 2008
    Moderator Action: Yes, please keep off-topic comments to the off-topic forum.

Share This Page