CIV 5 interactions with other CIVs (AI), what's the point ?

[Dariush]

I apologize for any typos as English is not my native language.

I just want to express my frustration on the useless interactions with the AI and other CIVs in Civ5. These interactions are only meant for exchange of resources, open borders and protection pacts. This is just a meager and extremely unsatisfying. I had expected much more sophisticated interactions with other nations. In my view, the majority of interactions between nations today (industrial/modern era) are related to economy and therefore many of my suggestions are related to economy. There must be a more elegant and complex way of earning money in an "evolved" game of Civ than building trade posts and collecting furs! Here a few suggestions on AI improvements and on points that would make Civilization a deeper and a much more intellectually challenging game:

1. Monetary union. By monetary collaborations with other CIVs, economics, currency, trade routes, embargos and blockades of roads and harbors would have a new meaning and value.

2. Global effects of banking systems and corporations. I loved corps in BTS, it was fun and rewarding. CIV 5 could have gone one step further with incorporations of more corps and globalization and hostility towards these systems by some civs.

3. Introduction of International monetary fund (IMF). With this you could have a more sophisticated economy system and enable loans to civs in trouble enabling them to defend themselves better etc.

4. Enable delivery or export of food to your own cities and to other nations (CIV4 colonization). It’s not feasible for a starving or stagnant city to be wanting silk or wine !

4. Tax on open borders. Yes you may pass but it will cost you...

5. Enable "What deals do we have we each other" and cancellation of specific deals.

6. Leader emotions (as in CIV 4 but more elaborated). It's important to know the AIs emotions and feelings to your actions. You could have a plethora of old and new dynamic emotions and stances: e.g. friendly, hesitant, scarred, doubtful, neutral, hostile, vengeful, envious, and malicious. Yes, I'm aware that the AI gives you hints now and then that you are too close for comfort and that you are an underachiever but that's not enough.

7. Pact of secrecy is a good idea but could be made useful by actual sharing of secret information with other civs. For instance a nation could warn you about another dominant nation’s intentions and plans etc. I could be used a national espionage e.g. Darius to you: We believe that Napoleon is preparing an invasion towards your borders. Or, are intelligence agency has confirmed that Catharina is completing the space shuttle part X.

I can think of much more stuff that would make the game more livid, fun and rewarding. What do you guys think?

 

[kaltorak]

I agree. I don't like civ5 diplomacy at all. But that doesn't mean I want civ4. For my taste, diplomacy is something very cool. I'd love much more options than in civ4. They made a new title and instead of boosting diplomacy they nerfed it badly ¬¬

Your examples are nice, but almost all money/trade centered. I'd also like to have aliances, maybe of more than 2, to be able to plan attack targets togeather, voting (maybe like civ4 UN, but more like smac), and such things.

I don't want a game about rewriting history to send me AIs in turns telling me "I kill u" and become a deathmatch

 

[Dariush]

Yes, military alliances and unions has much need of improvements .Your suggestions of military unison between several nations is one good example. Imagine a cold war scenario with two big opposing military blocks with different troops etc.
The AI must be made more lifelike and CiV is a major step in the opposite direction…

 

[jjkrause84]

Yeah, the reintroduction of international trade routes is essential (and basic, frankly...).

 

[Lord Parkin]

I agree. I don't like civ5 diplomacy at all. But that doesn't mean I want civ4. For my taste, diplomacy is something very cool. I'd love much more options than in civ4. They made a new title and instead of boosting diplomacy they nerfed it badly ¬¬

Your examples are nice, but almost all money/trade centered. I'd also like to have aliances, maybe of more than 2, to be able to plan attack targets togeather, voting (maybe like civ4 UN, but more like smac), and such things.

I don't want a game about rewriting history to send me AIs in turns telling me "I kill u" and become a deathmatch

Yes, military alliances and unions has much need of improvements .Your suggestions of military unison between several nations is one good example. Imagine a cold war scenario with two big opposing military blocks with different troops etc.
The AI must be made more lifelike and CiV is a major step in the opposite direction…

Absolutely agree with these posts. The AI at present is completely selfish and incapable of concieving of friendship and alliances. We need an AI that's fun to play with, not one that's constantly out for itself.

 

[logintime]

There currently is no reason for interacting with the AI for a reason other than war. That was made perfectly clear when Diplomatic Victory became dependent on CityState votes rather than AI players. All the AI are there for right now is to be untrustworthy competition.

But yes, the OP does make some good suggestions for changes. A more clear system of determining how and why the AI feels how it feels about the player would certainly be nice.

 

[Venger]

I despise diplomacy currently - it seems pointless. I also don't like the interactions with city-states - I would much rather have something more nuanced and much richer than HERES A BIG FAT PILE OF GOLD or HERE YOU ******S IS A NATURAL WONDER - it's one of the bigger let downs from Civ5 from me. Plus, I was so accustomed to the wealth of diplomatic information available in Civ4 - why they like you, why they like them, all trade info, all seemed so much more at hand. I like city-states in concept - a lot in fact - just not thrilled with the execution.

 

[sgrig]

I think that in the current state research agreements are extremely unrealistic. The dynamics are extremely simple, and it just seems as if the devs "couldn't be bothered" to make something a bit more interesting. Currently both civs gets some random tech after x turns, or whenever they declare war or one of them is killed, whichever is sooner. I think research pacts should focus on the same tech for both civs, and so that basically the combined science output of the two civs is used to research the tech. This way it would make far more sense.

Currently if I'm in modern age and another civ is still in Renaissance, how could they ever help me develop something new?

 

[Lord Parkin]

I think that in the current state research agreements are extremely unrealistic. The dynamics are extremely simple, and it just seems as if the devs "couldn't be bothered" to make something a bit more interesting. Currently both civs gets some random tech after x turns, or whenever they declare war or one of them is killed, whichever is sooner. I think research pacts should focus on the same tech for both civs, and so that basically the combined science output of the two civs is used to research the tech. This way it would make far more sense.

Currently if I'm in modern age and another civ is still in Renaissance, how could they ever help me develop something new?

Now that's a good idea. Perhaps it could be implemented in the following way:

- The "Research Agreement" is a category that opens up (like the "Luxury Resources" category)
- The options that are available are ONLY the techs that your civs can BOTH research at that time. For example, you and Catherine can both research Iron Working and Compass, so the options "Iron Working" and "Compass" appear under "Research Agreement". (This should limit the available choices to something like 2-3 in most cases, and civs that have a large dichotomy in their tech levels will be unable to sign these agreements - or at least only sign them one way.)
- The research agreement length will probably need to be scaled down (e.g. you don't want to wait 30 turns for a tech that you would have researched in 15-20 turns anyway). Perhaps 10 turns would work, or a factor that scales with the average time it would take both your civs to research that technology yourselves.

This would certainly make more sense and give more of a feeling of cooperation with other players, rather than just a sense of complete randomness.

An alternative option might be to make the "research agreement" simply align with your current research, except it adds both of your civs' research rates. For example, if my civ gets 60 beakers per turn and Catherine's civ gets 40 beakers per turn, then for a 600 beaker tech it would take us 10 and 15 turns respectively to research it separately. However, if we signed a "research agreement" then our research would be combined towards that tech (100 beakers/turn), so we'd both get the tech in 6 turns.

Of course, in order for this option to work properly, we'd first need some other game balance fixes (increasing tech costs, and allowing beaker overflow).

Anyway, just a couple of ideas I'm throwing out there.

EDIT: I have started a separate thread about this.

 

[darklegion]

this is what i imagined civ would become. Now we must look elsewhere for this type of game as i believe things like this will not be added to a civ game anymore.

 

[TheDisco]

this is what i imagined civ would become. Now we must look elsewhere for this type of game as i believe things like this will not be added to a civ game anymore.

The answer I think will be mods. I've always thought the trading system didn't make sense (in Civ4 either) as it was always like "Me have spice, you have sugar. Wanna trade?" when there should be other options unlocked for instance when Free Market is researched. In this way you should be able to put resources into global market pool and buy resources at highest bidder prices unless there are embargos on you or something. This is not new in Civ5 though as Civ4 was woeful at it as well.

One new thing in Civ5 though that I do not prefer is the new "AI will go crazy and blitzkrieg if losing" no matter how good of allies you are. I like a better emersion where you can actually build trustworthy allies that dont DoW just because you build a part of a spaceship...

 

[Melchizedek]

Good post! I mostly agree. It seems that a lot of energy was put into the aesthetics of the diplomatic interactions, and maybe not as much as we'd like was put into giving us creative and dynamic diplomatic options.

One small correction (I think): it is already possible to trade gold for open borders, which is one nice improvement from Civ IV.

Also, while I'd like to see more options in diplomacy, I don't want to go back to the ultra-defined diplomatic relations of Civ IV. It is neither realistic nor interesting for diplomatic relations to be completely transparent. I kind of like figuring out how a civilization feels about me from "hints" rather than by checking the +/- relations scores. Just my 2 cents.

Definitely want all of the other changes you've suggested here...diplomacy almost feels crippled right now. No international trade routes, especially, is almost enough to make your eyes roll.

 

[Melchizedek]

Basically, the Civ IV AI was way too oblivious and easily manipulated. It loves you or hates you regardless of self-interest. The Civ V AI is smarter in some ways--notices city placement, resource conflicts, and military distribution--but a little too selfish and unresponsive. It loves no one and hates you based only on self-interest.

Real people are nuanced, and different. So to make the diplomatic interactions feel more real, it would be nice if the different leaders had different motives and personalities. Right now, they all seem to come by their diplomatic stances in pretty much the same way (even if the specific war probabilities, etc., are different, it's the same idea). I'd like to see something kind of in between the two systems.

 

[matter2003]

I am not understanding what the purpose of the AI Leaders continually hurling insults at me...they talk all this trash but do nothing against me...

 

[Batolemaeus]

I am not understanding what the purpose of the AI Leaders continually hurling insults at me...they talk all this trash but do nothing against me...

I got something worse in my last game.

Egypt was seriously threatening me and during the inevitable war i pressured them until they gave me 15 of their cities.

Looking at 100 angry faces i thought i'd do something to get the other civs off my back: Donate a few cities. I had revived two exterminated civs by liberating their former capitals, so i gave them and some other small civs that couldn't threaten me a handful of cities.

And they hated me for it. I gave them cities without demanding anything from them. A few rounds later they were all marked as hostile in my diplomatic overview and started smacktalking. The guy with a few spearmen who had his empire restored from the dead was smacktalking me and my mechanised infantry.

Seriously, what the hell. I had hoped for them to be moderately thankful so i could disband some of my military to proceed with my cultural victory. (ultimately pointless. if you get to the point of being able to win a cultural victory, you could've won domination several times over)

 

[charon2112]

Civ V leaders will actually notice if your massing troops on their border, or settling cities close to their territory. Civ IV leaders didn't care if I put a thousand troops next to their capital...the diplomacy amounted to +1 - we like your religion! and +1 - You have chosen your civics wisely!...

 

[Lord Parkin]

Civ V leaders will actually notice if your massing troops on their border, or settling cities close to their territory. Civ IV leaders didn't care if I put a thousand troops next to their capital...the diplomacy amounted to +1 - we like your religion! and +1 - You have chosen your civics wisely!...

Civ V leaders also settle cities close to your territory then complain to you about how you're too close to them. Civ V leaders also notice if you have troops near any of its scouting units, line of sight being good enough to consider as its borders from its perspective. Civ V leaders also complain when you have military near its borders when you're both fighting a common enemy, despite the obvious logical fallacy. Civ V leaders are also all carbon copies of one another when it comes to aggression, with their constant backstabbing and universal inability to understand the concept of friendship.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure these issues will be fixed in time. But please don't pretend as if the present Civ V AI actually makes rational decisions at present. Right now diplomacy with them is broken in many, many ways.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

I despise diplomacy currently - it seems pointless. I also don't like the interactions with city-states - I would much rather have something more nuanced and much richer than HERES A BIG FAT PILE OF GOLD or HERE YOU ******S IS A NATURAL WONDER - it's one of the bigger let downs from Civ5 from me. Plus, I was so accustomed to the wealth of diplomatic information available in Civ4 - why they like you, why they like them, all trade info, all seemed so much more at hand. I like city-states in concept - a lot in fact - just not thrilled with the execution.

Great Idea! They're not making enough of Natural Wonders anyway. Being able to tell another player to come and look at it (i.e. setting up a tourist board) would be pretty cool, but there should be a payoff on both sides. I'd suggest that +1 Culture for the player that encourages tourism in this way might help. In fact just put in +1 culture for every other player that views a Natural Wonder within your boundaries...

 

[Baleur]

The ai simply needs to STOP playing to win and predicting thousands of years of strategy in advance.
It needs to go back to simulating a nation, forming alliances and as suggested, big alliance blocks.

This is civ, it isnt Starcraft 2 (which i also love, but NOT for the same reasons ofc). We're supposed to be able to form alliances, trade, and conduct diplomacy. Not just a mad FFA rush to victory.
That isnt what Civ is about.
Where are the alliances? (ive NEVER gotten another civ to ally, and the only time you can is if your military is so huge that its pointless to ally with them anyway, just conquer them).
Where is the trading that followed with open borders? (whats the point of open borders now?)
Where are the vassal states?
Where are the colonial states demanding independence if they are on another continent far away?
Where are the RELATIONS? I dont want numbers, i just want SOMETHING.. Check the gamefiles yourselves, there's Neutral and Hostile. Thats it. There's no friendly, there's no ally, there's nothing but "first-met" and "i-hate-you".

I recommend those of you interested in cool diplomacy in games to check out Distant Worlds, a very different game but with some of the best diplomacy i've seen yet in a grand strategy game.

 

[Namaspamus]

Agree a lot about the need for more cooperation and alliances. Alliances of 2, 3, 4 civs... there could be votes to take international decisions. this somewhat requires conferences.

I read someone proposing financial city-states that could loan money, would be good.

City-states are great, they've just been thrown into the game but with mods and expansion they will gain new abilities (new types of them) and more realistic behaviour (long-term friendship/protection, more grateful when they should be, etc...). They're already a great add and the best is to come.

Foreign trade routes were a good reason to sign open borders. I think they should be the core of an improved trade system cause they could involve much strategy in diplomacy (who is trading with who) but also militar for their protection, especially on the sea.

Another problem I have now about open borders is that AIs station their blanket of doom on my territory.

The "discuss" part of diplo screen could have more options. We could ask leaders what they like and dislike about us. Precise numbers wouldn't be revealed, and those who want to backstab you could simulate perfect friendship, or just not give true reasons. So we wouldn't be in the fog about what they think and want, except if they want us to. the more they like us the more they speak frankly. precise modifiers wouldn't be shown and would also depend of their personnality.

Also ask them what they think of each others. (it was so easy to check in Civ IV circular diplo screen)

I think that in the current state research agreements are extremely unrealistic. (...) I think research pacts should focus on the same tech for both civs, and so that basically the combined science output of the two civs is used to research the tech. This way it would make far more sense.

Currently if I'm in modern age and another civ is still in Renaissance, how could they ever help me develop something new?

- The "Research Agreement" is a category that opens up (like the "Luxury Resources" category)
- The options that are available are ONLY the techs that your civs can BOTH research at that time. For example, you and Catherine can both research Iron Working and Compass, so the options "Iron Working" and "Compass" appear under "Research Agreement". (This should limit the available choices to something like 2-3 in most cases, and civs that have a large dichotomy in their tech levels will be unable to sign these agreements - or at least only sign them one way.)
- The research agreement length will probably need to be scaled down (e.g. you don't want to wait 30 turns for a tech that you would have researched in 15-20 turns anyway). Perhaps 10 turns would work, or a factor that scales with the average time it would take both your civs to research that technology yourselves.

Totally agree.