Civ5 Diplomacy - how will it work?

[henryMCVII]

Diplomacy in Civ5: We know the direct display of +x and -y in diplomacy is gone. Sadly none of the reviews I read was telling anything more specific about diplomacy - exept one thing: the Civ4/Civ3 diplomacy screen (which showed each Civs pacts, open border agrements and war/peace status etc.) is gone or changed... I'm not sure. But how is it this time? Is there something more advanced we know about diplomacy in Civ5 yet? How will it play?

This is more about (kind of) UI; about questions like: What do we know about our opponents in game and how it is dealed compared to earlyer Civ versions? (How is it displayed in game?) This is not about single options which are included or not (like one side open border, research pacts and so on).

 

[Schuesseled]

there is still a domestic screen, a financial one and a victory one. There will probably be a diplomatic one, a science one, and a military one.

 

[comatosedragon]

Actually, this is what I am most excited about in Civ 5. Diplomacy has been (imho) the weakest part of the series to date; and even though we currently have little information on the actual nuts and bolts of the new system, I have faith that this will be the biggest leap forward in terms of gameplay.

 

[Tylerryan79]

So far what we have heard about diplo sounds like it's going to be great! There are seems to be many new options to choose, different pacts, now we can tell the ai to back off when they build too close, secretly supply the ai in wars(I used to hate asking civ x to attack civ y, then civ y knew!! It was suppose to be a secret!). There just seems to be a lot of new/better things, as long as the ai uses them right. Hopefully we find out more soon. Also with modifiers no longer visable let's hope reading the ai isn't a science, but intuitive. If they make it feel right I have high hopes that diplomacy will be a very fufilling part of the game.

 

[MajorDisaster84]

Last time 2KGreg asked what we wanted to hear in the next feature, I'd guess about half the replies were about diplomacy. Worker improvements were good, but I really want to know what these new diplomatic agreements are.

 

[flamingzaroc121]

I believe it was posted somewhere that unlike cIV, diplomacy modifiers would be hidden. Not positive though

 

[AriochIV]

Diplomacy is something of a black box at the moment. We've been told very little about it, and you can't tell much from looking at the screens, because the diplomacy modifiers are not shown to the player.

 

[Centurio]

Hopefully, they're hiding diplomacy details because they want us to have a (positive) surprise when we play the game. I wonder, though, if hearing the leaders talk will get boring after a while?

 

[henryMCVII]

I was reading some kind of "hands on review" from gamescom by a forum member of a german website. The reviewer gave a list about things he missed while playing.

One of these points is about diplomacy: - "Diplomatie-Infos verbergen klappt ganz und gar nicht, man hat keinen Überblick außenpolitisch." In english, I think, it means something like *all informations about diplomacy are hidden*. Further on the reviewer consider that "it entirely don't work". Which sounds pretty bad to me. He says "it's impossible o keep track of [diplomatic affairs]!". So it seems, there is no diplomatic advisor screen this time around, which is very very bad news to me, im strongly disappointed.

 

[Ituralde]

I was able to play the game at GamesCom as well and I really missed a diplomacy overview screen. I strongly hope this will get implemented in the release version. It's just annoying that you have no idea what pacts you have with whom.

Aside from that it is really hard to judge diplomacy outside of a longterm test.

 

[D712]

Alot of stuff from Cologne says that Diplomacy isnt very good. They say the missing -x or +x really makes it hard to know what the other leader is thinking about you. Persoanlly I like what they have done with diplo, but Im worried that I could join a research pact with someone and then they declare war.

 

[Ahriman]

Further on the reviewer consider that "it entirely don't work". Which sounds pretty bad to me. He says "it's impossible o keep track of [diplomatic affairs]!".

They say the missing -x or +x really makes it hard to know what the other leader is thinking about you.

This is what I'm worried about. Trying to make diplomacy "interesting" by hiding info from the player ends up just making it impenetrable. Design fail.

 

[pineaway]

I'm not to worried about the actual numbers being hidden +x or -x because x, but not having an overview like who's at war with who or this guy hates this other guy is really really bad. Not knowing what civs are allied with what other civs makes it absolutely impossible to make a strategic war decision.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think playing early build for a couple of hours could reveal much about the diplomacy. I think many statistic screens are just not there yet.

But even I'm a bit worried without the diplomacy info. 2K Greg, where are you?

 

[D712]

2K Greg, where are you?

 

[The_J]

I was reading some kind of "hands on review" from gamescom by a forum member of a german website. The reviewer gave a list about things he missed while playing.

One of these points is about diplomacy: - "Diplomatie-Infos verbergen klappt ganz und gar nicht, man hat keinen Überblick außenpolitisch." In english, I think, it means something like *all informations about diplomacy are hidden*. Further on the reviewer consider that "it entirely don't work". Which sounds pretty bad to me. He says "it's impossible o keep track of [diplomatic affairs]!". So it seems, there is no diplomatic advisor screen this time around, which is very very bad news to me, im strongly disappointed.

Ah, i see, CFC is really big . Read the english version here .

But you're completly right with your summary.
I can't imagine playing on a map with 17 AIs with marathon speed, keeping track of diplomacy must be impossible with the current implementation.

I was able to play the game at GamesCom as well and I really missed a diplomacy overview screen. I strongly hope this will get implemented in the release version. It's just annoying that you have no idea what pacts you have with whom.

Aside from that it is really hard to judge diplomacy outside of a longterm test.

+1
I hope Azallel could maybe say something about it, he's the only one who can speak about the game after a longer playing time.

 

[Ahriman]

This has officially moved to the issue I am most worried about.

I'm very worried that it will feel like I'm flying blind, diplomatically speaking, and have no idea who my friends are or my enemies are, and have no idea who is likely to declare war on me vs who is likely to enter trade agreements with me, and have no idea whether various friendly actions (gifts, etc.) actually have any impact or not.

 

[Thyrwyn]

What if there are no diplomacy modifiers? What if your diplomatic relations are reflected in the treaties you have signed with each other and the current status quo? What if your relationship with each civ was determined by your value to them - either as a trading partner, ally or enemy? Is that not how the player - even a role-player (like me) - evaluates AI civs?

To my mind that would 1) remove the need to hide any modifiers, since there are none, 2) make the AI behave more like a real opponent, and 3) keep the AI from being artificially bound by game mechanics that do not bind the human players.

In this model, you would be able to determine the strength of your relationship with the AI based on your current treaties and deals - the same way the human player determines our "affection" for AI civs.

 

[Ahriman]

In this model, you would be able to determine the strength of your relationship with the AI based on your current treaties and deals

I don't think this would work.

The AI still has to have some measure of evaluating whether it should enter into a trade agreement or not.

There still have to be diplomatic consequences from things like wars and gifts. And consequences from things like settling too close to them or having troops near their border.
And I have to be able to evaluate what those are. I need to know what the AI thinks of me, which actions I take that influence it.

You can't do this if all that matters is current deals.

Also, that would lead to too few possible choices.

And it would be very mechanical: you have to have open borders to get a research agreement, you have to have a research agreement and open borders in order to trade
You can always sign open borders if you have no existing relations.

 

[AriochIV]

If AI leaders really acted like human players, then diplomacy would be almost completely useless. It would be good for plotting to stab another player in the back, but that's it. Things like pacts of cooperation, or giving gifts to leaders, etc. would not be there if they had no effect on the leader's attitude toward you. Having the leader make demands about your forces on their border, your aggressive expansion, etc. doesn't make any sense if accepting or refusing their demands doesn't have an impact on their attitude towards you.

I really don't think they would have made this expensive new diplomacy module, and worked so hard on making the leaders seem lifelike, and hyped this feature up so much --- if it was intended to be completely useless.

I still have concerns that hiding the attitude information is a mistake (that will eventually be reversed), but I'm not ready to buy into the "diplomacy is only with city-states" theory that's being thrown around.