denouncing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[apocalypse105]

hey i am new to the forum so i didnt know where to post it if it is wrong move it to the right catogorie. I am from the Netherlands i can talk english but my grammar is not so good so dont bother the much grammar mistake anyways... this is my question

I dont play playing Civ 5 anymore because of the freaking annoying denouncing system, i have version 1.01.275.
Each time i play a game everoyne denounce me so that al my friends begin to hate me and olso denounce me. This results in world war 3 everybody delcares war on me!!!!
This begins to annoye me because even when i tried to play a peacefull culture game i end up having wars.. And when i play militaristic i cant even have a war because most of the AI will atack me because they thinx i am a warmonger. And all the other AI's will never atack a true warmonger like ghenghis kahgn who took over at least 5 city states even he thought i was a warmonger and i only atacked one civilization

Is there any patch or mod that fix this? For now i dont play civ 5 anymore until it is fixed i just play civ 4 know because diplomacy makes a little bit more sence than this up game.

Sow does somebody know patches or mods that fix this ?
Olso I dont know if my version is up to date I have version 1.01.27 is this the newest patch?
And does anybody know when the new patch comes out and if they fix this bug?

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Moved to general discussion.
Because it's rather a gameplay than a technical problem .

And yes, the .275 is the most current patch.

 

[Bungle]

Check out this thread.

But you're probably going to have to get used to it.. if you become too powerful, everyone will hate you no matter what.

In that sense, it is actually easier to play a peaceful game on higher difficulties.

 

[stroypa]

It's something that used to annoy me a lot, but I've become used to it now and it doesn't really effect me. Most of the time when a civ denounces me they don't have the balls to follow it up with a DoW anyways, about 25%-33% of the time they actually DoW. And even then they are so awful at war it's still not much of an issue. I tend to go for conquest victory condition though so I expect the AI's to really hate me.

 

[cman2010]

The problem is the ai is broken I suggest waiting for another patch or downloading a mod to fix it.

 

[Jim Bro]

diplomacy in civ5 is really bad. here's why:

- the denouncing is annoying
- the AI never pays tribute, even in face of imminent danger
- the liberated civs will call their liberator's army the laughingstock of the world
but will vote for u at the Unites Nations (yeah right)
- the hostile civs will trade open borders for 5 luxuries (WTH? - like if someone would do that..)
- no permanent alliances

just nonsense. end of discussion.

 

[mlund]

The A.I. denouncement and diplomacy system works fine most of the time, but it isn't transparent. For example, nobody really tells you that there are huge uptick in your being labeled a "warmonger" if you wipe out any Civ (including a City State) by taking their last city that won't trigger as long as you leave them in play with one gimped town. Likewise being the aggressor declaring war on City States gets you all sorts of bad diplomatic modifiers, but if you just provoke the CS into declaring on you by getting into a war with its allied Civilization you don't take that hit.

The game is very tolerant, in general, of DoW on each Civ once - especially if you've already denounced that civilization. As long as you don't sneak attack them, lie about amassing troops on the border, or DoW them multiple times most other nations don't care about you beating them down unless they have a Declaration of Friendship with your victim. Just don't wipe out the Civ completely.

Declarations of Friendship can be horrible traps too. You get slapped way harder if your "Friend" denounces you, so don't sign these things casually. Rejecting a demand / favor request from a "Friend" is also a huge negative modifier. Never enter of DoF if you don't see any advantage in a relationship where you have to do all the giving.

Lastly, make someone else the warmongering scourge. Routinely hire out some other Civ you are on good terms with to start random wars for inexpensive bribes. That distraction often helps.

Here are some simple guidelines to controlling game diplomacy, even as a warmonger:

1.) Don't conquer City States
2.) Don't wipe out any rival Civilizations
3.) Denounce before you Declare
4.) Be extremely careful about Declarations of Friendship
5.) Never lie or go back on your word
6.) Antagonize targets into DoW'ing you instead of you DoW'ing them if possible

- Marty Lund

 

[Lyoncet]

Someone recommended letting players target their denouncements (denounce Songhai for attacking Vienna, denounce Songhai for breaking their word on not expanding towards you, etc.) That could end up being a lot of programming work in terms of figuring out what actions each civ has done that you could want to denounce them for, but it's not unreasonable to at least see the AI do the same. Once you get a decent grasp of how the leaders -and each particular leader, to a lesser extent- react to various situations, though, it's not that tough to figure out. Kind of like remembering unitprob for each leader in CIV wasn't necessary, but helped you figure out a game plan.

 

[Germnoble]

I'd like a convincing system. When siam took over half the world I tried to get the other three countries to slow it down. They all denied me, I kept thinking, "Dude, your next. All of us need to whittle siam back to a few cities."

 

[Redmonkiee]

I experienced the bad design of denouncement on my current game. Now usually I play immortal and always lose (still fun) but tried out the difficulty below (Emperor?/King?) Anyhoo, I also play marathon speed, I like the epic long hauls.

I met England on turn 8 or something. "We are pleased to meet you". Turn 9 she lol's my army (sorry Queenie, but I don't get the free stuffs), and is now hostile. Then on turn 19, which is next to nothing in terms of game age, she denounces me. I check why, and apparently it because she believes I am trying to win the game in a similar fashion to her. Turn 19, on marathon, which goes on for 1000 or so turns and already she thinks she knows how I am going to win. Heck even I don't know how I am going to win yet and I'm me!

So very funny. Denouncement. About as well thought out as a hula hoop contest on a submarine.

 

[Kerosene31]

Backstabbing is not a bug.

I say this in each of these threads and never get a reply:

Who in Civ 4 or 5 has not attacked an AI Civ in spite of having friendly relations? I'll guess nobody (because it makes good sense).

 

[roguepro92]

simple. denounce and declare war. keep a massive army or army weak enough not to seem agressive but strong enough not to seem attackable.

 

[Shakira42]

....army weak enough not to seem agressive but strong enough not to seem attackable.

Heheh, what a fine line.

In the words of Han Solo "I don't know. Fly casual."

 

[apocalypse105]

The A.I. denouncement and diplomacy system works fine most of the time, but it isn't transparent. For example, nobody really tells you that there are huge uptick in your being labeled a "warmonger" if you wipe out any Civ (including a City State) by taking their last city that won't trigger as long as you leave them in play with one gimped town. Likewise being the aggressor declaring war on City States gets you all sorts of bad diplomatic modifiers, but if you just provoke the CS into declaring on you by getting into a war with its allied Civilization you don't take that hit.

The game is very tolerant, in general, of DoW on each Civ once - especially if you've already denounced that civilization. As long as you don't sneak attack them, lie about amassing troops on the border, or DoW them multiple times most other nations don't care about you beating them down unless they have a Declaration of Friendship with your victim. Just don't wipe out the Civ completely.

Declarations of Friendship can be horrible traps too. You get slapped way harder if your "Friend" denounces you, so don't sign these things casually. Rejecting a demand / favor request from a "Friend" is also a huge negative modifier. Never enter of DoF if you don't see any advantage in a relationship where you have to do all the giving.

Lastly, make someone else the warmongering scourge. Routinely hire out some other Civ you are on good terms with to start random wars for inexpensive bribes. That distraction often helps.

Here are some simple guidelines to controlling game diplomacy, even as a warmonger:

1.) Don't conquer City States
2.) Don't wipe out any rival Civilizations
3.) Denounce before you Declare
4.) Be extremely careful about Declarations of Friendship
5.) Never lie or go back on your word
6.) Antagonize targets into DoW'ing you instead of you DoW'ing them if possible

- Marty Lund

Even if you do what you say some AI's will denounce you just for backstabbing
I find the hole system bad because it gives you bad point with all leaders. Wich result in a chain reaction that will also denounce you!!!!!!

My opinion is :
Just remove the denouncing system.... it causes chain reactions that up the gameplay...
They should instead of this put a what do you thinx of leader name like in civ 4 sow that you can actually see who hates and love eachother sow you can decide who you want to be friends with withouth disadvantages...
And if they would ad some more positiv modifiers like years of peace has strenghted or relationship and good traid and so on..... Then the AI wouldn"t be so frustrated to delcare war or denounce you

It just feel like i am playing against a child as king who wants his candy or else he will kill you

 

[Karl_Rove]

Even if you do what you say some AI's will denounce you just for backstabbing
I find the hole system bad because it gives you bad point with all leaders. Wich result in a chain reaction that will also denounce you!!!!!!

My opinion is :
Just remove the denouncing system.... it causes chain reactions that up the gameplay...
They should instead of this put a what do you thinx of leader name like in civ 4 sow that you can actually see who hates and love eachother sow you can decide who you want to be friends with withouth disadvantages...
And if they would ad some more positiv modifiers like years of peace has strenghted or relationship and good traid and so on..... Then the AI wouldn"t be so frustrated to delcare war or denounce you

It just feel like i am playing against a child as king who wants his candy or else he will kill you

I like ciV's backstabbing ability of ai better than the "Hammurabi likes you +17" of 4, that just seemed goofy. If you get someone happy, you never ever have to worry about them again, unless +17 goes to -20 in a few turns.

I do miss the easily visible world relations graph from 4 though.

 

[nokmirt]

Here are some simple guidelines to controlling game diplomacy, even as a warmonger:

1.) Don't conquer City States
2.) Don't wipe out any rival Civilizations
3.) Denounce before you Declare
4.) Be extremely careful about Declarations of Friendship
5.) Never lie or go back on your word
6.) Antagonize targets into DoW'ing you instead of you DoW'ing them if possible

- Marty Lund

We might as well not play. There should be no specific rules to follow game after game where the same things happen if you break one of those 6 rules. There is too much sameness going on, you can expect the same experience game after game, that gets too boring. No, this diplomacy system needs to be worked on. The Civs need to have personality put back into the game, so civs are different from each other, there is too much sameness and it is becoming really lame. SAME SAME SAME UGH!!!!!

REMOVE DENOUNCE. BEGIN TO PROGRAM CIVS TO BE WHO THEY REPRESENT. GIVE THEM REASONING BEHIND THEIR DECISIONS, FOR INSTANCE, IF I AM FRANCE, HAVE ARABIA HATE ME BECAUSE I AM CHRISTIAN, OR BECAUSE I KILLED AND TORTURED THE CALIPH'S FAVORITE EUNUCH, USE YOUR IMAGINATION (BUT HAVE THESE DECISIONS CHANGE FROM GAME TO GAME, RANDOMIZE DIPLOMACY A BIT, LET EACH GAME BUILD ITS OWN EXPERIENCES), NOT BECAUSE I CONQUERED A CITY STATE, OR BUILT ONE TOO MANY CITIES, OR BECAUSE THE GERMANS DENOUNCED ME AND THE ARABS BELIEVE IT IS THEIR CIVIC DUTY TO DO THE SAME. GIVE US, AS CIV PLAYERS, A FEEL FOR THE DRAMATIC, LIKE WE HAD WITH CIV 4. WE NEED IDEOLOGIES, SPYING, EVENTS, INTRIGUE BESIDES JUST OBVIOUS BACKSTABBING. I WANT TO POISON WELLS, SABOTAGE PRODUCTION, GET BONUS HAPPINESS FOR WINNING WARS, SOMETIMES GET AWAY WITH THINGS, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO BE SHREWD, WITHOUT SET IN STONE PENALTIES. PLEASE MAKE THIS INTO A GAME THAT SURPASSES PREVIOUS VERSIONS.

 

[mlund]

We might as well not play. There should be no specific rules to follow game after game where the same things happen if you break one of those 6 rules. There is too much sameness going on, you can expect the same experience game after game, that gets too boring. No, this diplomacy system needs to be worked on. The Civs need to have personality put back into the game, so civs are different from each other, there is too much sameness and it is becoming really lame. SAME SAME SAME UGH!!!!!

Well, actually, personalities with the leaders vary so that they have different weights and tolerances for various offenses. Some of them are land-grabbing war-mongers that don't care who you beat up - they just want to kill you and steal your land. Others are obsessed with pacifism to the point where they will enforce it on you With Nuclear Weapons. The also put more weight behind things backed by their declared friends and less weight behind things from people they already hate.

It'd be nice if they also put more favoritism towards trading partners and civilizations in non-threatening positions.

Beyond that though, complaining about personality in the A.I. is pointless. Civ5 is a game with players - A.I. and Human. They made this game so that the A.I. did not operate as clueless NPCs unaware that they were trying to win at a game as opposed to recreate the historical inclinations of their people. They play more like random people on the internet you'd encounter in multiplayer, and there is nothing wrong with that.

A.I. that plays with a lack of awareness of the point of the game might make for a fun simulation, but it creates a huge artificial difficulty handicap for the A.I. players that would have to be compensated for by even more "fake" difficulty through stat-inflation. The last thing I want is the A.I. getting extra hammers, HP, and combat strength all the time to make up for the fact that it is programmed to be even more idiotic. Nor do I want the programmers to have to compensate by making all the A.I. extra-hostile to the human player since he's at an innate advantage as the only game entity fully invested in trying to win. Worst of all would be making the game even easier because the A.I. plays like an Role-Playing Game NPC instead of a competing player.

Seriously, why bother coding all these elaborate mechanics for A.I. personality that would get tossed out the window every time a Human player is driving that Civ instead of the computer?

- Marty Lund

 

[nokmirt]

Well, actually, personalities with the leaders vary so that they have different weights and tolerances for various offenses. Some of them are land-grabbing war-mongers that don't care who you beat up - they just want to kill you and steal your land. Others are obsessed with pacifism to the point where they will enforce it on you With Nuclear Weapons. The also put more weight behind things backed by their declared friends and less weight behind things from people they already hate.

It'd be nice if they also put more favoritism towards trading partners and civilizations in non-threatening positions.

Beyond that though, complaining about personality in the A.I. is pointless. Civ5 is a game with players - A.I. and Human. They made this game so that the A.I. did not operate as clueless NPCs unaware that they were trying to win at a game as opposed to recreate the historical inclinations of their people. They play more like random people on the internet you'd encounter in multiplayer, and there is nothing wrong with that.

A.I. that plays with a lack of awareness of the point of the game might make for a fun simulation, but it creates a huge artificial difficulty handicap for the A.I. players that would have to be compensated for by even more "fake" difficulty through stat-inflation. The last thing I want is the A.I. getting extra hammers, HP, and combat strength all the time to make up for the fact that it is programmed to be even more idiotic. Nor do I want the programmers to have to compensate by making all the A.I. extra-hostile to the human player since he's at an innate advantage as the only game entity fully invested in trying to win. Worst of all would be making the game even easier because the A.I. plays like an Role-Playing Game NPC instead of a competing player.

Seriously, why bother coding all these elaborate mechanics for A.I. personality that would get tossed out the window every time a Human player is driving that Civ instead of the computer?

- Marty Lund

Because you get to the same position in every game, the world becomes completely against you. In Civ4 at least I had one friend til the end, in most if not all games. In CiV friendship deteriorates and never recovers. That is no fun. For example, you have a war with another civ in the classical era, and he is still seething in the modern age because you slaughtered his best chariots. Come on, something needs to be changed or balanced to placate both our points of view. BTW, in Civ 4 the AI did try to win and on top of that it was persistent. However, with the right actons, if a player was lucky, you might well survive, although many times not. With CiV the whole world comes to get you.

In the game I am playing now Germany has DOWed on me twice (I am the Danes). I was being double teamed by Songhai and Germany. They said I encroached their territory. I built my four cities (Culture Strategy). They immediately denounced and declared war. I destroyed Songhai, I had to get rid of one of them. Germany is really mad now and he is spamming units and has gunpowder, which I am just now researching. I am holding my own and I built Himeji castle, after getting meritocracy, with a great engineer. I will hold my own and I will burn every last one of his cities. However, I will be a world wide outlaw for defending myself. They started it, not me. If it was Civ 4 I could destroy the Germans and build my reputation over time again, but not with 5. I will be at war the whole game now, it is not right, or realistic. If I had nuked the bastards (by that I mean jerks, not a person born out of wedlock) I could see it. Firaxis needs to add some sort of balance. Keep the AI trying to win, but ease off on the world wars at least sometimes. Thats all I ask.

 

[mlund]

That is no fun. For example, you have a war with another civ in the classical era, and he is still seething in the modern age because you slaughtered his best chariots.

I don't typically run into this. I either run into a situation where the original causes of the first war didn't change (they still covet my stuff), or I started the war in the first place and didn't finish it decisively so I appear weak. The easiest way to convince a neighbor to stop DoW'ing you is to cripple them or intimidate them. Often times a crippled Civ will give up on trying to beat you and settle into survival mode. They aren't as helpful as a Vassal State, but at least they don't draw the auto-hate that Vassal States in Civ4:Warlords did.

Come on, something needs to be changed or balanced to placate both our points of view. BTW, in Civ 4 the AI did try to win and on top of that it was persistent. However, with the right actons, if a player was lucky, you might well survive, although many times not. With CiV the whole world comes to get you.

The A.I. in Civ 4 always struck me as either irrationally and self-destructive hostile against Human players based on difficulty level or too easily gamed by mechanics that had basically 0 effect on a self-aware human player.

In the game I am playing now Germany has DOWed on me twice (I am the Danes). I was being double teamed by Songhai and Germany. They said I encroached their territory. I built my four cities (Culture Strategy). They immediately denounced and declared war. I destroyed Songhai, I had to get rid of one of them.

There's no war-weariness in Civ 5 so an enemy A.I. that you can pick apart in the field is nothing more than an XP farm, really. There's no point in wiping out the enemy Civ completely unless you really, really want every scrap of their land or it's the very end of a game with Complete Kills on.

Germany is really mad now and he is spamming units and has gunpowder, which I am just now researching. I am holding my own and I built Himeji castle, after getting meritocracy, with a great engineer.

Ah, so the A.I. has a technological and logistical advantage over you and wants to beat you? Yeah, I don't understand why he wouldn't just roll over and let you surpass him like you would if you were in his shoes ...

I will hold my own and I will burn every last one of his cities. However, I will be a world wide outlaw for defending myself. They started it, not me.

Um, yeah, you killed another player. Now you're the scourge. Go figure. You're probably the points leader too. I've never had human players label me the scourge of the board and ganged up on in a board game before. Nope. Never. (I'm totally lying!)

If it was Civ 4 I could destroy the Germans and build my reputation over time again, but not with 5.

In Civ 4 you could become the complete run-away Civ and slaughter A.I. left, right and center and have gamed every other Civ on the board to be warm and fuzzy with you as you buried them in terms of victory points and victory conditions by light-years and they'd never back-stab you to try and win the game themselves. After all "Years of peace have strengthened our relationship" and "You've traded with us fairly."

You might not believe this, but if we play multi-player and you and I are at peace for hundreds of years and good trading partners and suddenly you leave our mutual border undefended while building Space Station parts and all the "Years of peace" and "Fair trading" will probably get you a polite, "Sorry, but I've got to try and avoid losing now. Good luck!" message along with the Declaration of War and the subsequent nuking of your cities building SS Parts. That's how the game is played.

I will be at war the whole game now, it is not right, or realistic.

It isn't realistic that other competing nations might put their self-interests ahead of your welfare and apply double-standards to harm your reputation and weaken you so they can pick your bones clean? That sounds awfully realist to me, actually.

The easiest way to use the Diplomacy system in such a way that you can be the true scourge of the board but still go unmolested by the majority of Civs is to apply those above 6 rules wherever it is prudent and bribe the other Civs into declaring war on one another so you drop to a low position on their priorities list. If they all generally hate one another then they won't listen to denouncements from one another. If they are, however, generally friendly and see you as a bigger threat / target they'll gang up on you.

- Marty Lund

P.S. - For "realism," reflect on the fact that your Civ was just attacked by violent aggressors. In this case a German Despot and one of the Islamic Despot decide to wipe out your people so they could enjoy the spoils. They fail, but you wind up the pariah of the world community for not rolling over and dying quietly. In the end, the other Civs are just a bunch of amoral, self-serving jerks who see profit in your misfortune - "bastards" as you so eloquently put it. That's not just realism, that's gallows humor worthy of the Royal Order of Cynics.

 

[nokmirt]

Your appraisals of diplomacy do not work for me Marty Lund. I for damn sure am not the only one. I still say diplomacy is a problem it is too static and I never remembered following 6 particular rules for any civ game. Civ should be an exciting new game each time, at this point it is not. Firaxis has a lot to unleash yet, mark my words in a year, year and a half, it will be a very good game. We'll pick this excellent conversation up then my friend.