Sherlock
Just one more turn...
I always assume I'll be at war with my nearest neighbor.
It's true pretty much 100% of the time.
It's true pretty much 100% of the time.
Diplo hit that really needs fixed
- Thread starter Smokeybear
- Start date
Wyrda Edocsil
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 88
These are all so that the AI can attempt to win the game. The only way they'll go to war with you is if they dislike you, and the only way they'll dislike you when they should go to war with you is by giving a diplo penalty whenever there is a reason that they should attack you. If the AI has good lands that you "covet," you'll attack them. If you're constantly struggling to keep or gain CS allies, it's often easiest to just attack the person trying the other civ that wants the city-state. It's the rational thing to do. Why are you so pissed off when the AI attitude towards you is designed to help them make more intelligent decisions dealing with you? If you are powerful, the AI should try to remove that issue, the same way a human would deal with a runaway AI. If you want a game that you can win without resistance, you should play on lower difficulties.
DGDobrev
Warlord
I had another diplo hit, which was a funny one - Siam stole like 7 techs for me in my King game (through my level 3 spy, constabulary and police station, and like 3-4 warnings to stop, sometimes even the next turn after the warning) and when I decided to steal one back to make it even, he said this is childish, idiotic, etc. and warned me off.
So it's ok when the AI steals like crazy, even if you tell them to stop, but when you do, you get warned off, denounced, etc. Nice one
So it's ok when the AI steals like crazy, even if you tell them to stop, but when you do, you get warned off, denounced, etc. Nice one
Peacemongerer
Prince
- Ask you for your resources (without payment)
- Ask you to go to war and then hate you with a passion when you win it for them (the hell?)
- Suddenly thinks all your land is rightfully theirs despite having no previous grieves.
- Bribes your long-time city-state allies and tells you to gtfo.
- Attack you when you are close allies but you are in a war (or just at random).
- Steals your technology (or tries to).
- Makes you pay for their research agreements.
- Wants open borders to destroy your religion.
- Hates you for defending yourself against a third party (seriously?).
Some of these are totally needed to give the AI a competitive chance. #1 is kind of annoying since nobody really says yes. The advantage is that you no longer get penalized for saying no.
#2 is a bit stupid. #3 seems irrational, but then you realize that's kind of what happened a lot throughout history. #4 is the same way, as are 5 and 6. #7 is needed from a gameplay balance standpoint because a player with a tech lead stands to benefit more from a research agreement than the AI in an earlier era does, yet that AI must still pay the full amount it would if you were in the same era. It should be scaled-back a bit from 100 gold per era to 50 gold per era, in line with the rising cost of the agreements.
#8 isn't necessarily true... I've seen prophets come into my lands when I had no open borders on a few rare occasions. The AI just wants open borders bc it opens-up their options (I've been used as a bridge between hated enemies numerous times) and once it realizes it can send in its missionaries, it sends them there. #9? I haven't gotten that one unless I annihilated the third party. On one hand, it's stupid. On the other, it may be needed so that the AI keys-in on powerful nations and doesn't give them helping hands.
- Ask you to go to war and then hate you with a passion when you win it for them (the hell?)
- Suddenly thinks all your land is rightfully theirs despite having no previous grieves.
- Bribes your long-time city-state allies and tells you to gtfo.
- Attack you when you are close allies but you are in a war (or just at random).
- Steals your technology (or tries to).
- Makes you pay for their research agreements.
- Wants open borders to destroy your religion.
- Hates you for defending yourself against a third party (seriously?).
Some of these are totally needed to give the AI a competitive chance. #1 is kind of annoying since nobody really says yes. The advantage is that you no longer get penalized for saying no.
#2 is a bit stupid. #3 seems irrational, but then you realize that's kind of what happened a lot throughout history. #4 is the same way, as are 5 and 6. #7 is needed from a gameplay balance standpoint because a player with a tech lead stands to benefit more from a research agreement than the AI in an earlier era does, yet that AI must still pay the full amount it would if you were in the same era. It should be scaled-back a bit from 100 gold per era to 50 gold per era, in line with the rising cost of the agreements.
#8 isn't necessarily true... I've seen prophets come into my lands when I had no open borders on a few rare occasions. The AI just wants open borders bc it opens-up their options (I've been used as a bridge between hated enemies numerous times) and once it realizes it can send in its missionaries, it sends them there. #9? I haven't gotten that one unless I annihilated the third party. On one hand, it's stupid. On the other, it may be needed so that the AI keys-in on powerful nations and doesn't give them helping hands.
Smokeybear
Emperor
Both prophets and missionaries ignore 'closed' borders. They can waltz right in regardless of your border status. What the AI wants open borders for, is to case the joint. Your joint. See how rich you are, how well developed and defended your cities are, size up your military and their chance of beating you. "I want open borders" translates directly to "I want to conquer you, may I have a look first?", in CiV diplo-speak.
So some of you simply want the your opponents to be predictable (rational) so you can play the game in the manner you want? They are called opponents for a reason and they should all try (harder) to beat you. Not only should that include early DoWs (the problem with that is what?), aggressive neighbors (hint: take them out early, usually counterattacking) and *gasp* trying to beat down opponents that are winning (like Austria).
Well, I would like to play the game in the manner I want. Er... who wants to play the game in a manner they don't enjoy?
@ topic:
My current annoyance with the diplomacy system is how taking over City-States at war works. In my current game I've just ousted the American supporters of Jerusalem, who are at war with my ally, Russia. No matter what I do - pay Russia to peace out with Jerusalem etc - the next turn I get a message from Catherine saying that she's attacked one of my city states and that I have to take a diplo penalty with her or take an influence hit with Jerusalem.
Smokeybear
Emperor
Oh, I agree completely with you. Unpredictability and foxiness can make for more interesting and challenging games. But the example I posted in my first post, is just utter stupidity on the AI's (and coders) part. Nothing sneaky or intelligent about it. It just makes you realize you're playing against an ignorant, stupid computer AI with some poorly-programmed logic-holes in what it does in the game, that greatly detract from any minor bit of immersion you may have been working on.
Cicerosaurus
Emperor
qft..
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I don't pay attention to anything they say anyways. The messages of such triggers are irrelevant, just make up something along the lines of "you are my opponent and I will try (clumsily) to beat you".
Fun = winning a challenging game or winning (or trying to win) in counteracting AI's bonuses or learning from losing a game.
Smokeybear
Emperor
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I don't pay attention to anything they say anyways. The messages of such triggers are irrelevant, just make up something along the lines of "you are my opponent and I will try (clumsily) to beat you".
Fun = winning a challenging game or winning (or trying to win) in counteracting AI's bonuses or learning from losing a game.
Yeah, but I really would like to play a game where what the AI civs do and say (mostly) made sense, which currently is very far from the case. I do like a wee bit of immersion in my gaming, and the incredulous stuff they so often say and do just completely blows that out of the pudding. I'm just strange that way, I guess. I'd like to be able to pretend I'm playing against a 'real' opponent in some subliminal way, without the fact that it's a stupid, brainless, haphazardly-coded contrivance constantly being hurled in my face by their head-scratching diplo actions.
Yeah, which is why in all of the civ games, I have never believed in even a wee bit of immersion or roleplaying or other nonsense like that. All of the civ games (except Civ3
) in the series have their great points but the nature of the games do force you, somewhat, to play within their limitations, esp. at higher difficulties. There are some incredible fun ways to play Civ5 without bothering with the diplomacy stuff. I'm just strange and very biased that way. 
Heinage
Khan
Fun is subjective.
Fun != anything.
Fun means one thing for person x, and something different for person y.
For some people in this thread, having fun whilst playing CIV means feeling immersed in the game. Hence the request for a more realistic approach to diplomacy.
For others, as alluded to above, fun means competing in a challenging GAME that pits you against competitive and (sometimes) unpredictable opponents.
I think CIV does a fairly good job at balancing these two particular versions of "fun"
Fun != anything.
Fun means one thing for person x, and something different for person y.
For some people in this thread, having fun whilst playing CIV means feeling immersed in the game. Hence the request for a more realistic approach to diplomacy.
For others, as alluded to above, fun means competing in a challenging GAME that pits you against competitive and (sometimes) unpredictable opponents.
I think CIV does a fairly good job at balancing these two particular versions of "fun"
Of course. But those of us in the latter group want Firaxis to work more on it being a better, more challenging game (e.g., Civ6) instead of trying to dumb it down for the former group.
Seriously, if it is balanced between two disparate play-styles, then it doesn't succeed at either. I think the Civ5 model has great potential to being a difficult, challenging game but that's what they have to focus on.
It's not a question of wanting the AI to be "nice", it's wanting it not to say things that are obviously stupid under the circumstances. If it wants to give the player a diplo hit because their borders are close, fine. Saying something nonsensical to justify it just detracts from the game.
Heinage
Khan
Buccaneer said:Of course. But those of us in the latter group want Firaxis to work more on it being a better, more challenging game (e.g., Civ6) instead of trying to dumb it down for the former group.
Seriously, if it is balanced between two disparate play-styles, then it doesn't succeed at either. I think the Civ5 model has great potential to being a difficult, challenging game but that's what they have to focus on.
It's certainly a tough one isn't it.
Compromise, and accept that you'll never fully satisfy absolutely everyone?
Or focus entirely on one group who want to see it made a particular way, and risk alienating the other group.
Seeing as CIV seeks to be a mainstream game, I think they'll always try to seek balance and compromise, so as to give everybody.. something, rather than some people.. everything.
Personally, again, I think it very nearly succeeds at what it seeks to do...balancing for the greater good
MashedPotatoe
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 6
Some diplo hits are really ridiculous as well as some diplomacy on the ai part. Coveting your land for example. I get it when space is rare and your next door neighbor covets your land because he wants to expand. But civs from the other side of the continent with plenty of space around them should not covet your lands or even go to war with you. By the time they arrive with their troops I'm into a new era with new units laughing at the ai.
The warmongering diplo hit is also stupid. Sure, if someone goes to war with everybody, that I understand. Playing all peaceful is not an option most of the time unless you are going tall with 3-4 cities very early. I normally target my closest neighbor very early and wipe him/her off the face of the earth. The ai will DoW me sooner or later and leaving him with a puny city just not to get a diplo hit seems stupid. The constant denouncements and probable wars are just to much of a hassle.
Speaking of denouncements. What's with Attila and Alexander? The latter has denounced me as early as turn 10. I mean seriously. Turn 10? And Attila isn't much better.
But the worst thing is that diplomacy doesn't really affect the ai. How many times has any of you told the ai not to settle in your direction and they actually accepted it? And I don't accept that every ai is supposed to be a threat. This is not Total War: Civilization.
Well, I guess in the end it's like Al Capone said: You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.
The warmongering diplo hit is also stupid. Sure, if someone goes to war with everybody, that I understand. Playing all peaceful is not an option most of the time unless you are going tall with 3-4 cities very early. I normally target my closest neighbor very early and wipe him/her off the face of the earth. The ai will DoW me sooner or later and leaving him with a puny city just not to get a diplo hit seems stupid. The constant denouncements and probable wars are just to much of a hassle.
Speaking of denouncements. What's with Attila and Alexander? The latter has denounced me as early as turn 10. I mean seriously. Turn 10? And Attila isn't much better.
But the worst thing is that diplomacy doesn't really affect the ai. How many times has any of you told the ai not to settle in your direction and they actually accepted it? And I don't accept that every ai is supposed to be a threat. This is not Total War: Civilization.
Well, I guess in the end it's like Al Capone said: You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.
Heinage
Khan
I'm not suggesting that an immersive game and a challenging game are mutually exclusive.
I can see how my previous posts could be misinterpreted, so just to clarify:
I'm suggesting that a game where the AI recognises that it's playing in a GAME (and is trying to "win the game") will act differently to a more roleplaying AI and thus, for some people, makes for a less immersive experience.
Again, some people may like the AI to compete in a GAME, whereas others may like the AI to play its role as it near as possible to its historical context.
I'm not claiming to come up with a grand solution to this, and I honestly don't know if one really exists. I'm just saying that CIV does a relatively good job at balancing some peoples wishes at having a game in which the AI competes to win (a GAME) while having a game in which the AI does a bit of roleplaying at the same time.
It depends what sort of experience you want to be immersed in. You can be immersed in playing a game against a challenging opponent, or you can be immersed in the illusion that you are a 4,000 year old Julius Caesar. The latter seems much more of a stretch and a bit much to demand of Firaxis. Nevertheless I understand some people get close.
I agree this is what Firaxis aims to do. Having different AI personalities and the reactive diplo system is probably part of this. I think those aspects could be better done and elaborated without compromising the game play. To me the current diplo system is unimmersive because it is so unrealistic. It's more of a player obstacle course than a diplo system.
Similar threads
