Diplomacy AI Development

[Vhozite]

Maybe defensive pacts need to have their length shortened (25 turns on standard time)? I personally don't experience issues with them (recently), but I can understand the problems others have; ultimately I think the dp's are actually just doing they're job by agitating other players (humans included), and dissuading them from using physical force. I think it's just the nature of the feature, and maybe others might be inclined to just play with dp's disabled if that were an option. Maybe set a limit so that a player may only have 1 active dp at a time? It's not really ideal, but people might enjoy that kind of thing.

My only gripe has always been that there's no way to see how many turns remain in dp's between AI (although I understand the reasoning behind this as well). It's just an annoyance for me.

The only way around this I’ve found is to repeatedly have a unit target an “enemy” each turn to see if the DP is still active.

Don’t sanctions end trade deals? I’ve noticed that if you sanction a Civ in a DP the alliance stays active, so maybe we can remove that protection? It’s unlikely that a warmonger is going to have enough votes to brute force sanctions through the WC, but if they do get it passed I think this would be a nice option against DP’s.

 

[Gizmoman]

The only way around this I’ve found is to repeatedly have a unit target an “enemy” each turn to see if the DP is still active.

Don’t sanctions end trade deals? I’ve noticed that if you sanction a Civ in a DP the alliance stays active, so maybe we can remove that protection? It’s unlikely that a warmonger is going to have enough votes to brute force sanctions through the WC, but if they do get it passed I think this would be a nice option against DP’s.

I've tried this a few times, but never managed to pass the vote, sanctions in general are really hard to pass.

Anyways I don't think this is an exclusively warmonger problem, if the AI (and I assume they do) takes defensive pacts into consideration before striking DoWs, this is probably why AI warfare just dies down after the classical era.


The way I would like to handle it (which is probably impossible) would be not having the DPs automatically put you into war, let's say Arabia got a DP with Babylon and Carthage, and Denmark has a DP with Egypt.
Denmark declares war on Arabia, Babylon and Carthage gets a prompt (Declare war on Denmark or the DP is over and they suffer diplomatic penalties), Babylon having a declaration of friendship with Denmark refuses to get involved but Carthage does DoW Denmark. When Carthage DoWs Denmark, Egypt gets the same prompt that Babylon and Carthage did (DoW Carthage or suffer diplo penalties).

Yeah it probably sounds complicated, but the point is that there are a ton of situations where you're not explicitly forced to uphold promises in Civ5, I don't see why DPs should be the one situation where you're forced to.

 

[Stalker0]

Maybe defensive pacts need to have their length shortened (25 turns on standard time)?

I am hugely in favor of this....honestly I would not be opposed to see diplomatic durations drop by era for various treaties. In the end game, even 5 turns could see the world radically changed, so it would be nice to allow diplomatic relations to be that flexible to adapt to the changing times.

 

[vyyt]

I am hugely in favor of this....honestly I would not be opposed to see diplomatic durations drop by era for various treaties. In the end game, even 5 turns could see the world radically changed, so it would be nice to allow diplomatic relations to be that flexible to adapt to the changing times.

Yes, I agree with this.

 

[Recursive]

Good ideas, everyone. I'll keep these in mind.

 

[Bromar1]

I am hugely in favor of this....honestly I would not be opposed to see diplomatic durations drop by era for various treaties. In the end game, even 5 turns could see the world radically changed, so it would be nice to allow diplomatic relations to be that flexible to adapt to the changing times.

+1 to this, in fact I think there should be shorter durations for more Diplo actions. Friendships feel a little long too. Sanctions could also use like a 50 turn duration. It would make diplomacy feel a bit more dynamic

 

[dostillevi]

+1 to this, in fact I think there should be shorter durations for more Diplo actions. Friendships feel a little long too. Sanctions could also use like a 50 turn duration. It would make diplomacy feel a bit more dynamic

Longer durations give both parties time to coordinate and act based on the established diplomatic reality. I'm not sure how much shorter durations might impact the AI's ability to act effectively. Another thing to consider is spam. The shorter the duration, the more notifications the player needs to pay attention to. Personally I'd love to have an "auto-renew" option for diplomatic agreements where, if both parties have indicated they want to continue the deal, the deal automatically renews. It would only need to be renegotiated if either party unchecked the auto-renew for that deal. Not sure how this would look UI wise, but I really hate constantly needing to re-up my friendships manually. It's just busywork unless the AI doesn't want to continue.

 

[InkAxis]

Longer durations give both parties time to coordinate and act based on the established diplomatic reality. I'm not sure how much shorter durations might impact the AI's ability to act effectively. Another thing to consider is spam. The shorter the duration, the more notifications the player needs to pay attention to. Personally I'd love to have an "auto-renew" option for diplomatic agreements where, if both parties have indicated they want to continue the deal, the deal automatically renews. It would only need to be renegotiated if either party unchecked the auto-renew for that deal. Not sure how this would look UI wise, but I really hate constantly needing to re-up my friendships manually. It's just busywork unless the AI doesn't want to continue.

Well currently DP are really annoying as the AI usually gets ~3 while the human gets maybe 1 or 2 if they have a really good military, otherwise none. So if you ever declare war then suddenly you're at war with your allies as well. You can kinda help if you denounce them, but then it takes time for your allies to turn on your enemy (and sometimes they don't, so you risk that), and then more time for the DP to expire, which is why the length should be decreased. I would gladly take a more strategic, fun game, but have to click a couple more times. I would also adjust the AI willingness to do a DP, as they seem to have way too many, even with their enemies.

 

[Stalker0]

One thing in 6/19 I'm seeing is that the AI is undervaluing luxuries to me. I'm getting 3 GPT offers for them, which is a bit too low. Also they are annoying frequent with the request that I need to keep turning down.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I've tried this a few times, but never managed to pass the vote, sanctions in general are really hard to pass.

Really? I've not had that experience at all. Is it possible you are trying to sanction people who aren't runaways? If you are in the lead, other civs aren't going to want to sanction themselves.

I agree that some diplomatic actions feel too long, but making them too short would create it's own set of problems as well. Perhaps just a minor change would be in order

Friendships feel a little long too. Sanctions could also use like a 50 turn duration.

What would be the point in spending your proposal and votes on a sanction if it expires soon anyway? I think sanctions are working as intended at the moment.

Another thing to consider is spam. The shorter the duration, the more notifications the player needs to pay attention to. Personally I'd love to have an "auto-renew" option for diplomatic agreements where, if both parties have indicated they want to continue the deal, the deal automatically renews. It would only need to be renegotiated if either party unchecked the auto-renew for that deal. Not sure how this would look UI wise, but I really hate constantly needing to re-up my friendships manually.

I agree. I really like having friendships with people, I don't want to have to constantly re-evaluate my diplomatic situation because things keep expiring.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

I would like to see a mechanic where if an agreement expires it continues by default unless, or until, one of the parties chooses to cancel.

I can't remember which game had this system, but I thought it was player friendly.

 

[Gizmoman]

Really? I've not had that experience at all. Is it possible you are trying to sanction people who aren't runaways? If you are in the lead, other civs aren't going to want to sanction themselves.

Mostly yeah, but odds are people have traderoutes running to the runaway and if they do they are going to vote no. At least from my experience.

 

[Recursive]

Re: Sanctions, there was a bug affecting AI voting logic that made them significantly less likely to support it. Should be better in this version.

 

[psparky]

What about if DOF's trump DP's? If honoring a DP would involve declaring war on a friend, nothing happens and the DP remains intact.

 

[Recursive]

What about if DOF's trump DP's? If honoring a DP would involve declaring war on a friend, nothing happens and the DP remains intact.

That might be overly complicated for players to understand, and it greatly weakens the value of DPs.

 

[Gizmoman]

That might be overly complicated for players to understand, and it greatly weakens the value of DPs.

Well, DPs are extremely over-tuned. I see this as one of the few reasonable ways the deal with them without just removing them altogether.

 

[ElliotS]

I mean we could just limit every civ to 1 defensive pact. I do find huge defensive walls obnoxious with no real counter-play, especially because there is no offensive version that allows you to band together to DoW a defensive pact. (Or at least not a good one. AIs tend not to be willing to do join wars against a winning coalition.) If Civs were limited to 1 defensive pact it would also mean players getting defensive pacts from third-wheel AIs would be more likely. (Or it could.)

Seems to solve both problems (Defensive pacts being OP, and player never getting any) pretty elegantly imo.

Maybe even could unlock a 2nd defensive pact slot with cold-war resolution.

 

[kawyua]

one of the game mechanics i have to do to get around defensive pact is reload a save to see when a defensive pact was first formed, then exactly 50 turns later when the pact dissolves i declare war, so i dont have to deal with a certain ai in a war before the ai can renew it. the worst part is that there is no notifications, nor indicator for defensive pacts. So, its really hard to keep track of it.

 

[Vhozite]

+1 to this, in fact I think there should be shorter durations for more Diplo actions. Friendships feel a little long too. Sanctions could also use like a 50 turn duration. It would make diplomacy feel a bit more dynamic

Temporary sanctions would make the resolution way too weak imo. If anything I think Sanctions are too weak as it is. In almost every game I see sanctions are passed against a Civ it’s little more than I minor speed bump unless the target was already floundering.

On defensive pacts, I think the best way to address it is similar to what Elliot says. Limit the number of alliances to 1 when pacts first become available then after that maybe raise the cap based on techs or ideologies.

The mechanic could also do with a notification similar to DoF. Tell us when two civs makes a pact and tell us when it ends. Right now the only way to tell is to “attack” them and check the “are you sure you want to DoW” screen every turn and it’s super tedious.

 

[Carloshooter]

Temporary sanctions would make the resolution way too weak imo. If anything I think Sanctions are too weak as it is. In almost every game I see sanctions are passed against a Civ it’s little more than I minor speed bump unless the target was already floundering.

I think it's more than a speedbump, you get a "tourism cut", economic cut, when you can't trade you can't have a good diplo modifier that can go up to (+40), declarations o war and conquering cities doesn't add so much penalties. If you count the visible and invisible penalties you get a game changing mechanic you can recover from but it is not a speedbump, at least it's my honest opinion. If you make the sanction stronger you can "break" the game by sactioning those who are in the head of the race (buying some votes for example) and being the "only" major State in the world, and just cleaning the Civs in front of you. AHAH Why would you think with the temporary sactions would make it a lot weaker? In your opinion it would be less fun? I just want to know diferent opinions so we can think of a better alternative ahah