Diplomacy/AI intelligence

[cccv]

I don't think there's a thread for it, though I know I've seen it discussed.

So, apparently you can't see the +2, -3 etc attached to another civ's feelings toward you. Some people have a problem with that, others not so much.

What the devs are claiming is that, although you don't see the math, you get a pretty good indication of someone's attitude.

The example used: if you expand aggressively, a civ will tell you to knock it off. You can say "screw you," or you can apologize. If you do the former, they will not like you. If you do the latter but still expand anyway, you'll be known to the world as a liar.

ok, sounding fine so far. I'm not overly concerned about the other civ's feelings being a complete "mystery." What does concern me is, no matter how human-like the devs claim the AI will be, I still won't be able to have rational conversations with it and find out what exactly they mean versus what I think they mean.

Imagine the scenario above. Let's say I stammer out an apology. Does this mean I can't expand toward them ever again, or does it mean I have to wait a certain amount of time, and if so, how much time?

Scenario 1 which I'm dreading-- I apologize and this means I can no longer expand towards them without pissing them off, ever. I now have to sit helplessly as they gobble up all the land between us, or be branded a "liar." I've put up with too many unreasonable "I can do anything I want but you can't" AIs not to be worried about this.

Scenario 2-- I'm allowed to expand, but not as fast. Will I know when it's ok again? If not, I could wait 10 turns and think it's entirely reasonable to take a tile close to me, and then suddenly I'm a liar without knowing it or thinking I did anything wrong.

Scenario 3-- I can try to expand and an advisor will pop up and say "you can do that, but you'll make people angry" if not enough time has passed. At least I'm not blindly guessing now, but I still have to keep trying to expand every turn until I get the go-ahead, which would be irritating.

Scenario 4-- best case scenario. They tell me up front that apologizing means waiting, say, 15 turns. And that's ok, except now I have to keep track of 15 turns somehow (I can't count the number of times in CivIV I agreed to give someone resources and didn't know when 10 turns was up).

tl;dr version: Can the AI be lifelike enough to compensate for not being transparent? Will gameplay be hampered because we're blind to certain parts of diplomacy? Will this be another game of stupid and unreasonable AI demands, only this time we won't even know how we pissed them off (rather than how the AI was unreasonable in IV, but at least we knew we were about to get a -1 when we didn't convert to a religion only one of our cities followed)?

 

[Tylerryan79]

I can't answer any of your questions, but I think that they will only warn you if your truly settling aggressively. If they can code it right. So if you cross a continent to block them off they may not like that(would you?), and if you settle right ontop of them, or if your spamming cities. Also I read somewhere that you can make an enemy for the whole game. So if you play unfair or like a db your gonna have to deal with some pissed off civs.

The devs said they wanted mystery, so you neverreally know what the ai is up to, beyond subtle hints from body language and probably tone of voice. I doubt it will tell us, wait 10 turns, then settle right next to me. If you do settle aggressively and stop and apologize, then whenever do it anyways, your a liar, and everyone knows, and they won't forget it.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Sorry for double post, I think they would have to warn you each time, so you don't accidently piss them off. Cause you may say sorry, then later settle a new spot somewhere else, but not know they don't like it, then everyone thinks your a liar. So unless they tell you each time, and you can say sorry again or do it, then there will be problems.

 

[cccv]

Yeah, see, that's why I'm wondering. Because if we don't get fair warning (real fair warning, not just assumptions the computer makes about what "we'll slow down" means) it'd be way too easy to piss people off by accident.

 

[Schuesseled]

They've said in an interview that youll have war from saying screw you, and everyone will think your a liar if you break your promise later. What i want, is the ability to make these demands on them. I want to be able to say oi, stop settling or placing troops on my border. And have penalities for them if they apologise then go ahead regardless.

 

[Ahriman]

This kind of thing is exactly the problem with making diplomacy opaque; you no longer get direct feedback on which actions actually affect the AI players. So you're left in a fog of uncertainty, unable to make strategic decisions because you don't know the impacts of your actions.

 

[BobDole]

This kind of thing is exactly the problem with making diplomacy opaque; you no longer get direct feedback on which actions actually affect the AI players. So you're left in a fog of uncertainty, unable to make strategic decisions because you don't know the impacts of your actions.

I think you'll still get feedback if you piss them off seeing how they'll be communicating with you if you do something that annoys them (e.x., use cities to blatantly block them off from territory), you just won't get a bunch of easy to calculate numbers or a description of the relationship like "Friendly" or "Annoyed" so that diplomacy isn't so easily manipulated. It's not going to be completely random or something.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Good thread, very good first post. The example given about expansion directly shows the gameplay consequences of an AI which gives you vague threats. While it may sound attractive to have an unpredictable AI, the gameplay consequences can be annoying.

I don't want a predictable AI, but I do want to know how my actions will affect one specific AI and my reputation amongst the AI's in general. So if I agree not to expand towards a certain AI (which is a vague promise in itself), then I somehow need to know whether claiming a certain tile after say 12 turns somewhere in the neighbourhood of that AI will brand me a liar with the other AI's. If the AI expands after the deal, may I also not claim tiles in the neighbourhood of its newly claimed lands? Was that part of the deal? In the real world, this would have to do with public relations towards the rest of the world and the exact limitations the deal (stipulated in a large formal document), but in this game, there's a hidden formula which calculates this. I don't have to know the exact formula, but I do need to have an idea about the PR consequences with the rest of the world when I claim a certain tile after a certain amount of time.

Personally, I'd prefer a system where I could see the unpredictable results. For instance if I try to claim a certain tile after a deal with the Germans that I wouldn't expand, I'd get a mouseover showing:
- 3 to 5 relations with Germans, branded deal breaker, possible war
low odds, -1 relations with French
low odds, -1 relations with English
very low odds, -1 relations with Poles

If I'd try a few turns later, the values would have changed.

-1 to 3 relation with Germans, branded deal breaker
very low odds, -1 relations with the French

But that's not going to happen. It's against the design philosophy of this version of civ. It's hard to create a gameplay model of diplomacy which is both hidden to the player and still allows the player to make tactically sound decisions regarding diplomacy. It's very easy to create an AI that reacts in a manner totally unexpected by the player and annoying the player, that has been done in many games. The design philosophy is not going to change, so I'm just hoping for the best.

 

[need my speed]

I completely agree with Roland Johansen (but only because he comes from the Netherlands), and I would like a system like that as well. Or at least, an AI which shows how your actions affect it and how it feels about you. Not some vague things like in Civilizations 3, where at one moment the AI was gracious, and then it suddenly was furious or annoyed. I never could make friends there (yeah...).

Also note that Montezuma and the like still attack you if they think it's in their best interest, even if they are pleased with you. And Catherine can be bribed to attack you even if she is friendly.

 

[cccv]

They've said in an interview that youll have war from saying screw you, and everyone will think your a liar if you break your promise later. What i want, is the ability to make these demands on them. I want to be able to say oi, stop settling or placing troops on my border. And have penalities for them if they apologise then go ahead regardless.

Yeah, exactly. I've had enough of other civs making stupid demands that force me to make enemies of them, yet when they're doing the same thing they asked me not to do, I can do sweet crap all about it (diplomatically). Like scenario 1 where my hands are now tied, yet they can do anything they want expansion-wise. I'd want to be able to tell them to knock it off too, if I don't get to expand toward them. In IV I didn't get the sense that the other civs cared about how I felt about them. For example, they were apparently free to make "arrogant demands" every turn and think everything was fine between us, but if I did that to them they'd become unhappy. They cared about how they felt toward me, but not the other way around.

Anyway, scenario 1 is the worst case scenario, I don't expect V to be that annoying. I'm just wondering if it's even possible to make an AI good enough that there's not some annoyance, and how bad will that annoyance have to be.

I also very much like Roland's idea.

 

[esemjay]

It would be nice if it kept you in the dark, and espionage points worked to make things more obvious what a civ's attitude is and why it feels that way.

 

[Schuesseled]

no espionage

@cccv

exactly, bloody AI treats me like trash, and thinks they can just get away with it!

Sanction!!!!

 

[Mercade]

My problem with hiding the numbers is that they also served as a good reminder when playing a game on a large/huge map with many opponents over a period of weeks. Two weeks down the road I probably forgot which deals I got with whom, or gave gifts to, or rejected demands from. Also, the subtle changes in how a leader looks at you aren't always as clear as you'd want them to be. Isabella always looks displeased, but just how displeased is she really?

What I would also like in diplomacy is that there's a way to make amends. Now if you raze a city in 3500 BC they still hold it against you at 1500 AD.

 

[Esckey]

I just hope that this time around every modifier that the AI applies to you(the human) will also be applied to the other AIs. Tired of watching AI being best friends with another AI that has been burning down their cities left and right

 

[Earthling]

Smaller, shorter, simpler games, that's the civ 5 design philosophy.

 

[bjbrains]

Smaller, shorter, simpler games, that's the civ 5 design philosophy.

Where did that come from? If you actually listen to the Firaxians talk, it's the opposite. Just look at the combat system. That is not going to lead to any of those things. Same with, well, any game element (That we know of at the moment).

 

[tom2050]

Earthling is correct. 5 is not showing more complexity, micro-management, and long-drawn out games like 2, 3, and even 4 were more commonly known for. That's where it comes from. Combat using hexes does not equal more complex. The combat model may be more complex, but they will not transfer that complexity to the UI or to the player.

Furthermore, they have stated that diplomacy will be very familiar to how it was in 4. So don't expect much to change in Diplo other than the graphics.

 

[bjbrains]

Earthling is correct. 5 is not showing more complexity, micro-management, and long-drawn out games like 2, 3, and even 4 were more commonly known for. That's where it comes from. Combat using hexes does not equal more complex. The combat model may be more complex, but they will not transfer that complexity to the UI or to the player.

Furthermore, they have stated that diplomacy will be very familiar to how it was in 4. So don't expect much to change in Diplo other than the graphics.

Unless you've gone and played Civ 5 somewhere, I don't think anyone can comment on how long games will take. Same thing with the complexity, but the change to civics, resources, and combat *will* add complex decisions to players. I don't get how you can say that complex, tactical combat won't change how you play. In Civ 4, combat basically just means taking your unit mass and throwing it at the enemy. In Civ 5, you'll have to plan battle lines, how the terrain will influence your line of attack, and manage ranged units/flanking attacks. That's *real* complexity there. Also, they've already talked about major changes to how the A.I behaves, mainly making it more "rational" and aware of your actions.

 

[tom2050]

Overall, Civ 5 continues to head towards Macro-Management. This is just fact. If they were adding more micro into the game, these forums would be exploding with complaints against that.

Civ 5 won't be complex combat like that game they 'took it from' (they didn't even make it themselves); because Civ 5 is not a combat game.

It will have more tactical options, sure. BTW, I'm not a huge 4 fan, but Civ 4 wasn't throwing troops at the enemy either. 4 has it's own tactics of a different style (it wasn't WW1 combat style).

Ranged units (Civ 3), Flanking (Civ 4 bonus-like), and Front troops to protect. There will be a couple best ways to use these.They are all Transformers (more than meets the eye) and can transform into boats; that will add some odd tactics into the game with all the other good tactical gameplay.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Yes the UI is simple looking, but it's been said you can turn on options to make it more complex/more info available. Also I dont think the game will be simple, unless you want it to. They said they are doing a lot of things to make it so a casual gamer can come and play without knowing anything about the game. In this case the player will most likely play a very bland game to our standards, however to them it may seem normal/fun. As the player understands more and more, it will become very complex. I think this game just has the feel of civ rev, but under the hood it's still civilization we all know and love.

On topic- I would absolutely LOVE it if we could call the AI out on BS they do, such as when the settle too close, stack troops near me ect. They would have to make the ai know that it is wrong, and then tell it to do it anyways, so then I have the option to call them on it. The. The ai would have to be coded to say sorry and stop, or say sorry and continue, knowing I may declare war, or just say FU and do it anyways. I don't think we will be able to do this then, seems like too much work to code and for it to work.
They have said ai will be better at settling, so hopefully that's true.