ZimbuTheMonkey
King
That makes me cringe every time I see it and I see it more often than I would expect.
Diplomacy/AI intelligence
- Thread starter cccv
- Start date
That makes me cringe every time I see it and I see it more often than I would expect.
astrognash
TXT_KEY_CUSTOM_USER_TITLE
![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
Wallawalla, Washington. Wallaby. Wallace. Walla. 
Would you prefer Viola?
On topic:
I would very much like it if the war I declared on Elizabeth back in 3000 BC is not still affecting our relationship in 2000 AD. That would be like Britain being mad at Italy today because Ancient Rome conquered England.
Yes, it really is annoying when some modifiers never go away. Some did, but not all. It was especially annoying since it was impossible not to piss someone off every turn. Every damn turn, like I mentioned before, someone was making a stupid demand I'd have to refuse. Then you can't trade with anyone without making someone else mad, and God forbid you went to war. In fact, in every game I played, any war I declared was for the long haul. I didn't care if my cities were crap due to war weariness, I wasn't stopping until I found every last stupid city, otherwise I'd have to declare war a second time and get the rest of the world even madder.
The funny thing is, they removed religion because it "skewed" diplomacy, but for me religion was the only thing keeping diplomacy in check. Everyone would have always hated me unless I had a nice +8 religion modifier with some civs to balance things out.
So since they had to go and take religion out, the diplomacy had better be a vast improvement, because I really don't want my choices to be having every civ out to kill me or giving away all my techs, resources, and money, and even then still being forced to make one person mad by not going to war, or make the other person (and all his friends) mad by going to war. They keep talking about how much they focused on the diplomacy and it better have paid off, but then that brings us back to the question of whether or not AI even can work so well as to avoid these pitfalls.
The funny thing is, they removed religion because it "skewed" diplomacy, but for me religion was the only thing keeping diplomacy in check. Everyone would have always hated me unless I had a nice +8 religion modifier with some civs to balance things out.
So since they had to go and take religion out, the diplomacy had better be a vast improvement, because I really don't want my choices to be having every civ out to kill me or giving away all my techs, resources, and money, and even then still being forced to make one person mad by not going to war, or make the other person (and all his friends) mad by going to war. They keep talking about how much they focused on the diplomacy and it better have paid off, but then that brings us back to the question of whether or not AI even can work so well as to avoid these pitfalls.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Yes, you've hit the nail right on the head-a more dynamic AI interface would be much better. If someone is my friend &/or is much less powerful than me, then I'd expect them to be much more polite to me-couching requests as a "favor between friends" or even outright begging, rather than as a demand. I'd also expect a positive response to such requests to have a much bigger impact on diplomatic relations than if I'd responded positively to someone of equal/greater power or someone I was only neutral towards-just as I'd expect a negative response to have little long-term impact on relations (after all, they're just 'asking a favor' of me).
On the other side of the ledger, I almost expect people who dislike me &/or are much more powerful than me to couch their requests more as demands-& have a positive response needed simply not to cause relations to sour still further (though a positive response should have some long-term positive benefit, unless they *really* hate you
).
Not only that, but how you treat requests/demands should impact on 3rd party relations as well. If you frequently accept REQUESTS from weaker nations, then this should lead to positive relations with other, more powerful civs (unless they *really* hate the weak civ in question). If you frequently refuse the DEMANDS from more Powerful nations, then other civs might start to distance themselves from you, as you're a danger to be friends with. Though that nation's enemies might come to like you EVEN MORE, because you're showing a bit of Gumption!
Which of course is another issue-RESPECT. I think there needs to be a differentiation in the AI logic between LIKING another Civ & RESPECTING another Civ. A civ might trade with a civ they hate simply because they RESPECT them.
Of course, as it is for the AI, so it should be for the human. The human should be able to couch requests as anything from pleas to demands, & this should effect the likelihood of a positive response.
Anyway, hope that makes sense.
Aussie.
On the other side of the ledger, I almost expect people who dislike me &/or are much more powerful than me to couch their requests more as demands-& have a positive response needed simply not to cause relations to sour still further (though a positive response should have some long-term positive benefit, unless they *really* hate you
).Not only that, but how you treat requests/demands should impact on 3rd party relations as well. If you frequently accept REQUESTS from weaker nations, then this should lead to positive relations with other, more powerful civs (unless they *really* hate the weak civ in question). If you frequently refuse the DEMANDS from more Powerful nations, then other civs might start to distance themselves from you, as you're a danger to be friends with
. Though that nation's enemies might come to like you EVEN MORE, because you're showing a bit of Gumption!Which of course is another issue-RESPECT. I think there needs to be a differentiation in the AI logic between LIKING another Civ & RESPECTING another Civ. A civ might trade with a civ they hate simply because they RESPECT them.
Of course, as it is for the AI, so it should be for the human. The human should be able to couch requests as anything from pleas to demands, & this should effect the likelihood of a positive response.
Anyway, hope that makes sense.
Aussie.
I'm against espionage helping clear up diplomacy just on the principle that I don't want espionage in the game (it's not now, but an interview hinted that it could be included later). One of the reasons I never got BtS is because I had 0 interest in espionage, and I'd turn it off anyway. I know I'm just one person, but I think it's a valid point that something that can be turned off shouldn't play that vital of a role.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
So, if I had my wish list as regards diplomacy/AI, it would probably contain the following:
1) The ability of human/AI to "set their tone" in negotiations (from Wheedling through to Threatening).
2) A separation out of Like & Respect into different categories.
3) The ability to exclude things from the diplomacy table altogether (assuming the AI can still do that, like they could in Civ4).
4) Having your relations with 1 civ bleed over into your relations with others.
5) Assuming Espionage gets reintroduced later down the track (in an expansion), then the ability to use espionage to determine *exactly* how another civ feels towards you.
Aussie.
1) The ability of human/AI to "set their tone" in negotiations (from Wheedling through to Threatening).
2) A separation out of Like & Respect into different categories.
3) The ability to exclude things from the diplomacy table altogether (assuming the AI can still do that, like they could in Civ4).
4) Having your relations with 1 civ bleed over into your relations with others.
5) Assuming Espionage gets reintroduced later down the track (in an expansion), then the ability to use espionage to determine *exactly* how another civ feels towards you.
Aussie.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
All you had to do was build one spy for each city and tell them to defend. Then you don't have to worry about it, you let your espionage build up giving up you info, whilst they waste theres on blowing up farms.
Ahriman
Tyrant
In real life diplomacy you are *not* adrift in a fog of uncertainty. In real life, you have diplomats having regular conversations with diplomats from other factions. You know what their concerns are, what their main demands are, which things are pissing them off and how much, and which things they're no longer worried about. You read their domestic media; you know when they're trying to build their population up towards war, and to whom. You might even have an intelligence service and spies leaking you info.
If anything, real world leaders knew far more about diplomacy than the player in Civ4 did.
How many wars have there ever been that were a surprise to the participants?
[Note; pearl harbor attack was a surprise, but war with Japan was not - it was expected as a high probability event following the oil embargo.]
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
You see, Ahriman, though I'm not really for having a return of visible modifiers, I *do* see your point. Aside from a good diplomatic AI, we also *need* a good, in-game diplomatic advisor whose job it is to know-& remind you, the player-of how the AI leader is feeling towards you, &-at the least-what the most recent causes of those feelings are. So, if you've been abusing your border sharing agreements with China-in spite of saying you wouldn't-then your diplomatic advisor should be there saying "Empress Zu is extremely annoyed & distrustful with you over your recent border incursions. After your recent duplicity in these matters, it may be hard to mollify her, but an offer to return most of the land you've taken might help". Of course, it need not be that detailed & intricate-just as long as the basic information is conveyed-namely anger & distrust & the reason why! This, I feel, removes the exploitation factor of visible modifiers whilst avoiding completely opaque diplomatic relations-which would simply return us to many of the worse elements of Civ3 IMHO!
Aussie.
Aussie.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
For the record, Ahriman, there is a school of thought these days that suggests the US President *knew* that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming-which is why all the Aircraft Carriers were out on maneuvers the day the attack hit (the word is that the US had already broken Japan's military code). The battleships that got destroyed that day were already obsolete, & the President was apparently looking for an excuse to commit 100% to a war with the Axis Powers.
However, I'd say that WWI is a good example of how a simply, local conflict quickly turned into a World War before anyone really realized it was happening. Which is not, of course, to say that your point isn't incorrect!
Aussie.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Here's my problem; in-game display of diplomatic modifier numbers are by far the simplest and most efficient way of conveying this information. Want to convey that me settling near them has made them really angry? Display a -3 modifier. Want to convey that me settling near them a while ago made them a little angry, but they're getting over it? Display a -1 modifier.
Much easier than trying to have an advisor issue you text "reminders".
Eh. Sounds a bit conspiracy theoryish. If they knew the attack was coming and needed the cassus belli, then they could have allowed the attack to occur but prepped the base, so aircraft weren't all destroyed on the ground.
It would have been a *huge* gamble to make. What if the Japanese attack had attacked the oil supply dump? The US navy in the Pacific would have been hamstrung for months.
Sure, but again World war 1 wasn't really a surprise. Germany had been planning an invasion for a decade. There was a huge naval arms race. There was an intensive buildup of diplomatic alliances. Everyone knew that war was likely, and they knew the implications of the alliances. Germany knew that invading France would trigger war with Russia, they just thought that they'd be able to gain a quick victory in time to rush their armies back across to the eastern front.
The scale of the war and ferocity was a surprise (everyone thought they could win quickly), but the outbreak really wasn't.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
That is a bit stupid though, Germany was sucked in the war because they had a defensive pact (yeah...) with the Ottomans (right?). Yeah, they were planning to invade France and such, but I don't see why Germany was blamed for the first world war.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Eh? No. Please recheck your history. Austria invades Serbia. This causes Russia to mobilize, which caused Germany to mobilize and declare war on Russia. Which meant that Germany invaded France as part of the war plan (and Russia and France were allies).
Austria invaded Serbia, and then Germany invaded France. Germany gets plenty of blame.
Nothing to do with Ottomans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_1#Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Yeah sorry, replace Ottomans with Austria.
So, Austria invades Serbia because they weren't allowed to search in Serbia for terrorists.
Russia mobilizes to help Serbia. France is an ally with Russia, Germany with Austria. Thus it is logical that Germany invades France, both for diplomatic reasons and strategic reasons.
Either Serbia or Austria should have been blamed for the war, not Germany, in my opinion.
So, Austria invades Serbia because they weren't allowed to search in Serbia for terrorists.
Russia mobilizes to help Serbia. France is an ally with Russia, Germany with Austria. Thus it is logical that Germany invades France, both for diplomatic reasons and strategic reasons.
Either Serbia or Austria should have been blamed for the war, not Germany, in my opinion.
epicivfreak
Prince
And there you go. I don't see how anyone can logically disagree with this. Fix the broken civ4 system, simple as that.
Which brings me to, why take religion out of the game? You (Shafer) were unhappy with the way religion held too much sway in diplomacy...
Guess what, you could have simply reduced that -8 to a -2 and there you go, lesser effect of religion on diplomacy. Man I'm a genius.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Yeah, you are. But only because I agree with you.
And there you go. I don't see how anyone can logically disagree with this. Fix the broken civ4 system, simple as that.
Which brings me to, why take religion out of the game? You (Shafer) were unhappy with the way religion held too much sway in diplomacy...
Guess what, you could have simply reduced that -8 to a -2 and there you go, lesser effect of religion on diplomacy. Man I'm a genius.
That's what I was wondering most of the time, until an interview pointed out that, without a huge effect on diplomacy, religion didn't really do anything. Other than the big gold bonus from building a shrine or whatever it was called, I suppose that was true. Religion is a top interest of mine and I loved the race to founding them and, if I could, mongering them. I'm going to miss it. But it was really only good for diplomacy, the gold bonus, and culture (which is now also going to be changed). I have to agree in the end that there's no reason to have it unless they can think of a use for it.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
there is an even more complicated reason for why Britain joined WW1, but i honestly can't remember it, it inlove another 3 or 4 countries and pacts that werent mentioned, and sounded pretty damn silly.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Britain had guaranteed the integrity of Belgium under the Treaty of London.
Similar threads
