Diplomacy/AI intelligence

[Aussie_Lurker]

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".

Sorry Ahriman, but this is where you & I part company on this issue. I am all for having a....translucent diplomacy system-one where you know, generally, how the AI currently feels towards you-& why they generally feel that way towards-but see no gain in having a system where you can effectively peer into the "soul" of the AI leaders (as the visible modifiers would effectively allow you to do). This is especially the case now that flavors are so important. After all, I would rather have to try & figure out that the AI leader has a strong Commerce flavor-because he ceases diplomatic contact on the basis of broken trade deals-than have it displayed as (-3, you broke a trade deal). Such a system adds nothing to either gameplay or realism, as it effectively allows you to manipulate the AI like a puppet on a string, an advantage the AI most certainly does *not* get.

Aussie.

 

[tom2050]

Unfortunately, as Civ continues to head towards the Macro model of Nintendo casual gaming for everyone... they would be hesitant to include such a system which has to make the player use their head that much deciding if the AI is friendly or not. In Civ 6, they will have a popup stating the AI's future intentions ("Transparency Alert! The AI will attack you in 5 turns at this location").

As 2K may say at that time: This allows the player to concentrate on concrete strategy, and not have to be frustrated by guesswork"

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Unfortunately, as Civ continues to head towards the Macro model of Nintendo casual gaming for everyone... they would be hesitant to include such a system which has to make the player use their head that much deciding if the AI is friendly or not. In Civ 6, they will have a popup stating the AI's future intentions ("Transparency Alert! The AI will attack you in 5 turns at this location").

As 2K may say at that time: This allows the player to concentrate on concrete strategy, and not have to be frustrated by guesswork"

Seriously, Tom, if you hate Civ so much, then why exactly do you spend so much time posting on the Civfanatics website?

 

[Thyrwyn]

I have to agree with Aussie Lurker on this one.

Hypothetical example:
Gandhi has told me to stop building up troops along our border, or he'll consider it a declaration of war

Transparent Model: I know that I am at -8 with Gandhi; every 3 units along our border is another -1; I now know that I can put 5 units along our border, and keep the rest of my army one hex further away - OR - I can move my army up start the war. The AI is behavior is entirely under my control.

Semi-opaque Model: I don't know how many units I can safely move up 4? 5? 6? My choice is based solely on my intentions: Do I want war or don't I?

Caveat: the Semi-Opaque Model works if and only if I can make similar demands of the AI.

 

[King Jason]

Plus not to mention the numbers were usually irrelevant anyways... How many times have we all been attacked when monty has had like +10 friendly with us for various reasons. Monty is just a bastard, plain and simple... whether we can see the modifiers or not won't change the fact that he's gonna stuff Jaguars down our throats whether he likes us or not.

I'd just as well not see the numbers... and of course I manipulated them too. People with +6 or so... I didn't view them as friends... I looked at them in such a way to say, "Alright, I can piss this guy off X times before I should worry about him attacking me"... that meant declaring war on them for silly reasons, attacking their allies, w/e. When I could see the numbers, I manipulated the numbers.

I'm fine with the change, personally.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Plus not to mention the numbers were usually irrelevant anyways... How many times have we all been attacked when monty has had like +10 friendly with us for various reasons. Monty is just a bastard, plain and simple... whether we can see the modifiers or not won't change the fact that he's gonna stuff Jaguars down our throats whether he likes us or not.

I'd just as well not see the numbers... and of course I manipulated them too. People with +6 or so... I didn't view them as friends... I looked at them in such a way to say, "Alright, I can piss this guy off X times before I should worry about him attacking me"... that meant declaring war on them for silly reasons, attacking their allies, w/e. When I could see the numbers, I manipulated the numbers.

I'm fine with the change, personally.

Yep, this is *exactly* my point King Jason. Don't get me wrong-I'm glad they showed us the numbers in Civ4, because it *proved* that AI diplomacy could work in a rational fashion. However, it didn't take long before I was ruthlessly exploiting my knowledge-until things got boring for me-after which point I stopped looking at the modifiers at all (except now & again by accident).

Also, Thyrwyn, I agree that the AI & Human player *really* need to be on equal footing in diplomacy-both sides should be able to adjust their tone; if the AI can "redline" certain diplomatic options, then the human player should be able to either (or else have *everything* on the table at all times!); if the AI can't know our exact intentions, then neither should the human player be allowed to know the AI's exact intentions-which means *NO VISIBLE DIPLOMACY MODIFIERS*!

 

[Ramesses]

I suppose in a way, it also closes the gap between the single-player and multiplayer experience. When you can't see numerical modifiers for the AI, you have to deal with them the same way you deal with human players.

Well, theoretically at least. I certainly don't expect the AI to be able to pass a Turing Test in a game with mixed human and AI players, but I do expect diplomacy in general to be a lot more balanced than in IV.

 

[Aramel]

Yep, this is *exactly* my point King Jason. Don't get me wrong-I'm glad they showed us the numbers in Civ4, because it *proved* that AI diplomacy could work in a rational fashion. However, it didn't take long before I was ruthlessly exploiting my knowledge-until things got boring for me-after which point I stopped looking at the modifiers at all (except now & again by accident).

Also, Thyrwyn, I agree that the AI & Human player *really* need to be on equal footing in diplomacy-both sides should be able to adjust their tone; if the AI can "redline" certain diplomatic options, then the human player should be able to either (or else have *everything* on the table at all times!); if the AI can't know our exact intentions, then neither should the human player be allowed to know the AI's exact intentions-which means *NO VISIBLE DIPLOMACY MODIFIERS*!

I always saw redlining as a time saver. It's completely reasonable that there would be some techs the AI doesn't want to trade away under any circumstances, and I don't want to have to waste time thinking I could get a deal if I can't.

I'm not sure what purpose it would serve for the human player though. You can already reject any deal you don't like. What more purpose could it serve? Preventing them from making certain demands? Shouldn't they still get mad at you because you have taken the tech they want off the table entirely, instead of even letting them ask for it?

I don't think every option here needs to be available to the human just because the AI can do it; sometimes the human just doesn't have a use for these things.

Edit: Forgot that tech trading isn't in Civ5, but I think the same principle probably applies.

 

[tom2050]

Seriously, Tom, if you hate Civ so much, then why exactly do you spend so much time posting on the Civfanatics website?

Oh calm down and take a deep breath. Relax... I suppose I should have put a sarcasm emoticon behind the post so that way you would know it wasn't serious.

If you hate on the occasional mischievous post so much, why do you post to them? Sorry though, I'll try to be more sensitive to whatever feelings I may have hurt in the future.

 

[Schuesseled]

Seriously, Tom, if you hate Civ so much, then why exactly do you spend so much time posting on the Civfanatics website?

you can be fanatical about civ, without liking it.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I always saw redlining as a time saver. It's completely reasonable that there would be some techs the AI doesn't want to trade away under any circumstances, and I don't want to have to waste time thinking I could get a deal if I can't.

I'm not sure what purpose it would serve for the human player though. You can already reject any deal you don't like. What more purpose could it serve? Preventing them from making certain demands? Shouldn't they still get mad at you because you have taken the tech they want off the table entirely, instead of even letting them ask for it?

I don't think every option here needs to be available to the human just because the AI can do it; sometimes the human just doesn't have a use for these things.

Edit: Forgot that tech trading isn't in Civ5, but I think the same principle probably applies.

The problem, Aramel, is that rejecting an offered trade deal in Civ4 will make the AI civ mad at you-wheras they don't have to face the same problem when you offer them a trade, because-as you say-you already know what's not up for negotiation. So the purpose of allowing the player to redline is to let the AI know beforehand what stuff isn't even on the table, to prevent them getting angry when they ask for it & don't get it. Does that make sense?

Aussie.

 

[Thyrwyn]

They could just eliminate the diplo penalty for refusing to trade or gift. . .

A bonus for being willing to trade or gift makes more sense, to me anyway. . .

 

[Aramel]

The problem, Aramel, is that rejecting an offered trade deal in Civ4 will make the AI civ mad at you-wheras they don't have to face the same problem when you offer them a trade, because-as you say-you already know what's not up for negotiation. So the purpose of allowing the player to redline is to let the AI know beforehand what stuff isn't even on the table, to prevent them getting angry when they ask for it & don't get it. Does that make sense?

Aussie.

Yeah, I get what you are saying, but then redlining is serving an entirely different purpose for human players than it does for the AI. For the AI, it's to make it clearer what the AI will agree too. For the human, it's to avoid incurring diplomatic penalties. (Although I think in Civ4 the AI only gets mad if you reject a demand; trade deals are just suggestions, and they won't care if you decline them.)

My basic point is that I think it's fair if the AI and the Human have to negotiate based on different rules, because the AI and Human already interact so asymmetrically. That doesn't mean I want the AI to always declare war on the human player, but I think it's fine if they negotiate differently. Many things in diplomacy that make sense for an AI player are just not that important for humans, and vis versa.

 

[Ahriman]

Hypothetical example:
Gandhi has told me to stop building up troops along our border, or he'll consider it a declaration of war

Transparent Model: I know that I am at -8 with Gandhi; every 3 units along our border is another -1; I now know that I can put 5 units along our border, and keep the rest of my army one hex further away - OR - I can move my army up start the war. The AI is behavior is entirely under my control.

Semi-opaque Model: I don't know how many units I can safely move up 4? 5? 6? My choice is based solely on my intentions: Do I want war or don't I?

Caveat: the Semi-Opaque Model works if and only if I can make similar demands of the AI.

This is based on the proposition that you somehow know that war will happen at -10, and that you have supreme knowledge of the details of the system. Its perfectly possible to convey to the player that troops near their border is a big deal/minor deal using numbers without needing to convey that its -1 per 3 units, and only works for units exactly on the border tile, and that war will happen at a particular threshold.

What would be wrong with getting a "your troops are near our borders (-2)" modifier on our diplomacy stats?

The problem just just getting a notification, is that you don't know when it wears off.
If Gandhi says "I note you moving troops near our border" and I back off, if I ever move troops there for the rest of the game am I breaking my promise? How long before it wears off? The simplest way of conveying this is for the issue to last until the numerical modifier disappears.

I understand the argument that if you knew every last detail of the diplomacy system then it would be too easy to game. But there is an intermediate ground where you can still display some numerical detail without removing all uncertainty.

Its a huge problem if there are big penalties for breaking promises, but you can't easily tell whether any particular action would be seen *by the system* as breaking a promise or not.

And, as I've said before, I think requiring human and AI equivalence in a diplomacy system makes no sense as a design goal.

 

[Aramel]

This is based on the proposition that you somehow know that war will happen at -10, and that you have supreme knowledge of the details of the system. Its perfectly possible to convey to the player that troops near their border is a big deal/minor deal using numbers without needing to convey that its -1 per 3 units, and only works for units exactly on the border tile, and that war will happen at a particular threshold.

What would be wrong with getting a "your troops are near our borders (-2)" modifier on our diplomacy stats?

The problem just just getting a notification, is that you don't know when it wears off.
If Gandhi says "I note you moving troops near our border" and I back off, if I ever move troops there for the rest of the game am I breaking my promise? How long before it wears off? The simplest way of conveying this is for the issue to last until the numerical modifier disappears.

I understand the argument that if you knew every last detail of the diplomacy system then it would be too easy to game. But there is an intermediate ground where you can still display some numerical detail without removing all uncertainty.

Its a huge problem if there are big penalties for breaking promises, but you can't easily tell whether any particular action would be seen *by the system* as breaking a promise or not.

And, as I've said before, I think requiring human and AI equivalence in a diplomacy system makes no sense as a design goal.

I don't even think the numbers are really necessary here. If you had a list of all the things that the AI liked and disliked about your civilization, but without any numbers attached, wouldn't that solve most of the problems you mention.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't even think the numbers are really necessary here. If you had a list of all the things that the AI liked and disliked about your civilization, but without any numbers attached, wouldn't that solve most of the problems you mention.

You see, that's all the transparency that I'm looking for. I'll admit that, from an immersion point of view, I'd like it to be conveyed by a proper "person" (i.e. diplomatic advisor) but that's not vital. Either way, as long as you know *why* the AI currently likes/dislikes you, I can't see why you'd need the actual numbers-except to manipulate the AI's behaviour. For example, I go to Germany & find out that they are currently annoyed with me-I ask "Why?" & the advisor function gives me a reason-or list of reasons. In this case, its because I deliberately broke a vital trade agreement for strategic resources. I'll know from this that I might need to step lightly in negotiations for the time being. I can then keep checking in periodically to see if the Germans have stopped being annoyed at me!

 

[Ahriman]

wouldn't that solve most of the problems you mention.

It would solve half of them, but it wouldn't solve the other half; the feeling of intensity.

I need to know which issues really matter, and which don't. If troops near its borders are *really* upsetting the AI, then its worth it for me to do something about it, even if that makes me more vulnerable to invasion from another country. But if its only a minor niggle, then I might not bother.

I need to know if giving the AI a border city they really want will actually have a big bonus or a small bonus in order to evaluate whether or not its worth giving them the city.

I need to know if gifting the AI resources improves their relations continues to improve relations gradually over time, or if I'm wasting my resources.

I need to know if attacking civ A makes everyone else really angry at me, or if they don't much care. Otherwise I don't know whether the diplomatic penalties mean its not worth it.

In short, I need to know how to prioritize my actions in order to actually consider diplomatic factors as part of my overall gameplay strategy. Strategy is all about evaluating tradeoffs; if I invest in buildings now that will give me benefits over the long-term, but will make me more vulnerable to invasion in the short-term. I can't effectively make that strategic decision or any other unless I know at least roughly the costs and benefits of each option.

Having a list of current factors that were affecting relations with a + or - would be something, at bare minimum. But even better if it could distinguish between a big + and a little +.

But it feels like they want to hide even the former from us, and literally have no idea which factors matter and which don't.

 

[need my speed]

Which is very bad, because it entirely removes diplomation. Why bother if you don't know how your actions affect others? When a civilization becomes furious with you, you won't know why. When it becomes friendly, you won't know why. So how can you go from furious to friendly? And how can you maintain your friendly relations? Don't say that you should gift techs and such, because in Civilizations IV, if you had a different religion, nothing would help getting Isabella up to pleased or friendly. Now, you won't know anything, which thus removes diplomation. Which is very bad.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Which is very bad, because it entirely removes diplomation. Why bother if you don't know how your actions affect others? When a civilization becomes furious with you, you won't know why. When it becomes friendly, you won't know why. So how can you go from furious to friendly? And how can you maintain your friendly relations? Don't say that you should gift techs and such, because in Civilizations IV, if you had a different religion, nothing would help getting Isabella up to pleased or friendly. Now, you won't know anything, which thus removes diplomation. Which is very bad.

With all respect, I think you've missed the point with the new diplomatic system, and I'm sure you'll gonna love it! You will know when you hurt other nations interests, they will even tell you to stop it. What you don't know is if they feel it's worth going to war for or not; or perhaps they will even treathen you directly with war if you don't stop behaving so arrogantly towards them. Nothing can be clearer then that, clean words for the money from the AI.

 

[Earthling]

Seriously, Tom, if you hate Civ so much, then why exactly do you spend so much time posting on the Civfanatics website?

Not everyone is a newb or wants the game to be extremely simple as you do, apparently, it doesn't mean hatred of anyone