Diplomacy/AI intelligence

[bjbrains]

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

I don't think telling Aussie he wants the game to be "simple" is going to work. FYI: You still haven't managed to back up your claims that civ 5 is somehow "simplified" (As a whole, obviously some game elements are simplier, some are more complex).

 

[aziantuntija]

As i have allready said in some other thread, i like the new idea they have for the diplomacy system. Showing the exact number about everybodys true feelings isnt really adding anything to the game, it just forces the player to play just like the given info is telling him/her to play.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Somehow, various players think that showing diplomatic modifiers allows us to manipulate the AI and hiding those modifiers takes that manipulation away. However, that's not the case. It has to do with the diplomatic engine, the diplomatic AI behind the conversations that you have with the AI or the modifiers which are shown on the screen. I know that the modifiers in civ4 allowed a player to manipulate the AI, but the diplomatic engine doesn't have to work that way even if numbers are shown.

For instance, if a friendly AI at +10 diplomatic rating (modified Civ4 like model) would declare war on you based on a complicated formula taking into account this diplomatic rating but also its position in the world, its victory aims, the resources it could acquire in a war with you, your relative military strength, other AI's which could be bought into a war with you, both of your military technology levels and various technological breakthroughs which might be about to occur, the border garrisons and border terrain and maybe even more modifiers, then I could see the odds of declaring war within 10 turns be a chance from 0% to 99%. You couldn't rely purely on that simple friendly status or that +10 modifier that no war would occur. It would be a factor, but only one of many. And thus diplomacy wouldn't be very exploitable. You'd have to consider many factors and wouldn't know the exact likeliness of the AI declaring war on you especially since you don't know its victory strategy.

On the other hand, a diplomatic model where the AI would show no diplomatic modifier, but where a big smile on the AI's leader face in diplomatic talks would guarantee that this civilisation would never declare war on you would be a very exploitable model.


Similarly, if gifting the AI a border city of size 5 would grant you a diplomatic plus of +1 to +3 (randomly determined) and gifting it a border city of size 10 would grant you a diplomatic bonus of +2 to +4 (randomly determined), then you wouldn't know the exact results of such actions and couldn't exactly determine the AI's relations towards you. The smaller city might yield a better random diplomatic result than the bigger one.

On the other hand, a diplomatic model where the AI shows no diplomatic modifiers but gifting 100 gold guarantees that the AI's leader face becomes a big smile for 10 turns ensuring no military action against you during that period would be a very exploitable model

For me, showing diplomatic modifiers would be an easy to use value which helps me understand the relative value of various diplomatic actions that I take. It will show me whether the AI prefers 100 gold or a size 2 city. It will show me whether the AI dislikes me closing my borders more or whether it dislikes me trading with some other AI more. It gives a uniform valuation system between all the various diplomatic actions that I take which is easy to see at a glance without long diplomatic talks. I'll no doubt like to see the new animations of the leaders in civ5 at first, but after a few games I'll probably just want to know how they feel about me without a lengthy conversation.

 

[Ahriman]

Endorsed completely.

I don't understand how you're supposed to make a decision about whether making a diplomatic action is worth taking or not (or whether you should take action A or action B) unless you have some idea of the relative consequences of those options.

 

[Yakk]

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*!

Sigh. Redline is just a shortcut for "I will refuse any and all offers involving this".

You are free to get as pissed off as you like, it just skips the "ask and get refused" step.

 

[cccv]

Sigh. Redline is just a shortcut for "I will refuse any and all offers involving this".

You are free to get as pissed off as you like, it just skips the "ask and get refused" step.

Think you missed the point. What he means is the AI can redline, but you can't. So the AI can repeatedly ask you to give them something you'd never give like uranium, and then get more and more pissed at your refusals. If we could do what the AI does we could make it so they wouldn't get to ask and wouldn't get pissy about it. It goes back to the point that they make stupid demands (repeatedly) in IV, so we either have to give away uranium or make an enemy. We'd like our AI not to have such a giant, flaming sense of entitlement this time. We'd like to be on equal footing-- like with the example in my first post: if they get to tell us not to expand then we should get to tell them not to expand, rather than have to apologize to them and watch them do whatever they damn well please expansion-wise.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Think you missed the point. What he means is the AI can redline, but you can't. So the AI can repeatedly ask you to give them something you'd never give like uranium, and then get more and more pissed at your refusals. If we could do what the AI does we could make it so they wouldn't get to ask and wouldn't get pissy about it. It goes back to the point that they make stupid demands (repeatedly) in IV, so we either have to give away uranium or make an enemy. We'd like our AI not to have such a giant, flaming sense of entitlement this time. We'd like to be on equal footing-- like with the example in my first post: if they get to tell us not to expand then we should get to tell them not to expand, rather than have to apologize to them and watch them do whatever they damn well please expansion-wise.

Exactly, cccv. Personally I'd like *NO* Redlining for either side. Everything is *always* on the table for negotiation, whether you're the AI or human, but then with an AI *smart* enough to figure out what is & is not likely to be up for trade.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Somehow, various players think that showing diplomatic modifiers allows us to manipulate the AI and hiding those modifiers takes that manipulation away. However, that's not the case. It has to do with the diplomatic engine, the diplomatic AI behind the conversations that you have with the AI or the modifiers which are shown on the screen. I know that the modifiers in civ4 allowed a player to manipulate the AI, but the diplomatic engine doesn't have to work that way even if numbers are shown.

For instance, if a friendly AI at +10 diplomatic rating (modified Civ4 like model) would declare war on you based on a complicated formula taking into account this diplomatic rating but also its position in the world, its victory aims, the resources it could acquire in a war with you, your relative military strength, other AI's which could be bought into a war with you, both of your military technology levels and various technological breakthroughs which might be about to occur, the border garrisons and border terrain and maybe even more modifiers, then I could see the odds of declaring war within 10 turns be a chance from 0% to 99%. You couldn't rely purely on that simple friendly status or that +10 modifier that no war would occur. It would be a factor, but only one of many. And thus diplomacy wouldn't be very exploitable. You'd have to consider many factors and wouldn't know the exact likeliness of the AI declaring war on you especially since you don't know its victory strategy.

On the other hand, a diplomatic model where the AI would show no diplomatic modifier, but where a big smile on the AI's leader face in diplomatic talks would guarantee that this civilisation would never declare war on you would be a very exploitable model.


Similarly, if gifting the AI a border city of size 5 would grant you a diplomatic plus of +1 to +3 (randomly determined) and gifting it a border city of size 10 would grant you a diplomatic bonus of +2 to +4 (randomly determined), then you wouldn't know the exact results of such actions and couldn't exactly determine the AI's relations towards you. The smaller city might yield a better random diplomatic result than the bigger one.

On the other hand, a diplomatic model where the AI shows no diplomatic modifiers but gifting 100 gold guarantees that the AI's leader face becomes a big smile for 10 turns ensuring no military action against you during that period would be a very exploitable model

For me, showing diplomatic modifiers would be an easy to use value which helps me understand the relative value of various diplomatic actions that I take. It will show me whether the AI prefers 100 gold or a size 2 city. It will show me whether the AI dislikes me closing my borders more or whether it dislikes me trading with some other AI more. It gives a uniform valuation system between all the various diplomatic actions that I take which is easy to see at a glance without long diplomatic talks. I'll no doubt like to see the new animations of the leaders in civ5 at first, but after a few games I'll probably just want to know how they feel about me without a lengthy conversation.

but if the system is as complex as you want it, then those numbers will be largely useless anyway. In my diplomatic relations in Civ4, even when I don't look at my relations I *know* there's a hierarchy of things on the like/dislike list. Obviously going to war against a Civ/going to war with a Civ, is going to almost always be at the top of that list. Religion was always right below it & below that was usually breaking/making trade deals. Refusing trade deals or demands was usually below that, about equal with close borders sparking tensions.

Perhaps again the best approach, short of actual numbers, is for the diplomatic advisor to show you the most *important* diplomatic factor currently at work at the top of the list. This could be a function of both its importance to this AI & how recently the diplomatic action occurred. So, for example, if Napoleon has a Militaristic Flavor, then moving troops up to his borders will probably be the key thing pissing him off-even if you did it awhile ago, & so this will probably remain at the top of the list for a while (in red to indicate its negative impact on relations). However, a commercially oriented Civilization might be more pissed off with you for breaking a trade pact, especially if it happened recently, & would therefore be at the top of their list. It would help even more, of course, if the leaders themselves also *tell* you how they feel about you-& what the primary cause is. I just don't think exact numbers are necessary to convey that information!

 

[seasnake]

I'm hoping your diplo advisor can give you some idea of what your relationship is with a certain civs and the causes of that current attitude.

No numbers, but just "The British are Friendly because 1) you have aided them in war and 2) you have researched together many times." or "The Americans are cautious because 1) they are worried about the army on our borders and 2) you keep buying land near to their lands and 3) you keep making arrogant demands of Geneva, one of their allies." This kind of general information can give you an idea of what behaviors are bothering the AI but don't have a "give him Oil for +3 bonus to relations" feel.

The problem with civ is you should have the ability to ask of the AI anything it can ask of you. For example, if you see a large army near your borders, you should be able to say "move your troops away from me!" and if they say sorry and do it, that's a sign of good faith. If they keep them their, then you know. Anything the AI can ask of the player, the player should be able to ask of the AI.

Finally, there should be a lot of options. You should be able to demand military access, trade rights, remove your troops, stop settling aggressively, leave Singapore alone or else, etc. Like in EU3, you need the ability to ask for several different things and also THEY NEED CAUSUS BELLI! Declaring war should have a purpose, not just be "you're head would look good on the end of a pole!" You should be able to say "You've refused to move your troops, this means war!" or "You keep attacking our ally, this means war!" and you fight until some limited objective is met.

Wars for cause would have less negative impacts than wars for no reason at all on both your citizens' happiness, your peace talks with the enemy, and in the international community.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think telling Aussie he wants the game to be "simple" is going to work. FYI: You still haven't managed to back up your claims that civ 5 is somehow "simplified" (As a whole, obviously some game elements are simplier, some are more complex).

Don't worry BJ-sticks & stones & all that . I do find it hilarious, though, how Earthling (join date 2008) accuses me (join date 2003-& Apolyton in 1999) as being a "Newb". I've been playing Civilization since it was an Avalon Hill Board Game, & have been playing the computer version of the game since around 1991/92. I've seen the game come a long way in those-almost-twenty years, & the one thing I most certainly wouldn't accuse the designers of is "simplifying" or "dumbing down" the franchise. I remember the original game, with its pixels & its extremely limited gameplay (conquest was the only victory condition, all the civs were effectively the same-except for names, you could only trade techs & you could only build mines & farms) & all units could attack every other unit in the game (I remember losing a stealth bomber to a phalanx once ), Civ2 added a few refinements (like air units not being attackable by ground units) but was mostly a re-hash of Civ1 with better graphics. Civ3 was the real *big* step forward, with resources, enhanced diplomacy, culture, Golden Ages, armies, ranged units, differentiation of Civs (with unique units & Civ Traits). Unfortunately the loss of decent espionage, the retention of the very binary Governments & a boring promotion system made this version fall a bit flat for me (after playing SMAC for so long). Civ4 was definitely the pinnacle of the genre-with a more rational AI, Civics, Promotions, Unique Buildings, Religion, Multiple Improvement types, Great People, Espionage, Specialists & an improved combat system. Now I don't know what Civ5 will offer but, from what I've heard, it certainly doesn't sound like they're simplifying it-with borders which move more organically, Social Policies, City-States, less transparent diplomacy & 1upt combat. Now if you can show me *proof* of how they're "simplifying" the game, Earthling, I'd be interested to hear it. However, simply repeating the claim ad infinitum & abusing those who disagree with you is not the basis for a good argument!

Aussie.

 

[robcheng]

As i have allready said in some other thread, i like the new idea they have for the diplomacy system. Showing the exact number about everybodys true feelings isnt really adding anything to the game, it just forces the player to play just like the given info is telling him/her to play.

There's also the question of bluster and bluffing -- it might be more interesting to have to learn that a leader A only gives you one polite warning before declaring war, while leader B tends not to follow up on threats at all (especially if these leader characteristics could change from game to game). If the system was totally transparent with just numbers, this aspect of the game couldn't exist (unless the numbers lied, which would be even worse IMO).

That doesn't mean it has to be 100% a mystery. I agree that other leaders should give you an indication of what they want/like during diplo, and that your diplo advisor and/or diplo log should give you a general indication of what you are doing/have done to make other leaders happy/angry.

For intensity, it might be sufficient just to have the list be in order of importance, so if you are trying to repair relations, you start at the top of the list and move down. If the game gives you some level of feedback that these actions are making a difference ("sire, we have received a letter from Empress Catherine congratulating us for our honorable movement of troops away from the Russian border") that would probably be enough. I don't need to see the numbers myself.

 

[Aramel]

Exactly, cccv. Personally I'd like *NO* Redlining for either side. Everything is *always* on the table for negotiation, whether you're the AI or human, but then with an AI *smart* enough to figure out what is & is not likely to be up for trade.

Why should everything always be on the table in a negotiation. Let's say the AI doesn't trust you and doesn't want to open borders with you, under any circumstances. That's a fair stance for them to take, right? A human player could do the same.

So what is accomplished then by making "open borders" white instead of red, when every deal including it will always be rejected. Redlining is actually more transparency, it is letting the human know that the AI will always reject this sort of deal. It is not an advantage for the AI, it is a convenience for the player. It is not some great and wonderful feature being unfairly withheld from human players.

If you don't like how the AI makes demands, complain about how they make demands. But redlining is entirely unrelated.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The complaint is that the human player should also have the ability to redline. This would also be a convenience to the player, no?

 

[Aramel]

The complaint is that the human player should also have the ability to redline. This would also be a convenience to the player, no?

No, that would also be pointless. As I understand it the only reason people want to be able to redline is to be able to avoid the diplomatic penalties that come from rejecting a demand. Let us leave aside the fact that the dominant strategy then would be simply to redline all your resources and diplomatic options, only changing them right before you make a deal, so as to never incur any diplomatic penalties at all!

But even if such a system were implemented, why should the AI be less mad at you because, instead of allowing them to ask you for a resource, you have take that resource off the table entirely? As a human player, I know I get mad at Napoleon when I go to open borders with him and see it is redlined, but somehow if the situation is reversed Napoleon should feel much better about me because I have redlined that agreement instead of allowing him to ask? If redlining were to be implemented for humans, it would have to mean that anytime the AI would ask for something the player has redlined, that AI treats it as an automatic rejection and gets mad anyway. At that point, redlining is almost useless to the human player; it is merely removing the hassle of him clicking "reject" every time the AI pops up with a demand.

But oh no, the AI has it, so that means we must have it too. Never mind that it is useless to us. They have it, which means that we want it.

 

[Schuesseled]

i want to redline to make the ai realise its done wrong, i want him coming to my next meeting with him with an attitude check, and a small gift to repair the damge caused.

 

[Aramel]

i want to redline to make the ai realise its done wrong, i want him coming to my next meeting with him with an attitude check, and a small gift to repair the damge caused.

Well then what you actually want is some feature that will let the AI know you are mad at them, not redlining per se. Redlining is not going to tell the AI you are mad at them unless the designers specifically code it to recognize that, and at that point it would be far simpler for them to just stick an "I am mad at you" button than to bother with redlining.

 

[Ramesses]

No, that would also be pointless. As I understand it the only reason people want to be able to redline is to be able to avoid the diplomatic penalties that come from rejecting a demand. Let us leave aside the fact that the dominant strategy then would be simply to redline all your resources and diplomatic options, only changing them right before you make a deal, so as to never incur any diplomatic penalties at all!

You argue as though such problems would be impossible to work around. Obviously, by restricting the control you have on redlining, it could become a viable mechanic.

But even if such a system were implemented, why should the AI be less mad at you because, instead of allowing them to ask you for a resource, you have take that resource off the table entirely. As a human player, I know I get mad at Napoleon when I go to open borders with him and see it is redlined, but somehow if the situation is reversed Napoleon should feel much better about me because I have redlined that agreement instead of allowing him to ask?

Very bad example. Open Borders is always a mutual deal, never something you can demand for no compensation. The whole idea is to prevent the AI from demanding that you part with your Uranium for nothing more than the promise of not being attacked for 10 turns.

And anyway, the thing about redlining for AI is that, when they do it, they also attach a reason specifically stating why not. You, however, are not given the option to elaborate on your rejection. All of your rejections are, in essence treated as the human player equivalent of saying "We just don't like you enough." You should be able to tell the AI that you're not interested in trading the item with anybody (which sends that message to all AI), or that you want to wait before trading it. Where the problem truly lies is that, not only can you not block the AI from spamming you with demands, but every rejection is treated as a personal affront to them.

If redlining were to be implemented for humans, it would have to mean that anytime the AI would ask for something the player has redlined, that AI treats it as an automatic rejection and gets mad anyway. At that point, redlining is almost useless to the human player; it is merely removing the hassle of him clicking "reject" every time the AI pops up with a demand.

And this is a completely illegitimate reason? Reducing hassle and speeding up gameplay?

But oh no, the AI has it, so that means we must have it too. Never mind that it is useless to us. They have it, which means that we want it.

And the award for "completely missing the point" goes to...

 

[Aramel]

Again, most of the complaints about redlining seem to actually be about AI demands. If you have a problem with AI demands, that is fine, but that is no reason why redlining should be jury-hacked for human players in order to fix the problem. Is there any complaint about redlining that doesn't boil down to either "the demand system is broken" or "if the AI has something humans must have it too"?

 

[cccv]

Again, most of the complaints about redlining seem to actually be about AI demands. If you have a problem with AI demands, that is fine, but that is no reason why redlining should be jury-hacked for human players in order to fix the problem.

Umm, why not? It would help fix the problem.

 

[Aramel]

Umm, why not? It would help fix the problem.

No, it wouldn't.

why should the AI be less mad at you because, instead of allowing them to ask you for a resource, you have take that resource off the table entirely? As a human player, I know I get mad at Napoleon when I go to open borders with him and see it is redlined, but somehow if the situation is reversed Napoleon should feel much better about me because I have redlined that agreement instead of allowing him to ask?

Why should taking diplomatic options off the table benefit you diplomatically? It makes no sense.

Redlining was never designed with any intention of helping the human player avoid demands. Why should it be hijacked to fix an entirely unrelated problem? It is like saying we should give shopping carts to paraplegic people so they can get around easier.