Diplomacy basics, please

[saraid]

@Rittmeyer,

I can see a problem where Darius was being stupid and didn't do the obvious thing to secure a Domination victory. My gut says that there's a bug in the AI decision algorithms related to continents: some kind of assumption that a civ should focus on their own continent.

But w.r.t. victory, it makes sense to me. Darius was (intentionally) throwing away a cultural and diplomatic victory in favor of a domination or technological one. You (somewhat) threw away the cultural victory, but you kept the diplomatic option open. That difference of decision cost Darius and won you the game. In fact, the way liberation is designed, it seems to be purposed as a counterweight to domination: you don't have to beat the huge monster civ, you just have to liberate a couple city-states to get an extra vote or two, or protect the remaining free ones from capture.

Also, it sounds like Darius did not even consider building a fleet to protect an embarked army to your continent. If you got a strong naval presence first, I think you could have prevented Darius from getting to you if he tried anyways.

So yeah, the AI moves were flat-out dumb, but I don't think it would have turned out much differently. And I don't think the end was a bad ending.

 

[Magil]

@Rittmeyer,

I can see a problem where Darius was being stupid and didn't do the obvious thing to secure a Domination victory. My gut says that there's a bug in the AI decision algorithms related to continents: some kind of assumption that a civ should focus on their own continent.

But w.r.t. victory, it makes sense to me. Darius was (intentionally) throwing away a cultural and diplomatic victory in favor of a domination or technological one. You (somewhat) threw away the cultural victory, but you kept the diplomatic option open. That difference of decision cost Darius and won you the game. In fact, the way liberation is designed, it seems to be purposed as a counterweight to domination: you don't have to beat the huge monster civ, you just have to liberate a couple city-states to get an extra vote or two, or protect the remaining free ones from capture.

Also, it sounds like Darius did not even consider building a fleet to protect an embarked army to your continent. If you got a strong naval presence first, I think you could have prevented Darius from getting to you if he tried anyways.

So yeah, the AI moves were flat-out dumb, but I don't think it would have turned out much differently. And I don't think the end was a bad ending.

I think this is less of a problem with diplomacy and more of a problem with the AI simply not making large-scale cross-continent war. I have seen coastal bombardments and small navies from the AI, but I've never had an AI from another continent land an invasion force on my shores.

 

[Gath]

What really pisses me off is having to repeatedly declare war to tell Suleiman to keep his grubby hands off my friendly city states. I might as well just wipe his sorry rear off the map, but I don't want any of his crummy cities when I'm trying for a cultural victory.

I pledge to protect, I'm allied with them. And he still tries to invade them, then he says "i hope this doesn't come between us." How about 3 feet of steel come between us Suli.

 

[Magil]

It does still seem to be possible to have other civilizations vote for you in the Diplomatic Victory, but it takes rather extreme circumstances. For example, Napoleon was wiped off the map by Alexander in my game, and then much, much later I was given the option to liberate a French city instead of raze/annex/puppet, so I did. The French civilization was un-conquered, so I gave them back their cities (which I had taken from Alexander, including Paris). When I finally got the diplomatic victory, Napoleon voted for me.

 

[Rellin]

Civs in Civ5 play to win. Would diplomacy work on you if you thought one of the AI was going to beat you?

 

[Danei]

They will attack/not attack regardless of how you treat them

This is a misleading statement. They don't behave randomly. However, they will attack you even if they like you, if they consider it to be in their best interest (consider it an attack of opportunity). Due to the current AI inadequacies, it is often not really in their best interest to do so, as they're so bad at war.

But you can influence them with your actions.

 

[Drago Askani]

The problem is that has no effect.

You may like that they removed the diplomacy aspect. It favours warmongering indeed. But I liked having a diplomacy gameplay, and I think it's a part of what civilization is.

Diplomacy works, the only problem with it is when they start making requests if you don't agree to each and everyone of them you lose so much progress its not even funny. Then add in that if you attack a city state they think of you as monsters. These things themselves while annoying aren't game breakers, but it does make one wish that you could at least see the +'s and -'s of the various interactions.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Kaltorak is right. There seems to be no logic behind de diplomacy. At first i was friends with Japan en together we crushed England. A few turns later Japan attacked me out of the blue.

My guess is that England was near Japan's territory? One thing the AI consistently does not seem to like is your cities on their border. This is true of everyone, but it's much stronger for aggressive civs. I had a war against Washington that Monty asked me to help. I agreed and quickly took New York, even though his troops were by the city as well. A turn or so later, I got a message saying our pact of secrecy against Washington was no longer needed and, not long after that, he declared war on me and tried to take New York.

To say the game has no diplomacy is not true. The question is if there's anything you can do to keep a neighboring Civ friendly or to build long term relationships. I think it's tough to tell. But they clearly respond to their neighbors and to your actions and either oppose you or ask for your help based on this.

I believe there is a SMALL amount of logic in Diplomacy.

I told Elizabeth to "get over it" once in a dispute over the favor of a city-state, and she hated me the rest of the game. I've chosen the more polite responses to other civs for the same issue and was able to still trade peacefully with them.

Apparently choosing the rude response really makes them hate you.

Of course, beyond that, I don't even know what these pacts do so I tend to just accept every single one that's offered.

If I'm not mistaken, choosing the polite response means you're no longer protecting the City-State. Telling her to F off makes them hate you, but you might have a reason for them to hate you. I had Wu and Augustus do the Taunting message, but I gave conflicting responses. I gave the jerk response to Wu and she hated me right away. I gave the other kind to Augustus. He sent me the same message (iirc) two more times and then he hated me regardless.

 

[Taquitos]

Don't bother with diplomacy atm in Civ5.

As many posters above me said, the diplomacy and deeper meaninful relationships and interactions with the AI are gone.

Doesn't mather what are your efforts, the AI will hate you sooner or later. Let me repear again for the silly ones that wrote in this thread thinking there is in fact an intented diplomacy system working, THE AI CURRENTLY IS PROGRAMED TO HATE YOU.

Doesn't mather if you do right by them, go to war for them liberate them, they will hate you eventually, because you are trying to win. The moment the AI figures that out, they will cancel all agreements they have with you and if they have a larger army chances are you will get attacked.

Again, please stop trying to defend the diplomacy system or foolishly trying to find a deeper meaning to this current diplomacy system, there is none. They programed the AIs to win, and as you can tell they released the game half-assed so the current Civ5 is basically a 1v8 AIs (or however many you are playing) where you are blind folded sitting in your corner alone for 6000 years, unless you call trading resources and meaningless chats (such as pacts of secrecy) a "working diplomacy system".

I only hope this wasn't intented.

 

[saraid]

Again, please stop trying to defend the diplomacy system or foolishly trying to find a deeper meaning to this current diplomacy system, there is none. They programed the AIs to win, and as you can tell they released the game half-assed so the current Civ5 is basically a 1v8 AIs (or however many you are playing) where you are blind folded sitting in your corner alone for 6000 years, unless you call trading resources and meaningless chats (such as pacts of secrecy) a "working diplomacy system".

I only hope this wasn't intented.

I gotta say, your RL diplomacy skills are in evidence here. It's like you would be able to work with this system intuitively.

 

[Shillen]

I think this is less of a problem with diplomacy and more of a problem with the AI simply not making large-scale cross-continent war. I have seen coastal bombardments and small navies from the AI, but I've never had an AI from another continent land an invasion force on my shores.

Yep. I had a similar game with two continents. One AI conquered his entire continent including all the city-states. All the city-states declared war on him but the only thing he did was send a couple ships to my continent to fight the city-states. He never brought his land units over. I even took a ship over to his continent to see what was up and he had his coasts full of mech infantries and stuff but they weren't advancing towards my continent at all. He likely could have wiped out our entire continent, too, but instead I won a cultural victory.

 

[Magil]

If I'm not mistaken, choosing the polite response means you're no longer protecting the City-State. Telling her to F off makes them hate you, but you might have a reason for them to hate you. I had Wu and Augustus do the Taunting message, but I gave conflicting responses. I gave the jerk response to Wu and she hated me right away. I gave the other kind to Augustus. He sent me the same message (iirc) two more times and then he hated me regardless.

Well, this particular message was Elizabeth complaining that I had bribed a city-state "in her sphere of influence," not responding to her attacking one. I told her to "get over it" and she just wouldn't stop hating me.

 

[CornPlanter]

Doesn't mather what are your efforts, the AI will hate you sooner or later. Let me repear again for the silly ones that wrote in this thread thinking there is in fact an intented diplomacy system working, THE AI CURRENTLY IS PROGRAMED TO HATE YOU.

Silly ones need proof for bold statements in caps like this. Especially if silly ones did manage to keep AIs friendly for the period of whole game, like I did. But I'm pretty sure you can back up your caps with an actual code excerpt. Looking forward to see it, thanks.

I personally don't think it will be long before player base decodes AI behavior into the form of good old +1/-1. And then we will see if the diplo is rudimentary or rather complicated one.

TBH I didn't see Civ4 diplo as something very complicated either. Religion / civic influence coupled with cartoon personalities made AIs rather easy to manipulate. To the point that I didn't even have a feeling of playing against AIs to win, AIs were more like other in game resources to be manipulated in a correct way to achieve victory if you see what I mean. When I play any other game with AI opponents (lets say Total War series or Civ 5 so far) I do have a feeling of playing against them. Well it took me some time to learn to manipulate Civ4 AIs in correct ways but I wouldn't call that "complicated diplo", just "lack of knowledge and lying interface".

 

[Earthling]

I'm tired of answering this question but here it comes again.

There is no diplomacy gameplay in civ5. You can trade with other civs, but that's about it. They will attack/not attack regardless of how you treat them

LIKE BUTTON

(just for your reference, if you didn't know, there was an ongoing debate/meme elsewhere in the forums over whether to have a "like button" around to support good posts. So I'm saying you've made an excellent post, one of the best on the thread and I agree wholeheartedly)

You have a pretty strange notion of self interest. So, attacking a guy far more powerful and advanced than me just because he is powerful and advanced is a good move based on self interest ? Since when ? In my book that has other name : suicide ...

He's right though. In terms of winning the game, it is in their self-interest to suicide even against far stronger opponents if they are too close to winning. The AI should automatically declare war on any civ (including other AI) with over 20 cultural policies and things like that.

What you are of course thinking is that it's not "realistic" and has nothing to do with actual history/historical societies. But the point people are trying to make is that it SHOULDN'T be realistic - the AI is just trying to win a wargame.

 

[Gath]

- the AI is just trying to win a wargame.

not all of us wanted a wargame. Guess the joke is on us, eh?

 

[pi-r8]

whether or not they attack seems to be based purely on how close you are, and how much military you have. If you are nearby but have a smaller military (numbers count for more than technology here I think) then it's pretty much certain that they will attack. I had Wu Zeitan agree to give me 300 gold for a resource one turn, and then attack me the very next turn! Thanks for the 300 gold lol.

 

[saraid]

not all of us wanted a wargame. Guess the joke is on us, eh?

"wargame" is the wrong term. It's a competitive game and there's no allied victory.

 

[12agnar0k]

There is a diplomacy system, its just not transparent, so as to the question "how do I make friends", oh well theres several things, but because of the lack of transparency, its hard to see how you fare, until the Civ's of the world all line up to crush you.

There are a lot of obvious things though, and some logical determinations.

Firstly - AI Victory Condition Aspirations, Is the Civ going for Conquest Victory, in this case, trying to be-friend them will only work in the short term, eventually they will try to conquer you. This type of player might make a good ally when taking out some powerful rival's, but eventually friendship will only go so far. Note, I had someone declare war on me and say "Sorry but my long term plans include conquering you along with all these other fools." Sort of I like you, but I'm going for a conquest Win.
Where as if the Civ is going for a Diplomatic Victory from the start they may offer a friendship that will last the entire game, though if you start attacking their city state friends or trying to bribe their allies off them, things will take a different turn.
And so on.

After the big consideration, there are many others.

Are you a war mongeror?, Other Civ's might view you as a threat and bound together to take you down.

Are you nearing a victory condition?, Conquest applies to the above some what, but indeed for all victory conditions, are you a threat? Are you to close to victory? Age old friends may band together to stop you at all costs, coming second is not an option!

Are you a pushover?, Warmongerors may indeed target you for aquisition.

Are you a liar?, Have you broken agreement's with other Civ's, you are not a trust worthy person!, Friends with you??? Are you kidding!!!!

Are you too expansive?, Other Civ's may take offense to your expansionism over land's they consider theirs.

I could go on, there are many diplomatic modifiers, probably more than I can come up with, and perhaps some things I can come up with are not included. Alas this is the problem of the lack of transparency. But it should be fairly easy to make friend's if you think about it logically.
My tip, would be to have a decent military, (avoids people trying to aquisition you like in my last game ), Don't expand too much, Don't conquer too much, Maintain a decent Science production, Maintain a Decent Economy, Maintain a Decent Happiness, these are all things other Civ Leaders will respect. Respect goes a long way. The AI is less likely to target you for conquering if you are a powerful enemy or if your economy is the envy of the world.

Also my other Tip, pay attention, listen to advisors if need be, If another Civ comes to you and tells you that you have a puny (Military/Happiness/Economy e.t.c) then this is something you need to improve on, this flaw in your Civ is attracting the attention of others to insult you about it, they are likely eyeing you up as a less respectful and worthy opponent, perfect for aquiring. Also advisors also can tell you some useful things, (England can wipe us off the planet, we need to do something about our military or be-friend them like hell!) or something along those lines my Military advisor said to me, eventually England indeed declared war on me, the silly little man has some forsight, though not before Darius conquered me into quitting.

If you follow simple logic rules, you should be able to make friends and avoid enemies where possible, (sometimes its just not possible, i.e a conqueror will conquer you no matter how nice you are to them), the lack of transparency makes the learning curve of "mastering" the diplomacy mechanic a lot harder if not impossible, which I think is a good thing. Sometimes knowing too much can spoil the fun of the game, making it a contest of mathmeticians and statistics to master the game, as apposed to simply enjoying it and doing reasonably well.

 

[Wulf38]

You can tell by the way the AI greets the player on the diplomacy screen that the it has some kind of disposition towards the player, and I'd be amazed if that had no effect on their behavior. Otherwise, why even bother to program that? Why would a "play to win" AI broadcast the fact that it doesn't like me, giving me advanced warning to move my units towards it?

 

[Lanstro]

Apart from the debate over the AI declaring war, another dynamic that Civ5 has removed has been the importance of being friendly enough with AIs to trade. Civ5 doesn't have tech trading, so there's no need to be friendly with AIs to trade those. As far as I can tell, the AIs are also almost always willing to trade away their resources on a 1:1 basis, and offer/sign various treaties (cooperation, secrecy, research), whether they're very happy with you or immensely annoyed. So there's no reason to be nice to them for that.

I would guess that the AI modifiers are supposed to skew this behaviour so that annoyed civs won't trade with you or ask for a lot more than what is 'fair', but on empirical evidence it appears that this skewing behaviour is not working well enough. As a result I can ignore the diplomacy side of the game and just be a prick to everyone, and still get along fine.