Diplomacy basics, please

[madscientist]

I would agree that AI choices are a lot harder to read in most cases, but there still seems to be more to it than a "roll of the dice". It seems like each different game, the civs around me have developed a "style" that seemed to depend on both randomness and who the civ was.

A few examples from my experience: a game with Catherine who definitely seemed like a die-hard militaristic do-gooder, who hated France for warmongering, and liked me until the day I attacked an innocent city-state, at which point she seemed to try to stop me, rather than conquer me. Siam played a friendly role, and routinely refused to get involved in any conflict, while attempting to ruffle as few feathers as possible. Alexander seemed cocky, hurling taunts my direction early on, but rarely proving that he had anything to back it up. The Aztecs and the Americans got into an interesting circle of betrayal with me, where, apparently, everyone made pacts of secrecy with each other, yet played nice, did a few research agreements and such, but not TOO nice, denying me vital resources, in spite of them having excess, eventually resulting in us taking turns picking on whoever happened to be "the little guy" at that moment. Lastly, the most interesting example I found, Ghandi, who, in spite of being at a rediculous disadvantage, seemed steadfast in protecting his honor, quietly accepting my dominance in the world with occasional "You shouldn't be doing that" statements, but, appropriately, non-violent resistance. His willingness to help me seemed to directly relate to how much trouble I had been causing, and even as I drove mech infantry over his pikemen and razed everything but his capitol, he refused to enter a peace deal that would reward me for what I did, and held tight to the silver mines that attracted me to his shores in the first place.

Perhaps my experiences are just random, themselves, but I think what fraxis at least TRIED to do was simulate the idea of other "players" in the game, ones who backstabbed, held grudges, made friends, and most of all, tried to win. The "obvious" diplomacy of Civ 4 (+1 you gave me a cookie, -3 you stole my dog) seems to have shifted to the NPC-style city-states. I'm not sure if this is better or worse, myself. I like the idea of life-like opponents, but I do like to have a good grasp of the world around me and, in the right situation, manipulate someone by means other than a sword at their throat.

Actually this is an encouraging summary and would fit in with what we were promised, an AI that usually but not always acted in predictable manners. Perhaps I need to just see how the AI diplomacy goes and treat City-States like the old Civ IV. Alas though, I do miss the Moronic Monty, Zealotish Isabella, and backstabbing Cathy.

 

[MAntoninus]

The AI is going to act in its own self interest.

If you grow powerful, the big fish come after you.

If you are impeding someone's growth by being there, they're likely to come after you if they're at all military.

I guess what I'm saying is that not all AI aggression is diplomatically based.

I particularly like how they call you on massing on the borders...even when it's not correct. I wish we had that option...and they had the capacity to be truthful/liars, and deal with the repercussions too.

 

[Vordeo]

I would agree that AI choices are a lot harder to read in most cases, but there still seems to be more to it than a "roll of the dice". It seems like each different game, the civs around me have developed a "style" that seemed to depend on both randomness and who the civ was.

A few examples from my experience: a game with Catherine who definitely seemed like a die-hard militaristic do-gooder, who hated France for warmongering, and liked me until the day I attacked an innocent city-state, at which point she seemed to try to stop me, rather than conquer me. Siam played a friendly role, and routinely refused to get involved in any conflict, while attempting to ruffle as few feathers as possible. Alexander seemed cocky, hurling taunts my direction early on, but rarely proving that he had anything to back it up. The Aztecs and the Americans got into an interesting circle of betrayal with me, where, apparently, everyone made pacts of secrecy with each other, yet played nice, did a few research agreements and such, but not TOO nice, denying me vital resources, in spite of them having excess, eventually resulting in us taking turns picking on whoever happened to be "the little guy" at that moment. Lastly, the most interesting example I found, Ghandi, who, in spite of being at a rediculous disadvantage, seemed steadfast in protecting his honor, quietly accepting my dominance in the world with occasional "You shouldn't be doing that" statements, but, appropriately, non-violent resistance. His willingness to help me seemed to directly relate to how much trouble I had been causing, and even as I drove mech infantry over his pikemen and razed everything but his capitol, he refused to enter a peace deal that would reward me for what I did, and held tight to the silver mines that attracted me to his shores in the first place.

Perhaps my experiences are just random, themselves, but I think what fraxis at least TRIED to do was simulate the idea of other "players" in the game, ones who backstabbed, held grudges, made friends, and most of all, tried to win. The "obvious" diplomacy of Civ 4 (+1 you gave me a cookie, -3 you stole my dog) seems to have shifted to the NPC-style city-states. I'm not sure if this is better or worse, myself. I like the idea of life-like opponents, but I do like to have a good grasp of the world around me and, in the right situation, manipulate someone by means other than a sword at their throat.

Yep, agree with all of this. Great post.

It's not as transparent as CivIV, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I think there are certainly bugs that need to be ironed out (especially the metrics that determine units being near their borders; I was playing an archipelago map and getting asked if I was about to invade by leaders who were halfway around the world from me), but diplomacy isn't as bad as some are making out.

Also, I do think that the negative modifier you get from bordering a civ is too much. I was friends with Ramesses, then he puts up a city near mine, and at that point war was pretty much inevitable despite our being in a pact of cooperation.

 

[Lilpenny]

You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word. That statement echoes in every game to me so far. I've played 5 or 7 games so far and as in the real world military might is respected alot more I think in this game and has a larger influence.

I do need to check out the be honest theory. Cause so far I"ve just tried giving everyone lip service all the time and so far I think all of my diplomatic relationships have failed.

 

[kaltorak]

Actually this is an encouraging summary and would fit in with what we were promised, an AI that usually but not always acted in predictable manners. Perhaps I need to just see how the AI diplomacy goes and treat City-States like the old Civ IV. Alas though, I do miss the Moronic Monty, Zealotish Isabella, and backstabbing Cathy.

After playing and seeing how all my other concerns were not justified, this is my only complaint about civ5 now. I do miss what you say a lot.

 

[fugazi]

I guess Civ 5 went straight for the Realism paradigm

 

[kaltorak]

I guess Civ 5 went straight for the Realism paradigm

Not really. Realism has much more diplomacy. A country can clearly tell you what would make them happy or angry, or how they feel about you. And even though there were countries who tried to conquer the wolrd, there also are lots of countries which help eachothers.

Civ4 was much closer to reallity than civ5. Civ5 is closer to deathmatch or ffa starcraft

 

[Sashimi917]

The personality of the AI does not exist, they are all warmongers like monty from Civ4. They don't memorize all your good will given to them, they only pay attention to your miilitary strength, if they find you are weak and neighbouring them, they would eventually attack you no matter how good your wrist at diplomacy. So forget about diplomacy and conquer everyone on your first island, then you can enjoy some "diplomacy" with the AIs on another continent. They tends to be more friendly and rational when you are not neighbouring them.

 

[Tibblers]

That is just not true. Every leader has their own personality. Gandhi is practically a kitten when it comes to war.

One of the big thing is to not agree to a pact of secrecy against a certain leader if you have something going on with that leader. Open borders, research agreement, a trade, whatever. If you violate that pact of secrecy, the person in it with you will hate you. That's the major thing I learned about diplomacy in my games.

 

[r_rolo1]

The AI is going to act in its own self interest.

If you grow powerful, the big fish come after you.

If you are impeding someone's growth by being there, they're likely to come after you if they're at all military.

I guess what I'm saying is that not all AI aggression is diplomatically based.

I particularly like how they call you on massing on the borders...even when it's not correct. I wish we had that option...and they had the capacity to be truthful/liars, and deal with the repercussions too.

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 ...

 

[ironduck]

One thing we really need to know; does razing a city piss off just the city's owner, or does it piss off everyone?

Razing becomes very necessary because of the costs of over-expansion and the inability to stop a puppet from building stuff you don't want (or to destroy the buildings they make).

Razing a city damages your reputation very badly in general, and not just the owner - at least among the civilizations who have made contact with you at that point.

In my opinion diplomacy in Civ 5 is miles better than it has been in past Civ games. The AI is much sneakier and the different contracts you make with the various civs have real implications. When forming pacts of cooperation or secrecy you really need to honour them or the other leader will quickly develop a negative opinion about you. In past Civ games it was so easy to manipulate other leaders, and I think that's why people think diplomacy is 'non-existent' now. In reality it's much more relevant now.

An example from a current game I'm playing: I was on good terms with the Iroquois. Then I decided to raze the city of a common enemy and immediately they got upset with me and began canceling our agreements. He stayed angry and began provoking me by declaring war on one of my pet city states and even taunted me with it 'Haha, I think you should know I'm going to take your little pet now'! When I showed up with a great deal of force next to that city state he withdrew and made peace. I never declared war on him, but simply showing up was enough.

He remained furious with me and eventually declared war at which point I proceeded to grab his cities one by one. While I was doing this Caesar showed up from another continent, mocked my military and began settling cities right next to mine (we had an open border contract, but nothing else and our relations had turned south), taunting me that he hoped I would lose my ongoing war. Soon after he deployed massive millitary forces around several of my main cities, including my capital (attempting to surround them which gives flanking bonuses). In return I rushed some units and moved some of my forces away from the front line back to face his invading units. This show of force was enough to make him back up and he disappeared once our open border contract expired.

Clearly he was intending to surprise sneak attack me while I was busy fighting another war, but the way he was doing this felt intelligent, as did his responses. The same was true for the Iroquois. Further, the diplomacy made plenty of sense, it was a workable way to see what was going on and to guess why. The diplomacy is not broken at all, it simply supports an AI that acts much more intelligently than it used to.

 

[Lacerda]

Ironduck, but, as much as can appreciate the unpredictability from Civilization Leaders, sometimes it goes unpredictably idiotic.

From the very start, I maintain my word towards Elizabeth, every single thing. Many trades and so. She intended to attack Montezuma, I helped her, every single city that I conquered from Montezuma, I gave her as a gift, (trying to buy her ought). Since the map was small, and montezuma empire was near hers, she suddenly, because supposedly my military force, was too near hers. This is patetic, I gave her everything, and just like that, she declares war on me.

As well as I don't understand why giving her so much gifts, she would even had a Defensive Pact, damn, even a Pack of cooperation she wouldn't have. seriously?...

 

[ironduck]

As well as I don't understand why giving her so much gifts, she would even had a Defensive Pact, damn, even a Pack of cooperation she wouldn't have. seriously?...

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying - that Elizabeth didn't want to have pacts with you no matter how much you were trying? If so, that makes sense to me. If she has decided that she doesn't like you or that you're her main threat then it makes sense that she doesn't want to enter pacts with you.

Civ 5 is not like the previous Civ games where you could simply bribe other Civs into being your puppets. That's what the city states are here for now.

 

[Dunkah]

Two things.

1: If you want to experience more diplomacy play on larger maps with more leaders. There are things going on all around you. On small maps I find the Leaders to be much more cut throat.

2: Before you kill off all of the leaders on your first continent, don't underestimate the power of having two or three reserach pacts going on at any given time, If they are researching with you and not with every other leader then you are going to get a huge boost. If you kill off your opponents quick and the other leaders on other continents are diplom-ing (my word), then you are going to be way behind... but you will probably find out when they hit your shores with cannons...

PS: I wish they would get a bigger server for this site!

 

[petey]

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 ...

Since the AI was trying to win against you. If you're more powerful and advanced, it's going to lose against you if it leaves you alone. If it attacks you, it may still lose anyways or it may weaken you to a point where you can win. If it loses anyways after the attack, it's no worse off than it would have been otherwise.

 

[r_rolo1]

You are forgetting a third option: get someone to do the dirty job for you and go grab the remains of both when they are exausted Or even a fourth: ally with the big bad wolf for while, just to them in the right moment. Both sensible options that go to the waste if the AI goes red eyes as soon as someone gets powerful.

Why do people only think in 1:1 basis ? Civ games are almost never 1:1 and worse, thinking on them on 1:1 basis makes things go waywire in a lot of times ...

 

[Seven05]

Personally I would like to see a little more personality and diplomacy with the AIs. Not as much as Civ IV, but more than we have now. I miss the days of getting a good friend, or hateful enemy. Also I miss not meeting a strongely bonded block. Example I played a continents game and met Alexander and Elizabeth on their own continent. Soon ebnough there was war, never a chance for these 2 to be allies against me. Diplomacy in CIV IV could be badly manipulated but it also could be a big benefit to the AIs. Now, every AI can simply be dismantled one after another, no attacking the old 3 AI buddist block.

I've run head first into more than one defensive pact so far in Civ 5. Unlike Civ 4 though it actually gave me that 'oh crap' feeling because I didn't see it coming.

One thing we really need to know; does razing a city piss off just the city's owner, or does it piss off everyone?

Razing becomes very necessary because of the costs of over-expansion and the inability to stop a puppet from building stuff you don't want (or to destroy the buildings they make).

It's conquering that does it, not razing specifically. To test it for yourself save the game and conquer the city (puppet or annex, doesn't matter) and see how the AI reacts after a few turns. Then raze the city (from the city screen) and see if anything changes. Next, reload that save and conquer and raze the city immediately. I didn't notice any difference at all between raze, puppet and annex in terms of the AI response.

 

[King Jason]

I particularly like how they call you on massing on the borders...even when it's not correct. I wish we had that option...and they had the capacity to be truthful/liars, and deal with the repercussions too.

-You have the option to tell them they're wrong. You get no penalty if it turns out not to be the case.
-you get little-to-no diplo penalty for declaring war, only conquering cities, so if they're massing troops on your border, you have every right to declare war to get a preemptive strike.
-A.I. needs help, it isn't perfect and will never be. That's why systems like this are in place... Otherwise you can just line up on a computers border and wipe them out the next turn. You have the choice of giving them a heads up, or taking a diplo hit. As the superior human player, think of it as a handicap.. just like those that increase with difficulty levels.
-The A.I. can lie, and some do.

 

[Rittmeyer]

I have to say I`m really worried about this game. But first, I should point that I only played two emperor games (first I got downed without being ready), second I got a diplomatic win.

And it`s the second one that worries me. I was the Iroquois and I easily eliminated my closest rival (the ottomans), taking over the whole continent. That was before I met the other AI`s. They were all in one other continent.

So here`s what happened: my continent ended up with only me, having about 6-8 cities and also around 5 CS`s, who were all my allies. The other continent soon ended up with a HUGE Darius and three other AI`s: decent Cathy and very weaks Arabs and Greeks who I soon relieved of their capitals ( I was going domination).

So crazy things start happening: Darius attacks just about every CS`s in their continent, becoming even bigger. At some point he attacks me and takes every city I owned in that continent (Arab capital and 3 Greek cities). Fine. I couldn`t care less since I just needed Cathy`s and Darius capitals to win.

So, Darius is now a super power, having added my four cities to his already many. At this point, he attacks the Arabs for their last few cities, and wipes them out. Then the tiny Alexander attacks Darius and is wiped in no more then 3 turns. Darius is now invincible and I think Nukes might be the only way to take him out. Cathy attacks Darius.... and obviously is wiped in around five turns. Darius has all of his continent, except for one single CS that remain independent.

Problems:

- Huge AI that get`s to a lot of land peacefully and them proceeds to easily wipe out all other AI`s with little I could do in the process. This was one of the big problems in Civ IV when it happened. It`s still there.

- Absolute nonsense DOW`s. Very very weak AI`s downing the behemoth Darius. Then never stood a chance.

- Darius, the behemoth, then proceeded to stay in war mode with me for the rest of the game. But he never tried to actually win. Had he moved his troops to my continent, he could still be defeated but would give me a lot of trouble. He didn`t even try.

So, I just built the UN, and in the last turn before the voting I allied with the last of the yet non-allied CS`s. Darius was still in war with me, remember, and this last CS was on his continent. But he couldn`t take it in the first turn. I won.

So the problem lies in his innability to win even when he was an absolute monster.

The other AI`s were a walk in the park. I could easily beat any of them. Darius was almost impossible to beat in war. But he didn`t try to win, so I did it.

Looks like a seriously flawed game to me.

 

[Dirk1302]

Interesting discussion on (absence of) diplomacy. Have only spent 3 hours or so on the game sofar as i'll need a computer upgrade to play it smoothly. From what i read the ais seem to resemble ai personalities in the open source game c-evo (remotely resembling civ2 with strong ais) . There are ways to interact with the ais in that game but all ais play to win and so they're as likely to break any pact as the human player is.

Wonder if that's a good thing, Last 2-3 years Code divers including myself had analysed ai behavior in such detail in civ4 that manipulating the ais in that game became actually detrimental to the fun of that game. But before when all that info wasn't so well known i marvelled at the detailed diplomacy. I knew that good diplomacy was likely to stave off attacks but i was never totally sure.

Whichever way you take it diplo will almost always favor the human player so i can understand taking it out to make the ais tougher. As it is however it seems that deity level is already cracked on Civ5, no way that would have been possible in vanilla civ4, more than BTS it's still extremely hard to win Vanilla/warlords Civ4 even now with all the civ4 info we have.

I don't mind Civ5 being different from Civ4 with different challenges that don't necessarily have to lie in the diplomacy sphere. But i really hope that Civ5 will at least be a challenge on deity after future patches, otherwise it's not the game for me.