Hellenism Salesman
Emperor
One thing that's always been a bit disappointing to me is how Civ VI's AI leaders are all more or less carbon copies of one another.
More often than not, they either all default to hating you, or being super chill peaceful sheep who will try to avoid war or conflict to a ridiculous degree (even with leaders like Alexander or Harald, who thematically should love war). More often than not, the AI leaders feel more like a congressional blob who have the exact same opinions toward you and never seem to interact with themselves.
And it makes me kind of sad, too. The leader's have such vivid and entertaining personalities in the way they're animated! They're bursting with character, but very little of it actually gets to show in the way they act diplomatically. Their actions very rarely line up with their personality, and I feel like that's a huge missed-opportunity. We could be sitting on a gold-mine of unique characters that express themselves through gameplay... all of the colorful personalities shown in the leader animations will now be reflected in-game.
So here's my suggestion: make more complex (and realistic) inter-leader relationships among the AI, and flesh out their agendas and personality traits. The AI usually feels like a group either working totally for you or totally against you, and despite the fact that they're made of a diverse group of people form history that should realistically not get along, they always seem to be yes-men and just copy the opinion of their neighbors. To break this, why don't we add little touches that emphasis the AI's relationships with other leaders? Instead of just a small smiley, blank, or angry face in their diplomacy screens, I'd like to see our leaders regularly state how they feel about other leaders.
These could take place at the World Congress (which could actually have all the leaders in animated form, existing nearby one another), or just in the form of idle comments on the diplomacy screen, but I'd just like to see leaders expressing their opinions themselves, rather than the UI telling you outright.
Imagine that when one of the AI displeases another AI's agenda, that AI (if they trust you enough) will tell you how they feel. For instance, Kristina, displeased at the Ottoman's lack of Great Works, will amply say "You know, Suleiman is a fool to reject art like he does."
Or, Alexander, displeased at the peace of the world around him, says "Canada and their sheep of a leader are spineless- they couldn't fight even if they tried."
Additionally, AI behavior shouldn't be so rudimentary. Say I denounced, then declared war on Canada. Did I inflict grievances against others? Yes. But what if Alexander hates Canada? Why would he declare war on me? And, knowing his personality and historical actions along with his opinion of the other civ, he'd be thrilled! He would like me, not hate me. I wish that the AI made more decisions like that.
Or, for instance- rather than declaring war on me like everyone else, maybe Wilfrid Laurier notices how nice I've been to him, and that I've approved his agendas. So rather than just complying to the seemingly unstoppable force of grievances, he would defend me, and fight on my side. Just any possibility where alliances aren't just "peace guarantees" and the AI's default option isn't just "declare war". The AI wanting to cooperate and show meaningful teamwork would go a long way.
I also feel that to facilitate more realistic leader interactions, Grievances should go. Now, I now what you're thinking- that sounds like a bad idea. But, my suggestion is instead to put the focus on the Favorability system, found in the Relationships tab on the Diplomacy Screen. Rather than diplomatic motivation being simplified to everyone holding grudges of varying sizes, people actually have shifting negative and positive opinions of one another, and ones that you can clearly view (based on Diplomatic Visibility). Declaring war now gives you a Favorability penalty to the Civ you declared war on, but will increase your Favorability towards Civs who dislike your target of war. Civs may become jealous of you, and their Favorability will slowly decrease. Alternatively, they'll be afraid of you (namely when it comes to combat strength and conquered cities) and know not to declare war on you. They may try to bribe you, or pay for a guarantee that you don't declare war on them, or an ally of theirs. Little improvements that don't just motivate the AI to mutually exclusively hate or love you, but so that diplomacy is an interconnected web of relationships and opinions, where building a bridge with one leader may burn a bridge with another.
Keep in mind all of this is to start discussion- otherwise, I wouldn't have posted it publicly. I'd like to hear your opinions and ideas on improving Diplomacy and AI behavior, since I know it's an area where there's a lot of room for improvement. What are your ideas?
More often than not, they either all default to hating you, or being super chill peaceful sheep who will try to avoid war or conflict to a ridiculous degree (even with leaders like Alexander or Harald, who thematically should love war). More often than not, the AI leaders feel more like a congressional blob who have the exact same opinions toward you and never seem to interact with themselves.
And it makes me kind of sad, too. The leader's have such vivid and entertaining personalities in the way they're animated! They're bursting with character, but very little of it actually gets to show in the way they act diplomatically. Their actions very rarely line up with their personality, and I feel like that's a huge missed-opportunity. We could be sitting on a gold-mine of unique characters that express themselves through gameplay... all of the colorful personalities shown in the leader animations will now be reflected in-game.
So here's my suggestion: make more complex (and realistic) inter-leader relationships among the AI, and flesh out their agendas and personality traits. The AI usually feels like a group either working totally for you or totally against you, and despite the fact that they're made of a diverse group of people form history that should realistically not get along, they always seem to be yes-men and just copy the opinion of their neighbors. To break this, why don't we add little touches that emphasis the AI's relationships with other leaders? Instead of just a small smiley, blank, or angry face in their diplomacy screens, I'd like to see our leaders regularly state how they feel about other leaders.
These could take place at the World Congress (which could actually have all the leaders in animated form, existing nearby one another), or just in the form of idle comments on the diplomacy screen, but I'd just like to see leaders expressing their opinions themselves, rather than the UI telling you outright.
Imagine that when one of the AI displeases another AI's agenda, that AI (if they trust you enough) will tell you how they feel. For instance, Kristina, displeased at the Ottoman's lack of Great Works, will amply say "You know, Suleiman is a fool to reject art like he does."
Or, Alexander, displeased at the peace of the world around him, says "Canada and their sheep of a leader are spineless- they couldn't fight even if they tried."
Additionally, AI behavior shouldn't be so rudimentary. Say I denounced, then declared war on Canada. Did I inflict grievances against others? Yes. But what if Alexander hates Canada? Why would he declare war on me? And, knowing his personality and historical actions along with his opinion of the other civ, he'd be thrilled! He would like me, not hate me. I wish that the AI made more decisions like that.
Or, for instance- rather than declaring war on me like everyone else, maybe Wilfrid Laurier notices how nice I've been to him, and that I've approved his agendas. So rather than just complying to the seemingly unstoppable force of grievances, he would defend me, and fight on my side. Just any possibility where alliances aren't just "peace guarantees" and the AI's default option isn't just "declare war". The AI wanting to cooperate and show meaningful teamwork would go a long way.
I also feel that to facilitate more realistic leader interactions, Grievances should go. Now, I now what you're thinking- that sounds like a bad idea. But, my suggestion is instead to put the focus on the Favorability system, found in the Relationships tab on the Diplomacy Screen. Rather than diplomatic motivation being simplified to everyone holding grudges of varying sizes, people actually have shifting negative and positive opinions of one another, and ones that you can clearly view (based on Diplomatic Visibility). Declaring war now gives you a Favorability penalty to the Civ you declared war on, but will increase your Favorability towards Civs who dislike your target of war. Civs may become jealous of you, and their Favorability will slowly decrease. Alternatively, they'll be afraid of you (namely when it comes to combat strength and conquered cities) and know not to declare war on you. They may try to bribe you, or pay for a guarantee that you don't declare war on them, or an ally of theirs. Little improvements that don't just motivate the AI to mutually exclusively hate or love you, but so that diplomacy is an interconnected web of relationships and opinions, where building a bridge with one leader may burn a bridge with another.
Keep in mind all of this is to start discussion- otherwise, I wouldn't have posted it publicly. I'd like to hear your opinions and ideas on improving Diplomacy and AI behavior, since I know it's an area where there's a lot of room for improvement. What are your ideas?
