Diplomacy is awesome because...

[risen-chud]

I really like the diplomacy now. Sometimes I wish I had a better idea of what caused other civs to behave the way they do towards me, but for the most part you can figure out what causes some of these changes.

For example, as Japan on an archipelago map, I had been friends with the Greeks for years, however as soon as they settled Corinth on my main island he started insulting me which caused our relations to sour. So in response, I declared war and crushed Corinth with ease, forever kicking him off my island. Afterward, Alexander sued for peace and I accepted, however the Chinese, Songhai, and Persians became hostile towards me, calling me a warmonger.

On the flip side: Gandhi (who has long been the enemy of Songhai) quickly became my BFF, and Napoleon (who was poised to gobble up Persia) was quick to offer me a pact of secrecy against Darius. This made the resulting game very interesting and it gave me a clear direction in which I could move my strategy.

Something like this could not have happened in cIV, since the only thing the AI was worried about was your world map or getting you to cancel open borders with someone on the other side of the planet.

 

[r_rolo1]

@klokwerk

Your b) point can be true, but is irrelevant. I didn't asked for the AI to tell me anything, I'm not even asking the AI to be honest with me regarding what they think ( i would wholeheartly aprove ). I'm asking for the game to give me clues on why X AI expresses a certain feeling about Y ( Y being human or other AI player ) ... we have a foreign advisor for something

Example:

- I talk with Egypt and Ramesses sends me a curse , calls me bloodthirsty, or whatever

- Then i could have my foreign advisor telling me something in the lines of " Egypt is pissed with us! I think that it might have something to do with our current war with Belgrade"

See the diference? The AI didn't told me anything , but the game gives me hints on the reasons why my relationship with Egypt has gone down the drain.

More: note that humans sometimes show their true feelings to the AI The issue with the stock civ IV in there was that it was brutally candid: it said the truth all the times and was incapable of scheming against a friend ... but as, you pointed above, BB AI does scheme against friends, hides war plans and all the such. All of this while putting numbers out ...

P.S A exploit ceases to be a exploit when everyone can do it in the same degree in a lot of situations. And a lot of the exploits you are thinking actually were only exploits because only the human had them in the bag of tricks ... that kind of speech is why I said you prefer to make the human unable to do X than making the AI to do X as well

 

[Kietharr]

This is one of the best posts since the game was released. I can believe the amount of pointless crying people have been doing just because the game makes them think for themselves instead of spoon-feeding them every single value like in Civ IV.

If you can't tell how a leader feels about you simply by the way they greet you or the kind of deals they offer, then it may be time to get off your PC and learn the basics of human interaction...

Yeah because IRL Alexander the great is going to ride on up and say 'HEY YOUR ARMY SUCKS LOL'. The current diplomacy screen is ridiculously over designed and not very useful. Even Alexander's little threats aren't useful in determining whether he hates me or not because he keeps doing this then asking for pacts of cooperation and open borders. The numbers are still there, just hidden so we'll have to go digging in the files to find them.

The diplomacy screen as it is tells you nothing, it's just a page that you can click on to look at the pretty 3d and listen to people talk funny.

 

[seasnake]

I think the foreign advisor should at the least be able to extrapolite who's friendly and who is not. I'd like a screen showing the various civs and something saying what they're relationship is like, and then you it gives a summary of why things appear tense. Say it says Songhai to Siam are "tense." You click on it and it states "Songhai declared war on a city-state allied to Siam, Songhai canceled open borders, Songhai refused to stop settling near Siamese lands."

This kind of information would be so useful because then I if I am angry at Siam, I can talk to Songhai and I might think we can help each other out.

 

[Rhygar]

I think the foreign advisor should at the least be able to extrapolite who's friendly and who is not. I'd like a screen showing the various civs and something saying what they're relationship is like, and then you it gives a summary of why things appear tense. Say it says Songhai to Siam are "tense." You click on it and it states "Songhai declared war on a city-state allied to Siam, Songhai canceled open borders, Songhai refused to stop settling near Siamese lands."

This kind of information would be so useful because then I if I am angry at Siam, I can talk to Songhai and I might think we can help each other out.

Good suggestion, instead of whining about "no diplomacy". Well done.

 

[seasnake]

Good suggestion, instead of whining about "no diplomacy". Well done.

Thanks, and obviously you'd have to play around with it somewhat to make it work smoothly, but I do confess a bit of frustration when I click on my foreign advisor and she has no idea who hates whom. I find myself mumbling things like "Why do I pay you?"

 

[MkLh]

Not at all, I think you didn't understand what I said.

I think the AI must look like a real human player and so does Firaxis.

The only purpose of a video game AI is to give an entertaining game experience. If a human-like AI don't satisfy this, it's a worthless goal.

 

[aziantuntija]

I completely agree with the OP.

I want to play with my intuition and try all sorts of things, not just obey cold numbers.

 

[mrt144]

First of all I've been playing Civilization since the first game and have been lurking here on and off for years.

What I like about Diplomacy and CIV V in general is that it's trying to make the game feel more like you are in charge of a civilization in stead of a spread sheet. Diplomacy is just one example of this.

Imagine you were the leader of a civilization and you met another leader. Would you conveniently see modifiers floating above his head telling you how he feels and why? Or would you have to find out by talking to him and studying his demeanor?

I reckon there are 2 kinds of Civ players. Those that play the game almost as a role-playing game, for the sense of creating a history a narrative, an experience.

Then there are others that play to win, to hack the game, to squeeze out an optimal strategy. They want to make a spreadsheet and crunch all the numbers. If these guys were playing a Dungeons and Dragons style role playing game they would be the ones looking to make the strongest character with the best traits so they can beat every monster. Creating an interesting character is not something they want to do.

Now there's nothing wrong with that second approach... but these guys are the ones IMO that are screaming blue murder that they don't have all the numbers available in order to 'hack' the game so they can 'play' optimally in order to win the game.

So you can't trade maps, know what techs everyone has and know what everyone thinks about you. Deal with it. It creates mystery, intrigue, potential for secrets and surprises.

Finally at the risk of inviting anger onto myself.... SOME people on this board are the kind of people that give gamers a bad name.

I've never been so embarrassed at the childishness and pettiness as when I've read SOME of the comments and post on this board over the past months. It's even worse considering that the average age of a CIV player must be well past their teenage years.

I'm talking about how people feel 'betrayed', 'sold out', how the came has been 'dumbed down' or that it's basically not Civ IV. Those people need to get a life.

Seriously, this 'more is better' crowd are probably the same demographic that George Lucas pandered to when putting 'double and quadruple light-sabers' in StarWars. A super sucky idea.

So go download that mod so you can have your stack of doom, hopefully there will be one soon where you can see all the diplo modifiers and maybe even one that lets you download all the data from the game into a spreadsheet so that you can create a program that recommends optimal city placement, unit movement etc.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that's what I think.

What you think is so full of holes.

1. Being aware of who is aligned with who is part of managing an empire. Sure, the presentation in Civ IV could be a bit spreadsheet like (on one diplomatic relations menu), but there isn't anything of the sort in Civ V. You don't think it's beneficial to have an inkling of the repercussions of actions on your part?
2. If there is a secret pact you wont know about it, it's a moot point. Are all pacts secret pacts? No. There is strategy in deciding how you are aligned and the how you flaunt that. Well, there would be strategy if you could actually tell who is aligned with who.

Being in the dark because lack of an interface to show you information options doesn't create mystery or intrigue.

Also, the comparison to Lucas is hilariously inept. A written work of fiction is not at all the same as conveying information for decisions.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Thanks, and obviously you'd have to play around with it somewhat to make it work smoothly, but I do confess a bit of frustration when I click on my foreign advisor and she has no idea who hates whom. I find myself mumbling things like "Why do I pay you?"

You sir, have won this thread
Advisors are a joke. IF they'd do what they should (like foreign advisor keeping track of what happened recently regarding such and such civilization, science advisor notifying me that such and such civ has recently discover XXX etc) then I would have NO problems with the no-number-diplomacy. Sadly they don't, they don't tell you a single meaningful thing, so it's best to disable them.

And as for all those saying stuff like:

"To understand the way it works, just look at the way human civ players behave : they try to make friends AND keep them, and USUALLY, they won't backstab their friends. They choose to attack somebody else.

Now, if their friend has no military or is too big a opportunity to pass on, or when he's too far beyond us, then of course it's still possible to backstab him."

, I have one answer only:

Just wait and play the full game, you'll see for yourself how amazingly reatarded their decisions can be. They're suicidal. AI has been programmed to a level of a mental facility patient that was left without medication. My prayer from now on is "patches, patches, patches".

Time will tell if it'll come true

 

[Acidictadpole]

Unrelated I'm not asking for the Ai to say why it is pissed or not with you, I'm not even asking for the AI to be honest with you when it says it is pissed or pleased with you, I'm just asking for the game to suggest why they are expresing those feelings. That has 0 to do with the AI being out there to win or not .. unless you think that you can make the AI better by making the human less aware of the game mechanics. If you think that way, I suggest you to play with the screen unplugged ... it is functionally equivalent

Going to jump in here rather late and just put down my 3c.

Perhaps a side-mission of the developers were to make the AIs a little bit less representable as AI. When you're playing with other people, you have no idea what they are thinking, you have no idea what they are planning, and you definitely have no idea how they feel towards you.

All you can do is judge by whether they trade with you, their actions within the game, and how they openly interact with you. Even if other players did have little numbers by their names, its impossible they'd be anything close to accurate. Not only that, but player's also have the ability to "go against their programming" as it were: they could make completely irrational decisions in warfare, diplomacy and state management.

Again it comes down to treating the the AI players as AI or opponents. I'm certain that part of these changes comes down to Firaxis wanting a less "bot" feel about diplomacy, which I believe is a small factor in the "hacking the game" argument. Using numbers and whatnot to play the game may be fun in some ways (I played Eve-Online, so applying spreadsheets to games is second nature to me), but may not be in Firaxis' vision of what they wanted Civ V to be. And I'm fine with it. I enjoy the diplomacy as is, because my opponents aren't supposed to be predictable (then again, I sucked at Civ IV and for some reason my allies who didn't have a single negative point against me would still declare war).

But yeah, I'm pretty certain that the current diplomacy is fit in with trying to make the AI feel less like AI.\

And also:

I'm not asking for the Ai to say why it is pissed or not with you ... I'm just asking for the game to suggest why they are expresing those feelings.

I'm having trouble understanding the difference between the two.

 

[r_rolo1]

I was talking of something in the lines of civ III advisors:

Spoiler :

... but with some intel on the reasons why civ X has that attitude. Say , something like " The Romans are furious with us ! Maybe we should reduce the number of troops near their borders to calm them" ( in fact civ III has some similar text, but i couldn't find any pic of that fast enough )

Very diferent of having the AI leader himself giving you a extensive and quantified list of why he likes/dislikes you

 

[seasnake]

My prayer from now on is "patches, patches, patches".

Patches, Patches? We don't need no stinkin' Patches!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Bottom line there is a definite need for improvement. Fortunately I think they've laid a great foundation for future patching, DLC and expansion. By the time this game is all said and done it will be the best game of all time, I'm sure of it. Just in time for Civ 6 to be released.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Well if my assumption that the modifiers are hidden because the AI is out to win the game, then this is the whole point of it.

You are simply not supposed to maintain a solid friendship. They are your blood thirsty enemies. They are out to get you, awaiting your moment of weakness.

So this game is a war-driven game, because diplomacy and alliances don't work? What the ? It is non a warring state situation, where also in warring state situations are formidable and durable alliances (think of Austria-Germany)... Are you nuts or do you totally lack of historical education?

 

[Gath]

So this game is a war-driven game, because diplomacy and alliances don't work? What the ? It is non a warring state situation, where also in warring state situations are formidable and durable alliances (think of Austria-Germany)... Are you nuts or do you totally lack of historical education?

Civ 5 isn't about history. I think it should be pretty obvious its just another wargame now. Someone should do a starcraft mod where the workers are SCVs.

 

[Earthling]

So this game is a war-driven game, because diplomacy and alliances don't work?

Just to answer this - what you quoted is actually a wrong statement about the game - it's not true and it wasn't intended by the devs to be true. Players may have such opinions or want that to be true but fortunately it isn't.

However, the developers clearly did fail at their actual intentions and the game still resulted as too much of a wargame. But it wasn't on purpose to encourage the playstyle described (in what you quoted)

 

[Zechnophobe]

Imagine you were the leader of a civilization and you met another leader. Would you conveniently see modifiers floating above his head telling you how he feels and why? Or would you have to find out by talking to him and studying his demeanor?

1: Does their demeanor change? I hadn't noticed.
2: Where exactly are you meeting this leader? Out in a hovel away from civilization? Wouldn't you have to, y'know, go through their town to find them, and notice when everyone is trying to kill you?
3: Is your only contact with another nation just with the leader? What about merchants? What about troops coming back from expeditionary missions?

You make it sound like floating numbers are meant to represent you psychically knowing their inner most thoughts, as opposed to gauging the reaction of his nation as a whole.

 

[digitalcraft]

Besides, in Civ IV there were so many other things to take into account besides their attitude towards you. You'd get attacked plenty of times by pleased civilizations, just because they thought they could get something, got bribed by another civilization, was Montezuma, etc. At the same time, a civilization could be furious at you and still not declare war depending on a host of situations.

 

[Gath]

1: Does their demeanor change? I hadn't noticed.
2: Where exactly are you meeting this leader? Out in a hovel away from civilization? Wouldn't you have to, y'know, go through their town to find them, and notice when everyone is trying to kill you?
3: Is your only contact with another nation just with the leader? What about merchants? What about troops coming back from expeditionary missions?

You make it sound like floating numbers are meant to represent you psychically knowing their inner most thoughts, as opposed to gauging the reaction of his nation as a whole.

there is some slight demeanor change, but you have to look for it.
Yeah, nation leaders rarely met with eachother. ussually it was done via intermediaries and ambassadors.
I liked the floating numbers because it was like an instant report from my foreign minister on our relationship. It also didn't give any kind of guarantee of their behavior, just because they liked you didn't meant they wouldn't necessarily conquer you if you were weak and pathetic.

 

[aukrest]

100% agree with the OP. When I picked up my first game of Civ (it was Civ 3) I wanted to create an alternate history and see how RL nations and empires would fare in this Civ world. I didn't just want the statistical best time to make the granary/settler/worker/temple.