Diplomacy is in urgent need of help

[civnoob13]

There are so many things wrong with diplomacy in its current state. I hope this is seen as not just a rant but also an attempt at constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement.

Let's start off with the modifiers. In the latest patch, a few more positive modifiers were introduced. Now if you sustain deals with the AI you should gain some influence, if you have a mutual war enemy you will gain influence. My first issue with diplomacy is with the new modifier regarding trading. Instead of gaining influence through fair, long, sustained deals, I have only noticed this modifier ever being brought up in one of two circumstances. One, if you sign a peace treaty, or two, if you outright give the AI a tribute. This is not how this modifier should work. You either have to bribe the AI or you have to be in a war, which is likely going to cause the warmongerer penalty. This is not how the modifier should work. When you have long, sustained and fair deals you should get this bonus. When you sustain peace you should get a bonus.

I have noticed that in this game that diplomacy is completely down to luck. An AI can frequently hate you on sight because they believe that you are trying to win the game in the same way as them. This modifier adds nothing to the game and should be completely removed, or at least disabled until say 100 turns into the game. Then, the few ways in order to gain influence with the AI is for them to want to be friendly with you for absolutely no reason, to happen to stumble across one of their captured civilians, or to just mainpulate them by denouncing whoever they don't like. You don't even get ANY benefit WHATSOEVER for liberating their bloody cities! In fact, they can denounce you a few turns later! This is not how diplomacy should work. And what is the actual benefit for having friends anyway? Being forced to give stuff away? To run the risk of having the very strong modifier of 'your friends found a reason to denounce you' or vice versa if they backstab you? Because firaxis realises that there is no real reason to be friendly with others, they have to make the AI offer the most laughably unreasonable trades when you are not friends.

This aspect of diplomacy can me easily improved. Add positive modifiers for actual trading rather than mentioned above. Add positive modifiers for being at peace for a long time. Add positive modifiers for, say, adopting the same social policy trees (and give the player the ability to see what SPs the AI have). If the AI asks you to DOW on or to denounce someone, you should have the ability to tell the subject of this request that this has happened if you want to, with the obvious diplomatic repercussions. I, personally, would love to see religion to affect diplomacy. Declarations of friendships should also have far more of a benefit and the AI should make reasonable trades without them. Possible benefits for declarations of friendships include a research bonus of, say 5% of the other's science for both parties. Maybe two player can share the allied status with a City State if they are friends (assuming they both have the needed influence). Maybe the AI will be more likely to denounce your enemy, or give you help when you need it when you are friends.

It is also terribly frustrating that the AI can do so many things that you cannot. The AI can ask you to denounce someone (I was very surprised when this happened0, but you cannot. The AI can ask for help due to a declaration of friendship but you cannot. The AI can randomly insult you, I would find it fun to do the same! The AI can ask you to leave a city-state alone but you cannot. The solution to this is very simple: give the player the same options as the AI.

 

[FaceUnderMask]

'you're trying to win the game by the same way' should be either revamped or removed. Sometimes it's just absurd. Just finished one of my games today, there was situation when Mongolia hated me for trying to win the same way AND for being the warmongering menace to the world. Where're the reason? I understand that one powerhouse is supposed to have tense relations with another but this is too much.

Diplomacy is actually very rational, but it is made for the 'zero-sum' game. Therefore, it isn't like real diplomacy at all. Why would everyone DoW someone for building spaceship IRL?

And I agree about trading. We traded recently should be replaced with 'our countries traded for ages'.

Actually there are TOO MUCH negative modifiers, why there aren't much like
- we were in peace for a long time
- you're very peaceful and we like it
- you're a warmonger bastard, so we are, let's be pals.
- we like wonders you have built

Actually some positive bonuses like liberation should greatly override most and possibly all negatives.

 

[Teutorian]

I agree. I'm sure a serious diplomacy patch is in the works. I hope so, at least.
I tend to never befriend a player because as long as they want to be my friend I seem to get all the perks of friendship without the begging. It isn't like a friend will come to my aid in a war or anything. I have occasionally seen friends denounce other leaders seemingly for declaring war on me but who knows. Maybe it was for something else.

P.S. You can check the AI's social policy branches in diplomacy > global politics.

 

[Teutorian]

I'd also like to see situations where Civs that get left behind or don't claim as much land or are in danger of just being overwhelmed start to sign defensive pacts with one another. Picking one civilization off at a time gets stale compared to how interesting a war monger game COULD BE if careful consideration of global politics had to be considered prior to becoming a complete run away military juggernaut.

My last few games seemed too similar to one another. I gobbled up the Indians and Monty, Persia gobbled up the Arabs and Askia, and China ate up the Ottomans.
It seems to me that in that situation the game would be a lot more interesting if the weaker Civilizations started signing defensive pacts so if a larger Empire were to declare they could be faced with a multi front war.

Diplomacy should do a lot of the things mentioned by the OP but major focus should also be on making for a more compelling war monger game, for either myself OR the AI.

 

[civnoob13]

I'd also like to see situations where Civs that get left behind or don't claim as much land or are in danger of just being overwhelmed start to sign defensive pacts with one another. Picking one civilization off at a time gets stale compared to how interesting a war monger game COULD BE if careful consideration of global politics had to be considered prior to becoming a complete run away military juggernaut.

My last few games seemed too similar to one another. I gobbled up the Indians and Monty, Persia gobbled up the Arabs and Askia, and China ate up the Ottomans.
It seems to me that in that situation the game would be a lot more interesting if the weaker Civilizations started signing defensive pacts so if a larger Empire were to declare they could be faced with a multi front war.

Diplomacy should do a lot of the things mentioned by the OP but major focus should also be on making for a more compelling war monger game, for either myself OR the AI.

I agree with everything apart form focus on the warmongering gameplay. Civ 5 is already far too focussed on warmongering as it is because the AI are so aggressive and you can basically guarantee that in most games you will be DOWed on at least twice. Seeing the AI using defensive pacts would make a great addition to the game.

 

[apocalypse105]

'you're trying to win the game by the same way' should be either revamped or removed. Sometimes it's just absurd. Just finished one of my games today, there was situation when Mongolia hated me for trying to win the same way AND for being the warmongering menace to the world. Where're the reason? I understand that one powerhouse is supposed to have tense relations with another but this is too much.

Diplomacy is actually very rational, but it is made for the 'zero-sum' game. Therefore, it isn't like real diplomacy at all. Why would everyone DoW someone for building spaceship IRL?

And I agree about trading. We traded recently should be replaced with 'our countries traded for ages'.

Actually there are TOO MUCH negative modifiers, why there aren't much like
- we were in peace for a long time
- you're very peaceful and we like it
- you're a warmonger bastard, so we are, let's be pals.
- we like wonders you have built

Actually some positive bonuses like liberation should greatly override most and possibly all negatives.

Sigh there is no diplomacy in this game because they are using the Good AI typ you didnt get this by now?

No mather how much positif modifiers they add the AI well never be able to handle them correctly.

It has a complete different coding that makes the AI impossible to conduct diplomacy the right way......

You should not ask you're self why is diplomacy so bad? But Why did they choose this typ of AI in a civilization game?


I ask myself constantly why they did it.. Because diplomacy is a key in this sort of game(thats why so many people like me complain about it). So picking a AI that is unable to handle it is just a terrible mistake

 

[Teutorian]

Well, what I mean is tweaking AI diplomatic options to make the game more difficult for war mongering players and war mongering AI. War mongering is so easy now but they could help fix that with the diplomacy.

The aggressive war monger should bring on outside alliances against himself, so that he needs multiple armies (not just one small elite force) to win a domination victory.
Once all the cultural and diplomatic and more peaceful civilizations recognize him as a war monger he should be in danger of having two or three front wars on his hands for DoW on other Civilizations. A war monger should be forced through the AI diplomacy to build an army worthy of the name war monger and domination victory.

The AI Civilizations letting one Civ with a small heavily upgraded elite force conquer the entire world is just lame.

The AI sucks at war so it would make it a lot more challenging if two or three front responses to war mongering forced to war monger to more carefully consider the timing and target of his aggression, as well as have a standing army on the opposite side of his borders.

It would also be nice if fellow war mongers could hash out deals with one another. Instead of asking you to declare war on someone and then denouncing you as a war monger for it, AI war mongers should offer up booty arrangements in the trade screen listing the target Civilizations cities, which he wants to take and which he's fine with you taking.

 

[apocalypse105]

Well, what I mean is tweaking AI diplomatic options to make the game more difficult for war mongering players and war mongering AI. War mongering is so easy now but they could help fix that with the diplomacy.

The aggressive war monger should bring on outside alliances against himself, so that he needs multiple armies (not just one small elite force) to win a domination victory.
Once all the cultural and diplomatic and more peaceful civilizations recognize him as a war monger he should be in danger of having two or three front wars on his hands for DoW on other Civilizations. A war monger should be forced through the AI diplomacy to build an army worthy of the name war monger and domination victory.

The AI Civilizations letting one Civ with a small heavily upgraded elite force conquer the entire world is just lame.

The AI sucks at war so it would make it a lot more challenging if two or three front responses to war mongering forced to war monger to more carefully consider the timing and target of his aggression, as well as have a standing army on the opposite side of his borders.

It would also be nice if fellow war mongers could hash out deals with one another. Instead of asking you to declare war on someone and then denouncing you as a war monger for it, AI war mongers should offer up booty arrangements in the trade screen listing the target Civilizations cities, which he wants to take and which he's fine with you taking.

The main problem i have with this penalty is that you get this penalty to fast.. ANd the AI only seams to mock the human player for it...

I have seen ENgland declaring war on everybody and conquering arabia and be friends with 3 other civs like ghandi, siam(warmonger hates) say what??


When the human players declares war twice he is a warmonger....( if you declare 3 times you could consider me as a warmonger but twice neah.....).
I even got this penalty just for declaring war one time jep this makes really sence

 

[Teutorian]

Well, ya, that all needs to be fixed. Getting declared a war monger for winning against a war monger is also stupid.

 

[civnoob13]

Well, ya, that all needs to be fixed. Getting declared a war monger for winning against a war monger is also stupid.

Agreed. It is even more stupid when you are called a war mongerer after you liberate someone, or if you join a war on request and that same person declares war on you, or you are forced into one by a defensive pact.

I'd love to have alliances in civ 5 too. As well as just having permanent alliances, you should also be able to have alliances with a group of civilizations. You could talk to multiple leaders simultaneously, have more complex 3 or 4-way trading, force someone to declare peace etc. You could propose resolutions (like in civ 4) for people in the alliance. They could have a really good diplomatic impact on the game and be really fun. It would also disadvantage the warmongerer, who would very rarely, if ever, be able to join alliances.

 

[FaceUnderMask]

> When the human players declares war twice he is a warmonger....( if you declare 3 times you could consider me as a warmonger but twice neah.....).
I even got this penalty just for declaring war one time jep this makes really sence

Actually with recent-patch AI isn't that unilateral. My today's warmonger game on emperor was a success. I completely conquered one civ, took capital and two cities from another one (already two DoWs), quickly became 2nd place in score, get DoWed by 1st place runaway who was in perma-war with nearly everyone (since new AI tend to make lot of DoWs without closing previous ones) and conquered a CS allied with him on top of that. One AI hadn't said a word, two denounced me after city state and only one were actually hating me for warmongering (and that was Mongols, rofl).

Actually this was my first win on emperor, because pre-patch I always ended up one against all due to my warmonger behavior.

 

[Sonereal]

They should get rid of the warmongering bit. If they really want to use the "You are a warmonger!" modifier, they should make it that if you declare war on a civilization within 10 turns of an expired peace treaty, you're a warmonger.

 

[civnoob13]

They should get rid of the warmongering bit. If they really want to use the "You are a warmonger!" modifier, they should make it that if you declare war on a civilization within 10 turns of an expired peace treaty, you're a warmonger.

No I disagree - there definitely has to be a warmonger penalty - you shouldn't be able to destroy civs off the map and take over city-states and for everyone to like you nontheless. The penalty should just be better used - there should be a lower penalty to eliminating a civ, and you shouldn't be affected by being forced into a war by defensive pacts.

 

[Sonereal]

No I disagree - there definitely has to be a warmonger penalty - you shouldn't be able to destroy civs off the map and take over city-states and for everyone to like you nontheless. The penalty should just be better used - there should be a lower penalty to eliminating a civ, and you shouldn't be affected by being forced into a war by defensive pacts.

Depends on the warmonger penalty. I'm talking about the one where if you declare war twice, you are a warmonger.

 

[KaiserKevin]

Normally when I play I'll run against an AI and we it starts hating me when I gobble up prime real-estate during peace time, leading to their DOW.

Last game I parked several units outside of my neighbor (George) capital early game, DOW as soon as an unprotected settlers came out. Kept snagging settlers, leavign him with one cit, and claimed all the good land around him. After being satisfied, I make peace, and the two of us are best buddies for rest of the game >_>

If I try to grab land fairly during peace, invariably the AI will hate, but if I castrate them early game and leave them in a perpetual state of war for thousands of years, that's totally acceptable so long as I agree not to settle any more cities near them after >_<

And the 'they think you're trying to win the game' modifier needs to go. Terrible decision to refer to it as a 'game,' total immersion killer.

 

[civnoob13]

Oh and another thing: expanding and taking cities are two different things. The AI don't realise this.

 

[apocalypse105]

Depends on the warmonger penalty. I'm talking about the one where if you declare war twice, you are a warmonger.

Yeah kina anoying... They should ad least make flavors in it like ghandi will dislike you a lot of if you declare wars even if you declare a few wars..

And for example catherine will only hate you for it if you declare 3 times

makes more sence

Overal i thinx 3 is the magic number 3 if you declare 3 times well i olso thinx i am a warmonger

 

[Becephalus]

Before extending this thread to 5 pages+ you guys should probably read this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=429606

No use repeating the same arguments, as you seem to be doing.

 

[Keejus]

Yeah kina anoying... They should ad least make flavors in it like ghandi will dislike you a lot of if you declare wars even if you declare a few wars..

That is how it works in-game. There's no magic number. Rhamkhamhaeng and Gandhi will consider nearly everyone a warmonger given enough time, but Napoleon and Montezuma are unlikely to ever give a damn.

The reason a human player is more likely to get penalties is that they do a lot more damage when they get in wars than most AIs. The AI likes to declare war, but often it just results in minor scuffles and maybe one side losing a single city. If China wipes out Greece and Songhai, they will not be making any friends who aren't scared or deceptive towards them any easier than a human player will.

 

[Bechhold]

Nine times out of ten by late game if you are in the lead or even not in the lead and have a chance of winning the AI is going to war dec you. Happens all the time. Even Ghandi will hate you.