Diplomacy is still broken?

[VainoValkea]

You keep saying that like it's the gospel truth, and not just your own opinion of what the game should be. If Civ were meant to be a pure competitive game, the devs wouldn't bother with having AIs have different personalities based on their historical personalities, or having civs start on terrain similar to their real world geographical positions. Since these features cause the players to start on different - an not necessarily equally optimal - footings, a pure competitive game would eliminate such differences altogether.

A game like Civ, where one player wins and the others lose is a competitive game just like a Formula One race or a Olympic pole vaulting contest - except in Civ, there are no silver medals, only a golden one for the winner. It's good to finally have an AI that does at least a passable job realizing this. (edit: although it does a very, very poor job when it comes to preventing a player from becoming a City-State hoarder or a cultural runaway)

True, there are a few optional flavor elements, but they don't make the game less competitive. They don't alter the fundamental truth that another player's victory is your loss. The AI personalities don't make them shy away from the path to victory, but define which way they pursue it.

I think you should just accept the fact that Civ V's diplomatic model is more gamey than that of the earlier establishments, because that's the way it was intended and not everyone considers it a failure simply because you do.

 

[kaltorak]

What do you think competitive game means?

It's not just tournaments and e-sports money.

Of course. A match of civi, with battleground map type, same starting positions and a player versus a player, or 2vs2. That would be a competitive match.

But 1 player and 7 AIs on a random map isn't for sure.

 

[VainoValkea]

A "competition" doesn't have to mean everyone starts at an equal footing. For example, many racing sports allow each contestant to have unique vehicles. The essence of competition is not that everyone starts in an identical position - quite the opposite, it is the finish line that defines the competition, not the start.

 

[The QC]

Civ is definitely not a tournament game and that's good, because the balancing required would make for less interesting civs and maps and fewer surprises.

But it is still a game that you play to win and that is based around the challenge of managing your empire well towards victory. It is not a game where you make moral choices in a void, like, say, Mass Effect, where you get similar rewards for being good and being bad. It is a game where moral choices mean "am I going to be selfish or am I going to risk losing by being nice"? And it turns out that most people will be selfish .

 

[Quineloe]

Of course. A match of civi, with battleground map type, same starting positions and a player versus a player, or 2vs2. That would be a competitive match.

But 1 player and 7 AIs on a random map isn't for sure.

Not an example, please define competitive game.

Civ is definitely not a tournament game and that's good, because the balancing required would make for less interesting civs and maps and fewer surprises.

Tournament games do not have to be balanced. They have to be fun to watch so you have viewers, because with viewers comes the money that pays for the tournaments.

Some of the most watched pro sports leagues are anything but balanced, yet they rake in billions.

 

[VainoValkea]

Civ V has a comparatively nice system for competitive diplomacy as well. It focuses on intermediate collaboration that serves common good for now, but still ultimately focuses on "my" victory, not "theirs". Military coalitions against a runaway, World Congress, research agreements, resource trading, trade routes, all offer opportunities to bolster one's own civ through co-operation.

 

[Roxlimn]

kaltorak:

Backstabbing is fine if it suits that leader's personallity. But there are many other things that aren't fine. For example, if a friend is beeing invaded by a third AI, and I crush him and save him, I want him to be even more frendlier. In civ5, since I now became more powerful, he dislikes me now.
Well, you would be dead, you are welcome for saving you, you ungrateful b*stard!
Just one of many examples that take away the civilization feel and make it a chess game about winning.

You re mistaken about this, oh dread god. Firstly, backstabbing is absolutely and totally within Rome'a MO. Ceasar's kind of infamous for that. Monte is like this as well. So is Alex and Napoleon. Askia isn't. He tends to wear his dislike openly. Suleiman, too. There are definable personalities in the game.

It is also 100% true that defending your friend will make that friend love you to bits. In one of my games, Casimir invaded Ghandi and took 4 of his 5 cities. I invaded back. Initially, Ghandi and the rest of the world were like "You're just like that Casimir jerk!" But when I started giving Gandhi back his lost cities and workers, the warmonger penalty disappeared and we were suddenly the bestest friends, ever. He was kind of tepid before that.

Let's be clear that we are talking about Gandhi here, the AI personality that blinks when you so much as worker-steal at any point during the game. He was postiively ecstatic with me before the war was over. I even kept Polish cities and our relations were all-green. Not even a minor warmonger thing. Not a peep.

Just fighting an enemy Civ in your "friend's" territory is equivocal and is mostly covered by the strongly positive "we have fought against a common foe" modifier.

Ad if you keep the cities his enemy took? Yeah, if you did that to me, I would hate you, too, even if i I weren't playing to win. It's not power that makes the AI hate you in BNW.

 

[VainoValkea]

You re mistaken about this, oh dread god. Firstly, backstabbing is absolutely and totally within Rome'a MO. Ceasar's kind of infamous for that.

Especially his unca Gaius Julius - who was on the other end of the dagger though!

 

[kaltorak]

Civ V has a comparatively nice system for competitive diplomacy as well. It focuses on intermediate collaboration that serves common good for now, but still ultimately focuses on "my" victory, not "theirs". Military coalitions against a runaway, World Congress, research agreements, resource trading, trade routes, all offer opportunities to bolster one's own civ through co-operation.

There you are right, the collaboration nature of the diplomacy kind of works.
But it is still no excuse for things like AIs hating you when you take a city from THEIR enemy after they asked you for help, or when atila declares 3 times war on you, and you finally have to hit his cities so he doesn't bother you anymore and they still call YOU a warmonger for capturing cities. Give me a break, I'm making your enemy pay, the one that has been bothering you all game long, and instead of beeing happy... "you are a warmongering menace!"

 

[Rohili]

A game like Civ, where one player wins and the others lose is a competitive game just like a Formula One race or a Olympic pole vaulting contest - except in Civ, there are no silver medals, only a golden one for the winner. It's good to finally have an AI that does at least a passable job realizing this. (edit: although it does a very, very poor job when it comes to preventing a player from becoming a City-State hoarder or a cultural runaway)

True, there are a few optional flavor elements, but they don't make the game less competitive. They don't alter the fundamental truth that another player's victory is your loss. The AI personalities don't make them shy away from the path to victory, but define which way they pursue it.

I never said that Civ is not a competitive game. I said it is a competitive game with elements of a historical sim. You seem to think it is an "either/or" thing.

The things that you dismiss as optional "flavour" elements are actually important elements of the game. Where an AI starts and how it acts can make or break the game; they are not mere packaging. For example, it is no secret that some AI personalities play the game better than others (e.g. Hiawatha). If Civ were meant to be a pure competitive game with no sim elements, all the AIs will just have the same, optimal personality. My point is that there are all these features in the game that disprove your view of Civ as a pure competitive game with no sim elements.

I think you should just accept the fact that Civ V's diplomatic model is more gamey than that of the earlier establishments, because that's the way it was intended and not everyone considers it a failure simply because you do.

I don't think Civ V's diplomatic model was intended to be more gamey. I think it was clearly still meant to be a simulation of real world relations. It is still a system based on relationship modifiers like "you broke your promise to us" or "we share a friendship with another civ". If diplomacy was meant to be gamey, civs will simply disregard all these "emotional" factors and trade or declare war based purely on strategic reasons. For example, a civ who desperately needs happiness will bend over backwards to buy your luxuries regardless of how badly you have treated them in the past. But the fact is that civs don't act like that.

You can advocate your view of what you think Civ V should be, but I think it is rude and arrogant to state that Civ V is what you say it is and that players who disagree should just play another game.

 

[Roxlimn]

kaltorak:

If you had one of your "friends" take your cities from your enemies, would you be happy? Methinks not. The AI will love you if you liberate their cities, not if you take them for yourself.

This is the only situation in which the warmonger penalty is totally waived - when you liberate cities. If you take cities, you are a conqueror, pure and simple. Any anti-warmonger would be against that, even if they were friends before.

 

[kaltorak]

You re mistaken about this, oh dread god. Firstly, backstabbing is absolutely and totally within Rome'a MO. Ceasar's kind of infamous for that. Monte is like this as well.

I wasn't mistaken about that, I never said Caesar shouln't backstab. I said it's fine to have leaders with backstabing personalities, even listed montezuma. But there should be a factor on their actions, other than "winning the game". That they should act like leaders, and not like chess players.

 

[Roxlimn]

I wasn't mistaken about that, I never said Caesar shouln't backstab. I said it's fine to have leaders with backstabing personalities, even listed montezuma. But there should be a factor on their actions, other than "winning the game". That they should act like leaders, and not like chess players.

They do, for the most part. BNW AI is actually notorious for not trying to prevent the player from winning the game.

 

[kaltorak]

kaltorak:

If you had one of your "friends" take your cities from your enemies, would you be happy? Methinks not. The AI will love you if you liberate their cities, not if you take them for yourself.

Ok, I'll accept that example. If you capture your friends cities from the enemy and don't give them back, it's ok you are called a warmonger.

But what if I don't take those cities. What if I hit their enemy's capital and other cities. I'm crushing your enemy, making him not able to attack you more, fighting a war you asked me to jump into... and you still hate me for beeing a warmonger.

 

[VainoValkea]

I never said that Civ is not a competitive game. I said it is a competitive game with elements of a historical sim. You seem to think it is an "either/or" thing.

The things that you dismiss as optional "flavour" elements are actually important elements of the game. Where an AI starts and how it acts can make or break the game; they are not mere packaging. For example, it is no secret that some AI personalities play the game better than others (e.g. Hiawatha). If Civ were meant to be a pure competitive game with no sim elements, all the AIs will just have the same, optimal personality. My point is that there are all these features in the game that disprove your view of Civ as a pure competitive game with no sim elements.

The sim elements are minor and, most importantly, toned down heavily in Civilization V as compared to earlier installments where factors completely irrelevant to the game would heavily influence diplomacy far more than they do in Civ V. It is true that the AI fails to be purely competitive at times, but being competitive is still its main thing, with historical flavor taking second place or a guiding role in how the civ in question pursues its victory. Alexander goes for domination and City-States, Shaka for straightforward conquest, Pedro for culture, but they're all trying to win.

I don't think Civ V's diplomatic model was intended to be more gamey. I think it was clearly still meant to be a simulation of real world relations.

"They believe you are trying to win the game in the same manner as them, and they don't like it!"

I'm actually sad that this aspect has been toned down, because in BNW the AI completely ignores culturally powerful players.

You can advocate your view of what you think Civ V should be, but I think it is rude and arrogant to state that Civ V is what you say it is and that players who disagree just play another game.

Oh you'd best read the thread again. It was kaltorak who said the system was a failure for being what it is. I maintain my position that Civ V is fine the way it is and the AI should be even more aggressive, and that if someone doesn't like the intentionally more competitive and less transparent nature of the AI, they can and should play something that suits their tastes better instead of insisting it's a failure.

EDIT: also, the topic itself is asserting that the diplomatic system is broken. So how exactly am I the rude and arrogant one here? Because I disagree with you?

 

[VainoValkea]

But what if I don't take those cities. What if I hit their enemy's capital and other cities. I'm crushing your enemy, making him not able to attack you more, fighting a war you asked me to jump into... and you still hate me for beeing a warmonger.

The last time I checked, the AI doesn't hate you for wars they are also a part of.

 

[Roxlimn]

kaltorak:

Yep. Because you kept the cities. So long as you do not keep cities, your warmonger hate will remain small and relatively easy to go away. This is true even if you take and conquer cities temporarily. Simply offer them back to your enemy as part of the peace deal and your warmonger penalty will go away. This is not as bad as it seems. You only really need the capital for domination, and most of the AI cities you will capture will be crap. Giving them back rather than razing them is good to keep the peace with peacemongers.

Which makes perfect sense, don't you think? Ghandi would be against the wholesale slaughter of whole cities.

In addition, as VainoValkea points out, the AI will forgive you for engaging in wars it is already waging itself. Dogpiling against an enemy all the world is already fighting nets you 0 diplomatic repercussions so long as you do not take cities.

 

[kaltorak]

Oh you'd best read the thread again. It was kaltorak who said the system was a failure for being what it is.

they tried to make the AI play like a human, regarding diplomacy. Which is a total fail in my opinion.

for you civ is competitive, for me it is not a competitive game, settled.

If you don't accept that you're living in denial.

and so on and so on. I have been telling the whole thread how I don't like diplomacy. You are talking about your preferences like they are facts about the game. You are even telling me to go play other games, while I say how I would liek 1 of the many features of the game to be different.

Rohili did read the thread quite well when he told you that

 

[kaltorak]

The last time I checked, the AI doesn't hate you for wars they are also a part of.

It doesn't hate you for declaring war now, it hates you for taking cities, even from their enemies or from wars you didn't start

 

[Quineloe]

if someone makes up arbitrary meanings of words or use words they don't know what they mean to begin with, of course they can make every opinion seem valid to them.

Competition by it's literal definition means nothing else but that there is one goal and multiple competitors try to reach that goal.

Civ has always had that goal. In 1990, Sid himself decided to add the space race victory condition, the Civ to first get their colony ship to Alpha Centauri would be given the game win.

Ever since that, new victory conditions have been added and it's clear that everyone else loses. If the AI beats you to a victory, you get a lose screen.

With all that evidence, it is obvious CIV is a competitive game.


Just deciding that competition means something else, so Civ does not fit that game, is just not how language works.