Diplomacy is still Rubbish

[umrain]

The only thing I don't like about diplomacy is the peace treaty conditions. I mean how either one side or the other has to make all the concessions. There is no room for compromises. For example I can't offer to return a city in exchange for peace and tech. Or offer some tech for peace on the condition they also make peace with my ally.

I mean I can understand when there is a clear winner that the loser is in no position to make demands, but not allowing two fairly stalemated nations to end the war with a fair compromise (aside from the plain peace treaty with no conditions) is a bit of a shame.

 

[abbamouse]

Someone else already mentioned this, and I haven't seen an answer. Since they already have magic super special unbreakable peace treaties enforced by some higher power, why not run with that concept and simply make any gpt/resource per turn trade last for X turns, disallowing cancellation or war? Remember, they already have magic peace treaties. Why didn't they use that same magic to enforce per-turn agreements?

The existence of magic peace treaties shows that realism isn't the purpose for these restrictions on trading techs or cities for resources or gold. These new rules are there to protect the poor AI. Remember, when you can't make the AI smart, you can just make a rule that protects it from being exploited.

 

[abbamouse]

Oh yeah, and don't forget the advanced teleportation technology that moves all your units out of someone's territory when open borders ends. This is just like real life, when the Germans were instantly teleported out of Italy when its government ordered them to leave in 1943 (an experience the Finns would repeat the following year). Um,wait a minute... Yep, the Germans simply seized Rome as soon as Italy dissolved the alliance, using the forces they already had positioned for the purpose.

Again, these silly rules and arbitrary restrictions are there because they made a dumb AI. This may have been inevitable (after all, I'm sure that fancy moving leaderheads and oinking pigs were far more important to a strategy game than more work on the AI), but let's not pretend their diplomacy system is somehow more "realistic" or that the AI is smarter than Civ III.

 

[King_Nothing]

If you keep talking to the AI, eventually one of its greetings should be "We would encourage you to stop trading with our worst enemy - <worst enemy here>". Otherwise, you can "discuss something else" with the AI, and ask them what they think of the various leaders in order to find out which ones they like and which they hate.

Not the quickest of solutions, of course, but at least it's a solution.

Or you can use your Foreign advisor. click on the ruler in question, and it will show you their relations with all the other leaders.

 

[King_Nothing]

Oh yeah, and don't forget the advanced teleportation technology that moves all your units out of someone's territory when open borders ends. This is just like real life, when the Germans were instantly teleported out of Italy when its government ordered them to leave in 1943 (an experience the Finns would repeat the following year). Oh yeah, the Germans simply seized Rome as soon as Italy dissolved the alliance, using the forces they already had positioned for the purpose.

Again, these silly rules and arbitrary restrictions are there because they made a dumb AI. This may have been inevitable (after all, I'm sure that fancy moving leaderheads and oinking pigs were far more important to a strategy game than more work on the AI), but let's not pretend their diplomacy system is somehow more "realistic" or that the AI is smarter than Civ III.

Or maybe it was put there because this game was built around the idea of being multiplayer accessable, and it got rid of many of the annoying problems of civ3. Personally I'll deal with magic teleporters as long as it means I don't have to deal with annoying AI units wandering around my territory every turn... because thats smart AI...

 

[abbamouse]

The game was built around multiplayer, all right. I like multiplayer but games in which MP is designed first almost always have lousy AI. It's a matter of priorities. Just don't try to defend the AI as being better than Civ III, because it's more or less the same. The only reason it seems better is the "enforce treaties by divine intervention" and "ban all the agreements we couldn't get the AI to negotiate intelligently" rules.

Teleporting was unnecessary to resolve the "AI enters territory" problem. The "cannot enter without war or open borders" rule fixed that. Actually, with this rule in place we could then do the Civ III thing at the end of an open borders agreement by allowing a player to issue a "leave or declare war" order as soon as the other player ends the open borders agreement.

I don't have a problem with units exiting a civ in one turn. It shouldn't take more than a year to get the heck out of Dodge. I have a problem with the idea that peace treaties and open borders pacts are enforced by magic and cannot be broken. No agreement should be unbreakable if you're willing to declare war. That's real diplomacy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Firstly, it isn't really 'TELEPORTATION' when you consider the number of years a single turn represents-and is certainly better than the whole 'RR teleporters' which existed in previous games of Civ. Secondly, why does MP and SP development have to be a 'zero sum game'? You are assuming that the people who develop the MP elements of the game are the exact people who develop the AI which-in the case of Firaxis-is simply not the case. Where the development of MP first has been of greatest assistance to the SP game is that Soren-as lead AI designer-can watch multiple human players and the various tactics/strategies they use, and program the AI respectively to both 'counter' and 'use' these very same tactics/strategies. IMHO, developing MP first has been a Win-Win situation for both SP and MP lovers alike.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Wodan]

A simple flag in the "relations" file would fix this problem. i.e., you trade the AI a resource for a tech, and the flag is set. If you cancel the resource trade (or it gets canceled) before the trade runs its normal course, the AI's relations to you go WAAAYY down.

I guess where that gets messy is when the trade is canceled through no fault of your own. e.g., the AI goes to war with you for some unrelated reason.

Wodan

 

[dh_epic]

If you cancel the resource trade (or it gets canceled) before the trade runs its normal course, the AI's relations to you go WAAAYY down.

This is one of the biggest faults in the civilization series in the past.

- I do X move, which annihilates a civilzation, and catapults me into the lead
- A crippled civilization is now really mad at me

Why WOULDN'T I keep on doing that move, if it always catapults me into the lead?

This ties into people who are complaining that you should be able to sign an open borders treaty, then simultaneously march 6 different armies into 6 different cities at the same time. I find it very amusing when people whine that they actually have to think to win, instead of finding a cheesy, gamey exploit.

 

[Zhahz]

The only thing I agree with is that it's annoying how often times you cannot ask something of the AI, but they can ask it of you (like going to war, tribute demands, or "requesting" latest tech).

1. Diplomacy is a web. Just because you have good relations with a civ doesn't mean that it will screw over its other friends that you're not friendly with.

2. Well, it's a game and there are a lot of random replies. I suppose there could be more, but this seriously is not a serious issue, more a matter of opinion and taste. Who knows, maybe more replies can be modded in.

3. I think that over all the "trade rules" and rules regarding lengths of agreements are vastly superior and the AIs are much more fair in how the trade when they will trade. In Civ3 if you had a bigger empire an AI would never straight up trade you resource for resource, they'd always want an idiotic amount of GPT too. Same with tech - in civ3 you could rarely get a fair trade on a tech if you were successful. All the per turn trades in Civ3 lasted only 20 turns - but in Civ IV they can easily last forever unless they're disrupted (resource ceases to belong to a party) or cancelled due to soured relations.

Overall I think the Civ IV diplo is a vast improvement. The AI can still screw you in some ways (by asking you for things you can't ask of them) but it's much harder to screw over the AI with cheesy deals and the AI is much more fair and expects much more fair deals.

 

[Robi D]

I agree with aussie and dh 100%. All the complains about the diplomacy are coming from the fact that there are no exploits in it. Having nearly finished my first game (damn exams have been taking away from my time to play) i think the diplomacy is brilliant. At first is was annoying that i couldn't get the trades i would have gotten in the past but i found if you put the effort into a relationship with the ai the rewards will come. Also if your deceptive then expect that to be punished. The ai no longer works in an arbitary fashion, which in itself makes the game better and more realistic, i've even become to care about ai civs and help them out when they need it. People use to complain that the ai was easliy exploited and made abitary decisions with no basis, that they would attack you even after having a good relationship with you for the entire game, or go to war with someone even though they are completely outmatched. Now that the ai is shrewed in its trade deals, takes in to account it relationships in the past and wont go to war against some 3 times their side, people complain diplomacy sucks because you can't exploit it, UNBELIEVABLE!! Heaven forbid you actually have to think a bit more about your actions a bit more to win because the choices arn't so clear cut anymore. For these people i have four words to say- Embrace Change and Adapt. Trust me, its not as scary as you think.

 

[weasel77066]

I have an an open borders with Saladin, that expired but hasnt been cancelled. I also just signed a mutual protection treaty with him. (Im trying to work it up to permanent alliance) Note- I came right out and asked him for a permanent alliance, he said no. I ran my cursor over his side of the trade items on permanent alliance and it said "We've never even had a defensive pact" (or something like that)
My point is, if I click on saladin RIGHT NOW, I can hit alt or ctrl at the same time and declare war. It seems that I could march troops into his lands, then just up and declare war- even with a open border and defensive pact.
Alt and ctrl do different things (one is trade and one is declare war) Right now I have several spearmen INSIDE one of his cities and the quick declare war option was still available. I havent had a permanent alliance yet, and I havent paid attention during the times I had 10 turn peace treaties.
Just thought Id mention it in case someone didmnt know.