Diplomacy - Not bad, just different.

[SRG]

Diplomacy with other civilizations in this game should not be considered -permanent-. I have read many, many people complain but the thing is, this is a totally different beast.

Civilizations still require diplomacy, but for short term purposes. It doesn't matter if in 2000 years you end up at each others throats... the question is, what is best for NOW. Maybe for NOW I need to placate my neighbors to get to the point that I am ready to roll over them. Maybe they are thinking the same damn thing. Civilization diplomacy should be viewed as a means to an end, temporary, and just one other tool to take you through the ages towards victory. From what I have seen (it is limited, I have to work... blah) the AI treats it the same way.

Now, for those long term alliances that span the centuries, you have city states. These guys are FAR better allies than any civilization EVER was in Civ IV. And, they aren't trying to "win" the game, thus they will not backstab you. These are the other side of the seesaw.

So, I do believe the AI could be improved some in hexagon warfare... and I know the game has some bugs that need working out (most annoying to me is the simple graphic tiles going haywire for a couple turns once in a while), but all in all, I do not think there are serious flaws with the diplomacy in this game. It is very different, it is two-tiered now. We all need to understand that "diplomacy" involves city-states and civilizations. Taking one without the other will only leave you questioning the entire diplo-game system.

As you can probably tell... I for one really enjoy this new diplomacy. It adds a depth to the game outside of +2, -3, +1, +1, +4 (Friendly). It is not social accounting... it is alive, unpredictable, temporary, multi-faceted, and very different. Bravo CiV for daring to do something totally different this time around.

 

[Yfelsung]

Most people I've seen complain about diplomacy being simple usually totally discount city states in that same sentence.

Conquering city states is NOT the best option. If you can focus your empire on gold production and working with the city states, they'll produce your food, your units and many luxery resources.

Careful management of your city state relationships is key to strong victories in Civ5.

 

[SRG]

I agree wholeheartedly. At first I tried to conquer these one-city nations with a vigor. I soon realized that not ONLY are they pretty tough (easily outdone, but tougher than I thought) - but it had diplomatic ramifications for doing so!

That's when I decided to take another approach. I am here to say that due to the system, I honestly believe the intention was for city-states to be that long-term stable diplomacy fix you will need to counter balance the backstabbing victory hungry bastards that you deal with when you talk to the major civilizations.

With that in mind... it makes perfect sense that going hostile with these guys would have severe diplomatic consequences. You can betray England and most of the world will either understand or get over it... but you betray a couple of city-states and you WILL regret it.

Loving it.

 

[MkLh]

Most people I've seen complain about diplomacy being simple usually totally discount city states in that same sentence.

Conquering city states is NOT the best option. If you can focus your empire on gold production and working with the city states, they'll produce your food, your units and many luxery resources.

Careful management of your city state relationships is key to strong victories in Civ5.

Managing of city states seems ridiculously simple and straightforward. Gift money and stuff, fulfill the tasks they give. Was there something else?

 

[SRG]

No, but that is what it should be... simple, reliable, and long term. It isn't there for the complexity - that is the civilization diplomacy. It does require constant maintenance though, in the form of favors or gold.

You create and maintain your reliable long term alliances. No need to complicate these with minigames. No need to protect yourself from a surprise rear attack - you can TRUST these alliances as long as you maintain them.

 

[spoooq]

Well, city-states are an all-pay auction, so there is game-theory involved

 

[MkLh]

No, but that is what it should be... simple, reliable, and long term. It isn't there for the complexity - that is the civilization diplomacy. It does require constant maintenance though, in the form of favors or gold.

Civ4 diplomacy, however, was more complex.

 

[spoooq]

Civ4 diplomacy, however, was more complex.

Complex != better.

I'm starting to really like the new diplo without numbers.

 

[ohioastronomy]

The removal of government and religion removes some important intangibles; I don't feel as if there is any particular reason why country A should like me and country B should not. A Diablo-style talent tree is not a substitute.

 

[spoooq]

Religion + governments added some nice flavour, I agree.

 

[SRG]

More complex than what? Than city-state diplomacy? Sure, absolutely.

But was it more complex than city-state diplomacy PLUS civilization diplomacy in Civ V?

It was more social accounting... it was a list of + and - that resulted in a relationship. Is that complex? Come on man, we all knew how to get all the + and how to avoid all the -. We knew how to manipulate entire civilizations into the palm of our hands. Hell, we didn't even really have to deal with them trying to WIN the game. Where is the complexity?

I know it is new, it is different, and on some level it makes people (in general) uncomfortable. There are unknowns. But please... define for me complexity. I can add and subtract without thinking about it. There is a set list of actions which result in these modifiers. Is that complex? Or is it complex because there are many factors, some of which are unknown... you can be backstabbed at any time when you no longer suit the needs of your powerful neighbors... you have long term alliances to maintain (thus providing a constant economic or time drain). What is complexity?

 

[Luckystrike77]

I really love the "I'm joining the war, but need 10 turns to prepare" option. The agreements to work against certain civilizations are also a great progress in civ diplomacy.

 

[spoooq]

Underneath the new diplo is a set of modifiers too, you know...

The change is whether the information is visible or not. That is still a very important change of course.

 

[Yfelsung]

Managing of city states seems ridiculously simple and straightforward. Gift money and stuff, fulfill the tasks they give. Was there something else?

You need a constant influx of Gold, you need to have units prepared to dispatch and clear Barbs or aggressive Civs. You need to decide which side to take if two city states want each other gone, and even then you may decide to ignore their calls for genocide. If you do conquer one, do you annex or puppet? You need to balance their relationships with other Civs.

Allying with a single City State can have long running political and diplomatic consequences with every other Civ in the game and some states.

I once attacked Edinburgh and that one attack literally caused the entire diplomatic landscape of my game to change. In ONE turn, and I counted, 26 different declarations of war, peace and protection were made. My one act shattered an alliance between several Civs that were aggressively trying to wipe out India and allowed India to rally and survive.

Civ 5's complexity is about nuances.

Civ 4 was more complexity for the sake of complexity. It was easy to formulate and manipulate. yes, there were more "factors" and more buttons to press, but compared to Civ 5's system it wasn't even remotely close to a real diplomatic relationship.

 

[SRG]

And while I imagine in the future religion could possibly be a nice addition.... system-wise these things were just types of modifiers. You can say they were complex, but I say they were just part of a long list of a rather simple system to get yourself + or - with said opponents.

Let me say though... I LOVED Civ IV, I honestly think that within the system that was designed for Civ IV, diplomacy was highly polished and worked well. My argument is just that you can't really compare it to Civ V with a simple argument like - it was more complex.

 

[spoooq]

It just occurred to me that there is no positive mod to diplo in the way that religion was. Now there is just competition for favours from city-states. Or am I missing something?

 

[spoooq]

Civ 4 was more complexity for the sake of complexity. It was easy to formulate and manipulate. yes, there were more "factors" and more buttons to press, but compared to Civ 5's system it wasn't even remotely close to a real diplomatic relationship.

This is why I feel Civ 4 was a computer game, and Civ 5 is a boardgame in the Euro style. It is much more like sitting around a table with a bunch of people. Instead of complex maths, you use simple maths and complicate it with human reactions and interpretations.

 

[SRG]

It just occurred to me that there is no positive mod to diplo in the way that religion was. Now there is just competition for favours from city-states. Or am I missing something?

Well, when you give gold or do favors or whatever you get that positive modifier... but it deteriorates over time. I don't know if it is really competition, once you are allied to them. It is just not a permanent + mod, it is one that has to be built and rebuilt over time.

 

[spoooq]

Well, when you give gold or do favors or whatever you get that positive modifier... but it deteriorates over time. I don't know if it is really competition, once you are allied to them. It is just not a permanent + mod, it is one that has to be built and rebuilt over time.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was just talking about diplo with other civs. The competition was just with other civs, to be bestest friends with the city-states.

 

[SRG]

Well I guess not... but that doesn't really fit into the new system of things. In the long run, you can not trust ANY civilization because there can be only one winner... thus, a zero sum game. You must lose for them to win, they must lose for you to win. They know this little fact now. How could anything - even both sides being Jewish - overcome the entire point of the game?

BUT - it does promise some interesting potential for religions in the future... default bonuses to diplo, not in the form of permanent mods, but perhaps in the form of multipliers, maybe along the lines of the Greek civ ability with city states or something. I dunno that is just speculation.


I hope I understood your point this time?