Diplomacy observations

[Volstag]

Approaching the end of my second real game. As a result, I thought I'd post my largely useless thoughts/observations on Civ IV diplomacy/politics.

In this iteration, the AI civs appear to, generally speaking, act more logically/rationally with regards to diplomacy. However, they seem to be overly concerned with maintaining the status quo. While this might better reflect "real life", I've found that the political arena in Civ IV is much more static than Civ III.

For example, in Civ III it was quite possible for several wars, often featuring several combatants, to occur during a single game. It wasn't particularly rare to see full blown world wars in Civ III. In my two games of Civ IV, I've seen exactly four war declarations, and these "wars" typically last 10 to 20 turns, and they've been strictly one-on-one affairs. Additionally, diplomacy amongst the AI civs seems to be largely a "some or nothing" affair. In other words, they'll happily trade techs, resources, maps, etc -or- they're not interested in trading anything for anything -- even when you have the resources to greatly enhance their empire. Contrast that with Civ III, wherein if you were willing to offer a lot, you could often bend a reluctant Civ to your will.

I should also note that I've yet to see the option to get a Civ to declare war on other Civ, or the option to get a Civ to join me in a war with another civ (they're always red/disabled... regardless of the relationship between my civ and the AI civ). While we're at, I've yet to see any Civ interested in "not trading" with any other Civ. In other words, they're interested in trading only techs, gold, resources, maps, open borders -or- nothing at all. It's as if the Civ III days of proxy wars, world wars, alliances, etc, are gone. Civ III just seemed to offer a lot more in the way political maneuvering and Machiavellian scheming. It's like the objective the Civ IV AI is to maintain a tacit peace for the entire game. As soon as the initial expansion is over, the AI seems content to simply maintain what they have.

What happened to one AI crushing another AI? What happened to scrambling for alliances when the neighborhood bully declares war on you? What happened to fostering wars between your biggest competitors? This may simply be a product of needing more games, but so far I've found that unless you're looking to trade techs, or resources, there's not much to do diplomatically/politically.

And, again, this might be more realistic, but it doesn't seem as much fun. Has anyone else noticed this? Is it just a product of these two particular games?

-V

 

[suspendinlight]

Try checking the Agressive AI option to get more fighting.

Also, I have had no problem getting others to join with me against my enemies and have also signed multiple defensive pacts, so I don't know what the problem is there. Check your modifiers and their attitude toward the civ you are trying to attack. If they are not pleased with you or they are pleased with your enemies, you will not have much success. Also, if you hold the cursor over the red option it will tell you why it is red (i.e. "we don't like you enought" or "we have nothing to gain").

I have to say, I do find it annoying that you can't trade per turn items and permanent items anymore though...

 

[Volstag]

Try checking the Agressive AI option to get more fighting.

Yeah, there's that. I'll look into it if additional games prove to be as static as these two that I've played. Seriously, when borders touched, the AI appears to have no further interest in aggrandizement beyond tech/resource trading. I kept waiting for one of 'em to take the gloves off and start smacking people around.

Also, I have had no problem getting others to join with me against my enemies and have also signed multiple defensive pacts, so I don't know what the problem is there.

Well, it's good to know that it can happen. In these two games, even civs that I'm friendly with (+7 and better) seemingly have no interest in joining me in a war, or declaring war on someone else, or even stopping wimpy trade deals w/ someone else.

I'll just assume it's these two (ultra static) games.

 

[walkerjks]

My first game (noble, all default settings) had three wars. The first, I started. I maxed out my space and picked on the smallest civ that was not my religion (so I already had bad relations with them). I fought this one until I terminated them (about 7 cities conquered).

By starting this war, I made 3 other civs annoyed with me (since I attacked their friend). Eventually, this led to Catherine attacking me (she tried to force me to convert before the attack). In this case, I managed to pull in my closest ally, Frederick, to fight on my side. Since Frederick was between me and Catherine, he took the biggest hit and together we rolled 3 cities before we all declared peace.

War 3 started very late in the game between 2 AI civs. I have no idea why they didn't like each other. It was a slow war since it crossed an ocean, but one city changed hands before I won with a space victory.

In my current game (also noble), the Chinese inexplicably attacked me (they were at +6 relations at the time), but accepted peace as soon as I thumped their initial assault force.

Otherwise, everything has been peaceful. There definitely is a little too much peace, love, and happiness for my tastes (and I'm traditionally a builder). Basically if I don't stir the pot, nobody does much of anything.

 

[skeller]

Remember that the leaders the AI is playing as make a difference -- aggressive ones are much more likely to attack you.

I've finished three games on noble and I've been all over the place with diplomacy: I've convinced AIs to stop trading with others, to declare war on others, to convert to my religion, to adopt specific civics, and even to sign defensive pacts with me.

I think the thing to remember is, unlike the old Civ games, regardless of how much an AI likes you it won't do things that are of no benefit to it. That's why a lot of stuff is red: just because you picked a fight with a civ, your friends aren't going to anger your enemy and lose lucrative trade deals just because they like you.

Nor is a weak civ going to declare war on a strong civ just to help you out. It's much easier to get help when you're fighting weaker opponents -- everyone wants in on the free cities.

One thing I haven't noticed is if you can intimidate opponents. I have never seen a relationship modifier based upon the power of your army. Anyone notice if this is the case?

 

[Tre976]

I've been playing on Noble, and been attacked by 3 different countries. One of which I was +7 on a happiness trail because I left my western coastal cities sparsely defended with antiquated units as I rolled over the French on the astern half of my continent.
As of 1986, with 50+ turns left on The UN election, America and Mongol get into a fight, with America invading the Mongol homeland and razing (2)12+ sized cities in 3 turns and asking me to assist in the obliteration of the Mongols.

 

[Volstag]

Otherwise, everything has been peaceful. There definitely is a little too much peace, love, and happiness for my tastes (and I'm traditionally a builder). Basically if I don't stir the pot, nobody does much of anything.

Yeah, that's pretty much my observation as well. In this game I'm about to finish, there's been exactly one war... started by me. Initially I was reluctant, 'cause I felt he (Japan) had the resources to put together an alliance -- but, he rolled over and died, and none of the other AI civs seemed to care one way or another.

I'm more of a builder myself, but I really enjoy the obstacles/challenges created by hostilities...

 

[Tucker from RvB]

This probably sounds dumb, but I can't figure out how to cancel a deal such as Open Borders or a resource trade. And it doesn't say in the manual as far as I can tell. How do you do it?

 

[khumak]

This probably sounds dumb, but I can't figure out how to cancel a deal such as Open Borders or a resource trade. And it doesn't say in the manual as far as I can tell. How do you do it?

In the diplomacy window there's a tab labelled "ACTIVE". Click on that, locate your trade agreement, click on it, and cancel.

 

[Greek Plunder]

Don't judge the game with only two games under your built. The AI diplomacy in this game, I find, is much more in-depth and involved than in previous iterations. I have no problem finding friends to go to war with when I manage my contacts correctly.

 

[g4bb3]

Less talk about something else -> what do you think of ?
i.ex Montezuma Answer : blabla Annoyed (better), Cautious.
Never mind , go to trade option.
Often in this cases of (annoyed) i.ex Montezuma wont be Redlighted.
Click on the Stop trading or Declare War on.

Then you could ask the A.I what it would need to go to stop trading with them, a few turns after that its even easier to ask the AI what it would need to go to war. Mostly they want tech, sometimes resourses. If the AI is on the same level as you they might want big money.

Anyhow, i had the largest religion in the game, Montezuma declared war on me. Erazed a city. I managed to turn 4-5 Civ to go to war on him. I coordinated the attacks by suggesting other A.I´s what cities to attack after i barraged them from ships lowering their citydefense value.
Religion matters in CIV4 if you want to do this.

 

[chris8b]

Volstag,

I have not had the same experience as you. In my games, diplomacy is live and well. AI civs trade with me and each other, go to war against common enemies, threaten me when I'm weak unless I pay tribute, convert to my religion when suggested, give in to (and reject) my requests, get mad when I turn down theirs, etc...

I did have one stale diplomacy game on my first attempt but I was at a very low difficulty level. What difficulty are you playing on?

-C

 

[Volstag]

I'm playing Noble.

 

[Bard]

Ive played three noble games and in my last one I tried to pick only aggresive leaders for the AI (and enabled the more aggresive option) and for almost six hours I was in a state of constant war, with some minor breaks, with almost every leader and only one of those conflicts was started by me.
That was fun

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Volstag,

I have not had the same experience as you. In my games, diplomacy is live and well. AI civs trade with me and each other, go to war against common enemies, threaten me when I'm weak unless I pay tribute, convert to my religion when suggested, give in to (and reject) my requests, get mad when I turn down theirs, etc...

I did have one stale diplomacy game on my first attempt but I was at a very low difficulty level. What difficulty are you playing on?

-C

I agree - I get plenty of wars, in fact, the AI has started them ALL

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Volstag,

I have not had the same experience as you. In my games, diplomacy is live and well. AI civs trade with me and each other, go to war against common enemies, threaten me when I'm weak unless I pay tribute, convert to my religion when suggested, give in to (and reject) my requests, get mad when I turn down theirs, etc...

I did have one stale diplomacy game on my first attempt but I was at a very low difficulty level. What difficulty are you playing on?

-C

I agree - I get plenty of wars, in fact, the AI has started them ALL (not playing with aggressive btw)

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

oops double post

 

[duxup]

I've only got a few games under my belt so I can't say much about what the AI is like overall, except that things have also been relatively peaceful (vs. Civ III).

Personally I like it so far. In Civ III it seemed that once a couple civs started a war, more often than not everyone got dragged in. That wasn’t bad but it often meant that just a simple mutual protection pact in peacetime often resulted in you being at war with a number of previously friendly civs. That chaos could be tons of fun but it happened so often it could also be annoying.

 

[Volstag]

In Civ III it seemed that once a couple civs started a war, more often than not everyone got dragged in. That wasn’t bad but it often meant that just a simple mutual protection pact in peacetime often resulted in you being at war with a number of previously friendly civs. That chaos could be tons of fun but it happened so often it could also be annoying.

Yeah, it could get annoying in Civ III, but, as you mentioned, it went a long way towards creating a very dynamic and entertaining environment. The balance of power was way more likely to shift... which left me, as the player, scrambling to cement myself in an advantageous geopolitical situation.

But... I'll learn to live with this seemingly "peaceful/happy" iteration of Civ -- 'cause, other than that, I'm it enjoying so far (and thankfully it appears that some of you are experiencing more wars).

 

[Jhyrryl]

I've only finished 1 game (Large Terra, Noble), and it was very peaceful, but it appeared that it would have been easy to provoke wars whenever, and in fact, when Washington declared war on Louis XIV, the next turn I paid Catherine a couple of techs to go to war against Louis, as well, without going myself, although a few turns later I jumped in and took the one city I was interested in, and arranged peace as soon as Louis was willing. In the end, I was the only one to take a city. A previous war had been started by Ghengis Khan against Catherine, but there were no city casualties as a result of it, and no other wars the entire time (not including taking cities in the new world). But throughout the game, Catherine was ready to jump on just about anyone I could ask, if the price was right, even Civs she was rated as Friendly towards.