1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Diplomacy Sucks, example #247

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Sherlock, Aug 15, 2012.

  1. Koiranputki

    Koiranputki Prince

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    376
    Well, there are a few diplomatic "anomalies" that I didn't notice in vanilla....a couple of times recently I've had the AI "ask forgiveness" for invading one of my CS buddies AFTER the CS was taken away by some other civ...though this seemed to happen just shortly after I lost the CS....

    Another I noticed is that if someone denounces you, you may still have the opportunity to get favourable trade terms on some luxuries, if you do it before the turn change. I try not to do that though, as I view it as exploiting "programming weakness"...not the intent of the game...
     
  2. Furycrab

    Furycrab King

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    914
    @ Phil, I won't quote train you on it since your post is quite big. I want the AI to take Human considerations to how it fights. I want it to consider fighting it's neighbor first. I want it to be annoyed if you stole a wonder intricate to it's strategy, I mentioned possibly wanting to take the city but annoyed is annoyed, doesn't matter if it's the Oracle or the Statue of Zeus, I wouldn't like the guy if wonders were my thing.

    That also goes to people thinking I'm weak if I build like negative 2 military units, or hating my guts if I own half a continent, or force my religion on someone who is trying to spread his... To be honest, the only thing I tend to find doesn't have a modifier that is strong enough is spies in damn city states where even my BFFs will coup and counter-coup with impunity.

    Personally I tend to find that there is a relation between people finding the diplomacy to be really weak and people that play on lower difficulties, mostly because it's easy to rack up really high negative modifiers when you can snowball and have a winning position before the Renaissance. However I would want the AI to hate the guy who is winning... It's just a little touchy because the guy who is just getting into the game and playing on say... Prince? might not like that the AI will hate him because of all the shiny wonders.
     
  3. thadian

    thadian Kami of Awakened Dreamers

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    If your unable to get and trade early resources, your diplomacy game will be harder to play. Diplomacy works best when you have the ability to sell resources to the AI for friendly relations + gold.

    Once you can get those early friendships in, you can almost act with impunity. Early diplomacy needs attention. If you denounce the person back who denounces you first, you might get chain denounced by 4 others. This is in part tied in with exploration.

    These are the 2 ways to improve diplomacy - explore fast so that you don't accidentally denounce the AI with 5 friends you haven't met yet. Nor do you want to trade with the guy everyone hates (not immediately anyway). You also can not stall out and just wait 20 turns before trying to sell and trade things, including borders and embassies.

    The direct relationship early exploring and resource bargaining (you can get gold, wars and much more!) with diplomacy means you either hit or miss your chance to develop a "friend pool".
     
  4. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,285
    It's not triggered by allies or friends, it's triggered by 'pledge to protect'. If you've pledged to protect a CS, and haven't revoked or lost that protection, the other civs consider it 'yours'.

    The problem with this, as I noted, is that the AI is not a human, and its diplomacy works on a sliding scale. Enough negative modifiers = war. Slightly fewer = bad or unwilling trades. The only way you can reflect 'annoyance' within that framework is to add a negative modifier - and if you add enough modifiers based on considerations that make no difference to the AI's strategy, or that it can't do anything about, you just end up with an AI with a whole bunch of modifiers telling it to do things that make the game easier for the human. If the other player was a human, however annoyed they were by someone grabbing the same Wonder they wouldn't refuse a deal that could keep them in the game in most cases. The AIs 'feel' more human when doing things that help themselves, regardless of whether or not they do so based on considerations a human would have.

    I want the AI to do things that advance its strategy and present, if not a challenge, at least a source of interest and engagement. In the OP's case, China may not improve its chances of winning the game much by allowing open borders, but it presents the player with the story of the time he came in and marched to China's rescue.

    Yes, there's likely to be something in that. I usually take the leading position in practice in the mid-game in my Immortal games, but am rarely the score leader and that may be one reason I can play peaceful games consistently - although I do need to actively decide not to expand to places AIs might not like and so forth if I want to remain friendly with those particular AIs. Right at the start I tend to avoid being rushed partly by being neither an obvious threat or an obvious pushover. Yet that can't be all there is to it - in many recent late games there have only been two of us in the running for victory, and the other AI will still cheerfully renew DoFs while tussling over city-states with me or trying to complete their spaceship first.

    I don't see this as a problem with the system, simply with not applying it as intended. Denunciation isn't a retaliatory measure, and you don't gain anything by denouncing someone you don't need to. It's a way of building friendships with civs that dislike the one you're denouncing, or if you already have friends being the one whose own denouncement prompts the chain denunciations against your enemies. Denouncing someone just because they've denounced you will quite reasonably make that civ's friends upset. I can't recall the last time I had chain denunciations in a game, but I quite often initiate them or join allies who have already denounced the civ I dislike.
     
  5. qemist

    qemist Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    562
    Sic. The underlying problem is that the AI just applies modifiers to a one-dimensional attitude they hold towards you. It takes little or no account of the context in which actions occur. If the OP DoWed Rome, that would just be another negative as far as China were concerned. Warmonger.

    In the real world (and even in real games) countries doing badly in a war will welcome assistance from almost any quarter. They strive to win the support of neutrals by (temporarily) forgetting petty jealousies and emphasizing the positive.

    One way this difference between real diplomacy and ciV diplomacy comes out is in the pattern of coalitions. In one recent game the following was going on: England was at war with the Celts. Celts were at war with Mongols. Mongols were at war with England. Byzantines were at war with the Mongols and Celts. Spain was at war with the Mongols and England. In history such weird mass wars with no apparent coalitions are unknown. Humans pick a side or stay out of it. OTOH AIs doing badly in a war will DoW someone else because they are jealous of their wonders or they tried to help them or whatever.

    I don't really agree. If they are trying to win they should be working on a grand coalition to bring down #1. If that works start on the new #1. Continue until they are #1 and hope the game ends then.
     
  6. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Singleplayer is not multiplayer, nor should it try to be.....
     
  7. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    25,068
    You actually get a 'we fought against the same enemy' positive modifier.

    Of course that could change to a negative warmonger penalty if you go and capture all of Rome, and you might also then get a 'we covet your lands' or a 'we have contested borders' or even a 'we covet wonders you built' if taking Rome's turf satisfied the conditions for those penalties.

    But these are separate issues altogether.
     
  8. Furycrab

    Furycrab King

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    914
    @Phil

    I understand a bit the concept of fair trade and if you played against a player you might not be as stingy but there have been some improvements on that front. For instance the AI no longer tries to nickel and dime you if you offer him say a Luxury for a Luxury or Open Borders unless he really hates you.

    A "trade" that keeps you in a game can just a well be a trade that takes you out of the game if done with the wrong person.
     
  9. Dogmouth

    Dogmouth King

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    613
    Ok, now you have me curious. Why did you write "sic"? I don't typically pay much attention to the quality of my prose on internet boards, but in this case I don't see an obvious mistake.
     
  10. qemist

    qemist Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    562
    Sic is latin for "thus". I was agreeing with you. If I didn't know any Latin I might have said "this", but that would be common.
     
  11. nefloyd

    nefloyd King

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    663
    It's also used to indicate that you're quoting something but not responsible for any mistakes written in it, so you're throwing curveballs using it without that intent
     
  12. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Just want to emphasize that "Fought against a Common Foe" is a strong positive modifier. I've had it last quite a while in some games. I don't really know what factors influence its duration. Going to war with the Civ a target Civ is at war with is a good way to get into that Civ's good graces, especially if you already have other positive modifiers; even something as minor as "You do not share contested borders."
     
  13. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Some folks don't think the IA should understand "winning" at all. If we wanted multiplayer (where immersion goes out the window and Civ is "just a game") then we'd play multiplayer. When the AI wants to stop you (or anyone else) from "winning" you immediately stop feeling like you're playing through history and feel like you're playing another arbitrary game with arbitrary rules.
     
  14. Dogmouth

    Dogmouth King

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    613
    Got it. I guess I'm used to "sic" being used to indicate that the quote is as it originally appears (usually with errors).
     
  15. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    jjkrause84:

    Actually, I wouldn't recommend playing ANY of the Civ games if you want to feel like you're playing through history. Nothing, IMO, crushes that feel more than "slingshotting" through the tech tree for a Rifle Rush, regardless of how the AI behaves.

    I've always played Civ (especially the first one) as a single player computer strategy game with historical inspiration.
     
  16. qemist

    qemist Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    562
    Yes, I overlooked that. Are you sure you don't also get the warmonger neg?

    I agree with whoever said there should be an asking for assistance in a war mechanic. That would be more specific than just having fought against the same enemy and would improve realism. At the moment the AI asks you randomly for stuff it doesn't need, but never asks for help it needs to survive.

    The operation of those mechanics needs work. You can sell a city on favorable terms to a friendly AI and instantly relations go sour because they now covet your lands or think you are settling too aggressively.
     
  17. GAGA Extrem

    GAGA Extrem Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,581
    Gender:
    Male
    There is one thing I would suggest that should fix a lot of the diplomacy problems:
    The AI should never convey a player's capital.

    Being angry when the player spams cities and blocks AI expansion is okay. Rushing is okay from time to time. But to denounce me on turn 6 because they convey land of my capital is silly. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Question

    Question King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    945
    I really have no clue how the diplomacy works.

    The AI always seems to fight serious wars with me but never with other AIs.

    Here's an example...aztecs are in the lead, along with germany. Me and Austria are right behind them. Austria is to the south of aztecs, germany to the east. I'm behind 3 city states to the west. Everyone hates aztecs. I ally with the 3 CS, and get austria/germany to attack...the aztec army is caught in the middle of the 3 city states and easily annihilated.

    Meanwhile the austrian/german army can't even do a single point of hp damage to undefended cities. As far as i can see, their armies are derping around in their own territories. This never happens when an AI declares on me, they go for the kill, or turtle till they out-tech/out-mass me and then go for the kill.

    Then there's other oddities like warring with an AI that immediately goes to friendly after the war...peaceful AI forever stuck on "neutral" or never wanting to declare friendship despite being on friendly...
     
  19. animalguy

    animalguy Ermahgerd

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    I'm fine with the way diplomacy is right now, except for the fact that modifiers appear to be permanet and never disapere. This means that if a civ turns guarded on turn 100 say goodbye to any friendly relations. If relations could fluctuate then diplomacy would be much more enjoyable
     
  20. pensivepeppers

    pensivepeppers Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    66
    thats a beautiful little rant there, but if China is such a weak and douche-ish country theres no reason to be friends. also i would like a link to the former 246 examples because they seem amusing to read
     

Share This Page