Diplomacy - the Balance of Power

[ahmedvonmuneeb]

I really don't know how the diplomacy AI in Civ4 works. From what I've seen, it would appear that it attaches a certain value to possible trades, modifies this based on the relationship level and checks to see if it's above the acceptability threshold. For tribute, it makes a comparison of power and checks again, etc. etc.

In man's bloodstained history, the theme of a balance of power is a recurrent one. Diplomacy is regulated not so much by what nations want, but by what they need. As it is, I see very little representation of a "national interest" in the game. For instance, a continental power would perceive any outlying islands occupied by foreign cities as an infringement of its national interest. Similarly, a nation with many outlying colonies would perceive the rise of a major sea-power as a major threat and start looking for a casus belli. At the same time, many nations are, from time to time, dominated by fickle public opinion such as nationalism or anti-socialism, therefore, wars and embargoes with some nations are more acceptable than with others.

Why doesn't the game model this more accurately rather than lumping all of these effects into an ambigious "relationship meter" that depends on too many things to be put in one equation anyway?

I don't know if it's possible, but would it be possible for the AI to act along the principles of the balance of power (hopefully leading to world-domination). I know that many players do this: ally with smaller nations to take out the gigantic civs, but is it possible to make the AI do the same? Could the AI's war-mongering be made more agressive and active as well? Such that rather than sending a few galley-loads of troops to attack, it starts by securing bases, prepares huge invasions and then attacks?

All these are just ideas, is there anyone out there who can tell me if this is possible?

 

[NikG]

I agree with you that diplomacy is still one of the areas left for Civ to improve. I were very disappointed by the (still) lacking diplomacy. I am very satisfied with the overall game, believing that it is the best of all 4.
But your suggestion can not be implemented without the SDK.

I can see that Civ 4 have borrowed a few things from CtP 2, but why didnt they take the diplomancy model, were you should select a tone of voice before talking to other civilizaitons. It were so much cooler, that by proper use of the diplomancy, you could threat civs to give up cities, which is to difficult in civ4. I mean... if you have nearly occupied all the lands, and taken a few cities and with an overhelming army threats the rest of the cities, few civs in civ4 will give up a single city for peace. Sometimes they are really suicidical, nearly as they what to get wiped out.

And the way you and the ai "just" declare war, it could also be cool if a pop with the reason or you pick a reason why you go to war (and taking this into account with overall diplomacy). Often you can "guess" the reason, but that still seems a little vague to me. (Like if Isabella says you should shift to her religion, and a few turns after she declare war, it is somekind of crusade against me).

The leaders are too static in terms of diplomancy, there declare war here and there for no apparent reason, and dont take anything into account what have happended the last turns (only some arbitary numbers). And when your are clearly a greater power in the game, it is very annoying when a minor civ begins to demand things from you. Like if suddenly Cuba begins to insist that the US should give up their latest military technologies... I think most in america would laugh.

The only time a saw a good AI "diplomacy", was when I fough 2 civs, and 3 others joined against me, but then again no alliance with the others civs, and I think they only did that because I refused various demands (which I always do).