Does the AI understand defense pacts?
- Thread starter gladoscc
- Start date
No, the AI doesn't seem to understand defensive pacts for the most part. You can get into trouble if you form defensive pacts with 2 civs that then go to war - you'll automatically be at war against the aggressor (with no notification, which seems to be a bug though technically you are the one who declared war...). To make matters worse if you had a declaration of friendship the other AIs (including the aggressor) will denoouce you for declaring war on a civ you had declared friendship with.
That's not to say that defensive pacts are completely unknown to the AI. In negotiation the AI won't accept a pact unless you're friendly and then don't think you'll backstab them (so it's much easier to get them right when defensive pacts become available). And with regards to AI behavoir it does seem to affect other AIs - my experience has been that AIs will take into account defensive pacts when considering if you are strong or weak (though I thought defensive pacts where secret?). This has been most obvious to me when an AI has obviously been wanting to declare war on me, but doesn't start preparing for war until the turn that my defensive pacts expire. It's the opposite of the same behavoir I see when I suddenly upgrade or buy several units, with the AI immediately becoming less aggressive due to my demographic standing.
That's not to say that defensive pacts are completely unknown to the AI. In negotiation the AI won't accept a pact unless you're friendly and then don't think you'll backstab them (so it's much easier to get them right when defensive pacts become available). And with regards to AI behavoir it does seem to affect other AIs - my experience has been that AIs will take into account defensive pacts when considering if you are strong or weak (though I thought defensive pacts where secret?). This has been most obvious to me when an AI has obviously been wanting to declare war on me, but doesn't start preparing for war until the turn that my defensive pacts expire. It's the opposite of the same behavoir I see when I suddenly upgrade or buy several units, with the AI immediately becoming less aggressive due to my demographic standing.
danieladler
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 272
After 1000 plus hours, mostly playing emperor difficulty, i ask: what freaking defense pacts?? Are we playing the same game here?
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
The only time DP seem to work is if you have only 1 going on at a given time (ie Civ X has DP with Civ Y and no one else, Civ Y has DP with Civ X and no one else). Whenever I've seen multiple DP, it almost always leads to trouble. And the notification system definitely has to be fixed with respect to DP in general. The only time I'll even bother with these is when I'm going for cultural or space race and there is a very friendly civ with a powerful military.
Civ4 got DefPacts right. There something flimsy and disorganized about DefPacts in civ5 that makes them seem rather useless. Just my opinion, of course, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement with Civ5's defensive pacts (and diplomacy in general).
Civ4 got DefPacts right. There something flimsy and disorganized about DefPacts in civ5 that makes them seem rather useless. Just my opinion, of course, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement with Civ5's defensive pacts (and diplomacy in general).
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
And that's what SHOULD happen if multiple DPs are made with multiple civs. There was never an incorrect DoW. It always worked out the way the deals were made. In one of my Civ5 games, I made the mistake of getting a DP with 2 different civs and they had DP with each other, a tertiary civ DoW on me and I saw no indication of the other DoW on the aggressor. No one had to make peace and my buddies didn't do much in the war even if they had honored their agreement (even though both civs were bordered with the aggressor).
There is something very flimsy and incomplete about DP in Civ5. Civ 4 got it right because everything was very concretely laid out and even in those multiples of multiples of DP, the DoW occurred properly and you were notified for each of them.
I had very good experiences with them in 4, in a logical sense anyway. I sometimes found them frustrating as a civ i wanted to get rid of had multiple DPs but that is the point, they would stop me declaring war because i didn't want to fight all their friends at the same time.
If you made it to late game also i often found a cold war scenario developing with two factions defined by DPs where no one would declare on anyone else or it would create a full scale world war (which i sometimes used to instigate for fun
)
elprofesor
Pluri-editing poster
This. Getting the diplo penalty "backstabed a friend" when it was your friend who, completely forgetting about your military might and your mutual friendship (which neither seem to be correctly taken into account by the AI before DoWing), decided to DoW your other friend, is what holds me off from signing DPs.
You should get a diplo penalty "allied an enemy" (or sth) with your friend, so that(unless he was very deceptive) he would hate you before the DoW because of it, and not afterwards because "you backstabed them!"; or else think that it wasn't that important to start off, and not DoW your friend at all.
I find defensive pacts, like declarations of friendship, are shallow, pointless and misnomers. I never offer or accept any. They mean very little and no AI is trustworthy enough to make them worthwhile. When every AI is a competitor in a game with one ultimate goal that everybody is competing to achieve, notions like "friendship" and "mutual defense" are empty distractions.
headcase
Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn
Good point, this is a building block towards fun defensive pacts.
declaration of friendship is useless... the only thing it does is wreck your relations with other civs because your friend DoW on them for farting near their border... oh and they expect freebies but laugh in your face if you ask for a freebie.
if you're getting invaded, you ask your 'friend' to help by DoW on your enemy and they ALWAYS decline unless it's in their personal interest.
they can also attempt to conquer your city state allies (songhai does this 99% of the time)... and you can't stop them because the other AI players see you as a backstabber.
therefore i ask, WTH is the point in friendship?
i reject all offers for friendship and then make a defensive pact.
the AI seemingly understands the repercussions for attacking a civ with defensive pact, and i've only ever seen them DoW through a defensive pact once (and that's because it was alexander - and he's a ******** warmonger in this game). DP is an effective preventative measure for war...
if you're getting invaded, you ask your 'friend' to help by DoW on your enemy and they ALWAYS decline unless it's in their personal interest.
they can also attempt to conquer your city state allies (songhai does this 99% of the time)... and you can't stop them because the other AI players see you as a backstabber.
therefore i ask, WTH is the point in friendship?
i reject all offers for friendship and then make a defensive pact.
the AI seemingly understands the repercussions for attacking a civ with defensive pact, and i've only ever seen them DoW through a defensive pact once (and that's because it was alexander - and he's a ******** warmonger in this game). DP is an effective preventative measure for war...
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
What I see in this game is penalties to trading given for Guarded and Hostile relationships (ie to get 1 extra lux resource from them, you need to give 4 lux resources, 2 strat resource, a chunk of gold) but ZERO bonuses given for DoF trading. This is a little bit unbalanced and it makes for a less interesting, unrewarding system of diplomacy. Sure it's nice to have some DoF and a good block form when you are going for a Culture victory, but that doesn't assure you of anything since Civ5 leaders can and will backstab if they see potential gain from it.
In future DLC or patches (or perhaps a mod), there needs to be rewards for maintaining a DoF. As previously stated by another member, the AI can come asking you for gifts and give you penalties or rewards based on your response, but you have no way of asking them for gifts. It is difficult to program the AI to understand what the repercussions might be for either response in that situation, so perhaps just giving a boost to trades is the way to go.
In other words, if my civ is in a state of unhappiness (1-9
) and I have a DoF with Civ X, then Civ X's leader should be willing to trade one of their excess luxury resources for half of the value that it generally would call for (ie buy the resource for 250 
becomes 125 since you are friends).
Perhaps this isn't a good solution, but there should be SOME form of bonus to trading when having a DoF.
In future DLC or patches (or perhaps a mod), there needs to be rewards for maintaining a DoF. As previously stated by another member, the AI can come asking you for gifts and give you penalties or rewards based on your response, but you have no way of asking them for gifts. It is difficult to program the AI to understand what the repercussions might be for either response in that situation, so perhaps just giving a boost to trades is the way to go.
In other words, if my civ is in a state of unhappiness (1-9
) and I have a DoF with Civ X, then Civ X's leader should be willing to trade one of their excess luxury resources for half of the value that it generally would call for (ie buy the resource for 250 becomes 125 since you are friends). Perhaps this isn't a good solution, but there should be SOME form of bonus to trading when having a DoF.
jtb1127
Deity
No, they'll declare war with no recollection.
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
I'm pretty sure you can find plenty of real world examples where friends can actually count on friends staying friends for extended periods of time. England/US and Israel/US are 2 that I can name right off the top of my head.
General Pilates
Warlord
The complex relationships from which these friendships are forged from are decades, if not centuries years old, and cannot it any way be compared to a simple defensive pact in the game. There simply are not complex enough dynamics to pull off such a relationship and such alliances are as likely to stay together as Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and one must always assume this.
Did they have a preset tech tree to rush through?
Any preset social policy trees to unlock?
What about preset victory conditions - Space Victory, Domination, Cultural, Diplomatic? Anything they had to look forward to for FLAWLESS VICTORY?
What about their rulers, who are apparently immortalized sociopaths who can live almost forever? I'm pretty sure America is ruled by Lord George Washington the Great Terrible, who has a crapload of nukes available thanks to his Fascism SP maximizing his uranium resources, and is busy conquering the world like an Alexander...
We live in a world of IUPT. Totally.
Any preset social policy trees to unlock?
What about preset victory conditions - Space Victory, Domination, Cultural, Diplomatic? Anything they had to look forward to for FLAWLESS VICTORY?
What about their rulers, who are apparently immortalized sociopaths who can live almost forever? I'm pretty sure America is ruled by Lord George Washington the Great Terrible, who has a crapload of nukes available thanks to his Fascism SP maximizing his uranium resources, and is busy conquering the world like an Alexander...
We live in a world of IUPT. Totally.
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
Uh... I believe we were talking about diplomacy in game as compared to diplomacy IRL. I don't recall anyone claiming the game itself was a great model for the real world.
Just to have some fun with this:
BTW, ideologies are immortal as long as societies invest their trust/beliefs in them. This is especially powerful in a society with a forced rotation of leaders so that (supposedly) no one leader can corrupt the ideology. I imagine a domination "victory" is something that plenty of societies AND sociopathic leaders IRL have sought after... ever heard of WW2?
As far as I can see, the only problem with this statement is "Lord George Washington the Great Terrible". Take that away and perhaps substitute neo-fascism for fascism and it looks pretty accurate.
Just to have some fun with this:
BTW, ideologies are immortal as long as societies invest their trust/beliefs in them. This is especially powerful in a society with a forced rotation of leaders so that (supposedly) no one leader can corrupt the ideology. I imagine a domination "victory" is something that plenty of societies AND sociopathic leaders IRL have sought after... ever heard of WW2?
As far as I can see, the only problem with this statement is "Lord George Washington the Great Terrible". Take that away and perhaps substitute neo-fascism for fascism and it looks pretty accurate.
