Examples of 4X games with GOOD diplomacy?

[Stringer1313]

It seems a lot of posters have said that Civ diplomacy has always been inadequate, and I don't disagree. Don't laugh, but I actually thought that Civ:BE took things into an innovative direction by rewarding peace and having agenda-ish elements. I do wish there were a diplomacy mechanic that rewards long-lasting peace (similar to what appears to be the government legacy bonus).

In any event, are there examples of 4X games where the diplomacy mechanic was actually GOOD, and why? I ask b/c I'm wondering if a diplomacy mechanic can ever be satisfactory.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I know it's a bit formulaic and predictable for some, but i REALLY like the diplomacy in EUIV. They mathed the pants of diplomacy in that game

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I thought the idea in BE of having Diplomatic Capital was a good one... potentially removing diplomacy from the "this is how you manipulate the AI" to a "this is how AI and you manipulate each other" system.


The real failing in 4X diplomacy is the lack of a "Unification" option...basically Empire A+B join together and Win together (and can add more members).
The problem is that such an option almost always isn't present, and if it is, costs far less than the conquest+assimilation of a reasonably equal sized empire.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It's an old game now but I thought Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC) had good diplomacy. It was more conversational and the leaders had personalized responses to your demands (the scientist would quip about his research, the environmentalist would quip about saving the planet etc). The leaders had character.

Today, virtually all 4X games have gone to the "negotiation table" type diplomacy where you can pick from a menu of items to create a deal and offer it to the AI. It does have the advantage of allowing a lot more customization in terms of the types of deals you can make with the AI but it often lacks personality. It can be difficult to program the AI to understand the value of a deal so the AI tends to make absurd demands.

 

[Browd]

Ugh, the diplomacy is EUIV is not very satisfying, in my opinion. It is entirely a numbers game, and too easy to predict and manipulate.

Of course, if you want diplomacy that is wholly deterministic, then the EUIV model works, but what makes "real" diplomacy so hard to mimic in a computer game, in a way that is satisfying to the player, is that "real" diplomacy is characterized by human caprice, jealousies and errors - in WWI alone, in addition to the comedy of diplomatic mis-assessments that drove the participants into full-scale war, you had comparatively small "foot faults" that had great diplomatic impact -- including the Zimmerman telegram and Heinrich Albert falling asleep on a NY subway.

Could you ever model all of that in a computer game, without royally pissing off players who would decry the randomness of it? We say we want realistic diplomacy, but what we often want is perfectly predictable diplomacy, consistent with the god-like role we play in these games, where our every order is carried out with perfection by our subjects (except when we misclick, of course, but that's what reloading is for, right?).

I'm hoping that the AI agendas will inject the right balance between programmed (and therefore somewhat predictable) behaviors and some randomness (particularly randomness that mimics, to some degree, human biases and prejudices).

 

[Krajzen]

I know it's a bit formulaic and predictable for some, but i REALLY like the diplomacy in EUIV. They mathed the pants of diplomacy in that game

I agree but EUIV is not 4X game

Ugh, the diplomacy is EUIV is not very satisfying, in my opinion. It is entirely a numbers game, and too easy to predict and manipulate.

I disagree, many unpredictable things happen in EUIV diplomacy. Nations change rivalries, break alliances, there are events shaking things up, turns from-rival-to-ally, AI attitudes you cannot influence (you may do whatever you want but if AI nation has hostile/outraged/rival attitude you have very limited abilities to change its mind), dynastic policies (alliance breaking becouse of claim throne), sudden succession wars etc. AI isn't bad in EUIV in general, but still sometimes makes stupid things you couldn't predict, and sometimes those movements even work
I am currently playing Wallachia in eu4, very diplomatic heavy session (because of atrocious Wallachian geographic position - surrounded on all sides by three very powerful alliance blocs or empires, who hate each other) and diplo in this case is pretty satisfying.

 

[Lord Tirian]

I thought the idea in BE of having Diplomatic Capital was a good one... potentially removing diplomacy from the "this is how you manipulate the AI" to a "this is how AI and you manipulate each other" system.

Another concept CivBE actually got right was the different tracks for fear and respect. While it's a shame that the RT diplomacy system completely replaced the Civ5-style trade table, diplomatic capital, fear and respect, and the idea that certain leaders like certain actions (similar to the Civ6 agendas, actually) were really neat experiments. I'd really like to see fear/respect or something similar re-appear.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The definition of "good diplomacy" is purely subjective and I can't tell any sample of the one good enough for me.

There are some simple diplomacies which just work, they are met mostly in fantasy games like Warlock. Not purely fun, but don't break the rest of the game. However, I wouldn't be satisfied with anything like thi in Civ6.

It was speculated what some MP-oriented diplomacy based on public opinion could be good, but we didn't see any real examples of this, so generally this shouldn't be that easy.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I agree but EUIV is not 4X game



I disagree, many unpredictable things happen in EUIV diplomacy. Nations change rivalries, break alliances, there are events shaking things up, turns from-rival-to-ally, AI attitudes you cannot influence (you may do whatever you want but if AI nation has hostile/outraged/rival attitude you have very limited abilities to change its mind), dynastic policies (alliance breaking becouse of claim throne), sudden succession wars etc. AI isn't bad in EUIV in general, but still sometimes makes stupid things you couldn't predict, and sometimes those movements even work
I am currently playing Wallachia in eu4, very diplomatic heavy session (because of atrocious Wallachian geographic position - surrounded on all sides by three very powerful alliance blocs or empires, who hate each other) and diplo in this case is pretty satisfying.

In what sense is it not 4x? You don't start with a completely blank map, but you still explore, expand, exploit and exterminate. And wikipedia says it is, so it must be

 

[Atlas627]

Ugh, the diplomacy is EUIV is not very satisfying, in my opinion. It is entirely a numbers game, and too easy to predict and manipulate.

Of course, if you want diplomacy that is wholly deterministic, then the EUIV model works, but what makes "real" diplomacy so hard to mimic in a computer game, in a way that is satisfying to the player, is that "real" diplomacy is characterized by human caprice, jealousies and errors - in WWI alone, in addition to the comedy of diplomatic mis-assessments that drove the participants into full-scale war, you had comparatively small "foot faults" that had great diplomatic impact -- including the Zimmerman telegram and Heinrich Albert falling asleep on a NY subway.

Could you ever model all of that in a computer game, without royally pissing off players who would decry the randomness of it? We say we want realistic diplomacy, but what we often want is perfectly predictable diplomacy, consistent with the god-like role we play in these games, where our every order is carried out with perfection by our subjects (except when we misclick, of course, but that's what reloading is for, right?).

I'm hoping that the AI agendas will inject the right balance between programmed (and therefore somewhat predictable) behaviors and some randomness (particularly randomness that mimics, to some degree, human biases and prejudices).

I quoted you just to have this posted a second time.

True diplomacy is the ultimate game mechanic: a mini-game of guessing intentions, bluffing, unknown variables, uncertain outcomes, and subtle feedback. It is the truest, toughest game to figure out, because you are playing the opponent 100%.

Strategy gamers enjoy the game of figuring out how to play better next time, which usually means they need strong feedback, conclusive outcomes, and reliable statistics. They usually dont like randomized unknowns because it makes the strategy unsolvable. This is the opposite of diplomacy, and is why we end up getting predictable, numbers-based AI opponents (not that you can make an AI based on things other than numbers, but you can simulate things more organically).

I would much rather have good diplomacy than have the diplo system a "solvable" part of the strategy game. Besides, it seems like their plan for Civ6 is to have each game's randomization factor in heavily to your strategy, so hopefully they are willing to move away from solvable gameplay, including diplomacy.

 

[Browd]

I disagree, many unpredictable things happen in EUIV diplomacy. Nations change rivalries, break alliances, there are events shaking things up, turns from-rival-to-ally, AI attitudes you cannot influence (you may do whatever you want but if AI nation has hostile/outraged/rival attitude you have very limited abilities to change its mind), dynastic policies (alliance breaking becouse of claim throne), sudden succession wars etc. AI isn't bad in EUIV in general, but still sometimes makes stupid things you couldn't predict, and sometimes those movements even work
I am currently playing Wallachia in eu4, very diplomatic heavy session (because of atrocious Wallachian geographic position - surrounded on all sides by three very powerful alliance blocs or empires, who hate each other) and diplo in this case is pretty satisfying.

I guess we just disagree about that. Yes, there are some random elements thrown into EUIV (e.g., chance of being discovered fabricating a claim, chance of ruler or heir dying, killing a royal marriage or disrupting a personal union), but much that you describe is attributable to the complexity of the diplomatic environment, with dozens of mathematically determinable interactions to keep track of and manage, not the consequences of "real" (i.e., human-like) diplomatic interactions.

I think of EUIV diplomacy as a very large, complex math problem. And like some math problems, the only solutions may be "imaginary roots" -- find yourself stuck amidst Austria, Hungary, Russia, several Hordes and the Ottoderps? Good luck managing that -- some game problems (and many real-life problems) are dilemmas (lacking a single, best solution), while others might have an optimal solution, if the "wet computer" between our ears had enough storage capacity and processing power to accurately assess the many interactions.

To be sure, sheer complexity is one "real life" challenge in managing international relationships (e.g., today, how can one reconcile the very different concerns and ambitions of the many parties with an interest in the South China Sea?), but randomness (or caprice) has a remarkably powerful impact on real world interactions. In a game, some randomness for flavor is good, but inject too much randomness and players will get frustrated (the AI is cheating....). Ask any game designer -- I'm not one, but they almost uniformly acknowledge that phenomenon among their player base.

So, can the sheer complexity of a problem be fun? Oh yeah, in the way any complex puzzle can be fun, but all too often players (maybe not you) find the fun in being able to explore the inner workings of a game's mechanics, ultimately to manipulate the game's systems to achieve their desired outcome (Three Mountains achievement anyone?), much more than they enjoy being blindsided by random negative events (seen any comets lately? did you enjoy that 15-year regency?), even though that sort of randomness is more "natural" or "true to life" than any game environment can provide. Accordingly, most popular games (and Paradox aspires to popularity as much as any game developer does) find a way to cater to that desire. EUIV certainly does so, although the sheer number of interactions you have to manage can yield a very complex, and therefore challenging, environment.

I've enjoyed my many hundreds of hours in EUIV, but I would not hold up its diplo system as a model for other games to emulate. Other games should implement their own, equally flawed, diplo systems. (Um, that doesn't sound quite right....)

 

[AriochIV]

As I said in the other thread, I thought the diplomacy in Civilization IV was pretty decent. The leaders had good personalities and variance in how they acted and reacted, and the alliance and vassal system (while not without issues) meant that you could make friends who could actually help you with some the victory conditions.

The diplomacy in Alpha Centauri was basic mechanically, but solid. Again, there were very strong personalities to deal with, and you could really develop a strong connection (for either good or ill).

 

[Browd]

Even there, however, the most common complaint I recall hearing was how unrealistic it was that the AI could be manipulated into being your game-long (4,000+ year) friend ("Sure, I'm happy to subordinate my interests to help you win the game. Just call me your lap dog .. er, I mean best friend").

But just because it was unrealistic didn't mean it happened automatically (it certainly took work and attention) or that it wasn't fun....

 

[master__jj]

As I said in the other thread, I thought the diplomacy in Civilization IV was pretty decent. The leaders had good personalities and variance in how they acted and reacted, and the alliance and vassal system (while not without issues) meant that you could make friends who could actually help you with some the victory conditions.

The diplomacy in Alpha Centauri was basic mechanically, but solid. Again, there were very strong personalities to deal with, and you could really develop a strong connection (for either good or ill).

I loved vassals and really missed them in CiV. Hope they'll come back once...
About AC: I really, really hated Miriam. Never even bothered to play with the Believers. Great, now I want ACII...

 

[Cyberian]

I think this thread proofs that some fans expectations of greatly improved diplomacy are basically unrealisable.

The only game we can come up with as an example of good diplomacy is EU4 who had a bazillion expansions and still has its problems while going a totally different less mainstream route that Civ will probably never follow.

At this point I think the only thing we can hope for is a bit more polish and better implementation of the Same Old, Same Old we are used to for diplomacy.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Even there, however, the most common complaint I recall hearing was how unrealistic it was that the AI could be manipulated into being your game-long (4,000+ year) friend ("Sure, I'm happy to subordinate my interests to help you win the game. Just call me your lap dog .. er, I mean best friend").

But just because it was unrealistic didn't mean it happened automatically (it certainly took work and attention) or that it wasn't fun....

Well I think the problem was the issue that
Friend=subordinating my interests to yours (the AI expects me to give them gold from my treasury because they are a "friend")

Wheras it should be
Friend=we have some common interests, and can both contribute to reaching them


I think this is where Agendas are somewhat useful

But more important more common interests (non-zero sum games). [there are very few of those, negotiating table basically forces a zero sum game by making all your resources worth X universal currency, if I have it someone else lost it]

Research Agreements were a good example, they benefited both parties compared to everyone else.

(Unfortunately as a game it must break down unless there is a Joint Win possibility)

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I think Civ IV diplomacy is the gold standard here. Yes, it was predictable and the modifiers were visible to the player--but that made it work. You could really see what consequences your actions had and that made diplomatic decisions meaningful.

Also, for the most part the Civ IV AI tends to like/dislike you for reasonable enough causes, but the Civ V AIs hate the player for building cities, building wonders, conquering other cities (even of civs they don't like!)--generally for just playing the game.

In Civ IV religion really powered diplomacy, which meant that games could play out very differently depending on how the religions were distributed. Sometimes everyone was in one strong religion (which is actually bad for the player--yes it's easy to make friends in that situation, but the AIs will love each other and trade techs like crazy). Sometimes two strong factions formed and the player must decide whether to pick a side or stay neutral. If the AIs are in many different religions it will be nearly impossible for the player to please everyone, but the player may be able to exploit the AI tension!

Finally, in Civ V you could get the AI to declare war on other civs for a trivial amount of gold--which meant that even if you started next to Shaka, you were totally fine, so long as there was a third civ whom you could sic Shaka's impis against. This was one of many things making the game too easy! In Civ IV, this action costs lots of tech (very hard to get on high levels) or requires you to join the war yourself, which is much more reasonable.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think Civ IV diplomacy is the gold standard here. Yes, it was predictable and the modifiers were visible to the player--but that made it work. You could really see what consequences your actions had and that made diplomatic decisions meaningful.

Also, for the most part the Civ IV AI tends to like/dislike you for reasonable enough causes, but the Civ V AIs hate the player for building cities, building wonders, conquering other cities (even of civs they don't like!)--generally for just playing the game.

In Civ IV religion really powered diplomacy, which meant that games could play out very differently depending on how the religions were distributed. Sometimes everyone was in one strong religion (which is actually bad for the player--yes it's easy to make friends in that situation, but the AIs will love each other and trade techs like crazy). Sometimes two strong factions formed and the player must decide whether to pick a side or stay neutral. If the AIs are in many different religions it will be nearly impossible for the player to please everyone, but the player may be able to exploit the AI tension!

Finally, in Civ V you could get the AI to declare war on other civs for a trivial amount of gold--which meant that even if you started next to Shaka, you were totally fine, so long as there was a third civ whom you could sic Shaka's impis against. This was one of many things making the game too easy! In Civ IV, this action costs lots of tech (very hard to get on high levels) or requires you to join the war yourself, which is much more reasonable.

CivIV was fine diplomacy if you were only roleplaying, but it was bad for gameplay.

The issue is, diplomacy needs you to have common interests.
Common interests in a game are only possible if
-you can both win
-we can both get closer to winning (this eventually collapses if either of us get too close to winning, because me getting closer means you are farther from winning)


I think the issue with the question is what is considered "diplomacy"...
is it AI behavior? or is it mechanics that will guide my behavior as a player (same way the tech tree, culture mechanics, combat mechanics do)

 

[Lord Tirian]

As I said in the other thread, I thought the diplomacy in Civilization IV was pretty decent. The leaders had good personalities and variance in how they acted and reacted, and the alliance and vassal system (while not without issues) meant that you could make friends who could actually help you with some the victory conditions.

A little problem, I found, was that the numbers were so precise that you could game it. Nevertheless, it was a great system.

If given free reign (and beta testers to test it), I'd probably base it on the Civ4 system, split the overall attitude into "Respect" and "Fear" akin to CivBE and fuzz the numbers for score breakdowns, e.g. 1-2 as "negligible", 3-6 as "major" and 7+ as "influential".

Then, you could, for example have an attitude with a leader +14 (respect), -3 (fear), with the breakdowns:

Respect (+14)
Allies in war (Influential)
Similar government (Major)
Ongoing trade agreement (Major)
Conflicting agenda (Negligible)

Fear (-3)
Equal army size (Neglegible)
Recently lost city (Major)
Multiple active wars (Negligible)

That way, you get a very good idea how close you are to agreement breaking points and what the main influence is, but since the breakdown is not 100% specific, you can't entirely min-max your actions - you have to keep it a bit more general. The split also gives you a way, way better idea whether you should try to trade, ask for favours or threaten a leader.

 

[Socratatus]

Ugh, the diplomacy is EUIV is not very satisfying, in my opinion. It is entirely a numbers game, and too easy to predict and manipulate.

Of course, if you want diplomacy that is wholly deterministic, then the EUIV model works, but what makes "real" diplomacy so hard to mimic in a computer game, in a way that is satisfying to the player, is that "real" diplomacy is characterized by human caprice, jealousies and errors - in WWI alone, in addition to the comedy of diplomatic mis-assessments that drove the participants into full-scale war, you had comparatively small "foot faults" that had great diplomatic impact -- including the Zimmerman telegram and Heinrich Albert falling asleep on a NY subway.

Could you ever model all of that in a computer game, without royally pissing off players who would decry the randomness of it? We say we want realistic diplomacy, but what we often want is perfectly predictable diplomacy, consistent with the god-like role we play in these games, where our every order is carried out with perfection by our subjects (except when we misclick, of course, but that's what reloading is for, right?).

I'm hoping that the AI agendas will inject the right balance between programmed (and therefore somewhat predictable) behaviors and some randomness (particularly randomness that mimics, to some degree, human biases and prejudices).

I would love the randomness of unpredicatble, realistic factors.

In fact, i know this goes against many players of this kind of game, but i actually want a diplomacy that`s not perfectly predictable. In fact I want a game where incidents can happen beyond my `perfect` control.

I was playing Civ 5 the other days and thinking this was NOT how men rule in reality. Politics is never perfect, you cannot get a perfect agreement on every little thing.
Here in game we can perfectly figure out our economics, but that`s not the reality.
Even the weather can screw up real-world leader`s plans, but we get no weather in Civ5. No issues with storms at sea- Nothing. We even have a volcanoe, Krakatoa. It never explodes- ever. It`s just great, all the time.

True leaders are those that can cope with the unpreditacbility of life and keep leading, not whine it away as is the case in Civ 5, which can be very dry and boring at times-

TOO DAMN SPREADSHEETY. Keep the spread sheet numbers, but keep it under the covers especially when dealing with human things like politiics, social issues, diplomacy and weather.

I just hope Civ6 will start adding that organic quality that exists in real life into Civ 6.