Examples of 4X games with GOOD diplomacy?

[Westwall]

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.

This. It was very transparent how this was accomplished and how it mostly just gave the illusion of adaptive AI diplomacy but it worked.

Leaders would ask you for help when they were at war with someone, not like in Civ 5 where they only ask before declaring war. Despite being just still portraits, they felt very personal and fleshed out.

The option to trade technologies and maps and the occasional superfluous line here and there (That "full of droids!" bit comes to mind) all gave players a feeling of freedom and choice that has yet to be properly replicated, let alone surpassed.

 

[isau]

I think Civ V BNW with minor tweaks is the gold standard honestly. The other AIs are reasonably predictable, but they need to be in order to make it all make sense. What makes "diplomacy" differ from "random stuff happening" is being able to see cause and effect.

The only thing that really held Civ V back wasn't diplomacy at all, but the game rules. Tall empires were just a bit too good and should have been under a higher degree of threat of invasion and making enemies. The game rules really stack a lot against wider empires and that is what really makes the Civ V diplo not as satisfying. It's just a bit too easy to turtle without offending anyone, and the reward for playing duplicitously (e.g. bribing enemies to war) are not there in terms of return on investment.

Above anything though, I think that a diplomacy system has to explain WHY something is happening. That's one area Civ V Vanilla didn't really do so well at first. It was quite a bit better by BNW.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I think Civ V BNW with minor tweaks is the gold standard honestly. The other AIs are reasonably predictable, but they need to be in order to make it all make sense. What makes "diplomacy" differ from "random stuff happening" is being able to see cause and effect.

The only thing that really held Civ V back wasn't diplomacy at all, but the game rules. Tall empires were just a bit too good and should have been under a higher degree of threat of invasion and making enemies. The game rules really stack a lot against wider empires and that is what really makes the Civ V diplo not as satisfying. It's just a bit too easy to turtle without offending anyone, and the reward for playing duplicitously (e.g. bribing enemies to war) are not there in terms of return on investment.

Above anything though, I think that a diplomacy system has to explain WHY something is happening. That's one area Civ V Vanilla didn't really do so well at first. It was quite a bit better by BNW.

I agree that Civ V BNW was a huge improvement over vanilla diplomatically, but isn't the logical extension of this Civ IV, where you can actually see the modifiers?

The player can see exactly how much gold and science and culture or whatever he is making and calculate exactly how much his actions will affect that. Personally I don't see why AI relations should be different in this game. But the developers seem intent on giving us a mysterious (ie, random, frustrating, and unrewarding) element.

 

[isau]

I agree that Civ V BNW was a huge improvement over vanilla diplomatically, but isn't the logical extension of this Civ IV, where you can actually see the modifiers?

The player can see exactly how much gold and science and culture or whatever he is making and calculate exactly how much his actions will affect that. Personally I don't see why AI relations should be different in this game. But the developers seem intent on giving us a mysterious (ie, random, frustrating, and unrewarding) element.

It was partly a change in design. There were 2 main flaws in Civ V Vanilla diplomacy IMO, 1) it approached the game too much like a game it was trying to win without accounting for the role play aspect, and 2) it often did things without telling you why.

Later on it got better. I can mostly tell why AI is making certain decisions. There have been a few times where that wasn't the case, but much less often than before. The only thing that really left them hamstrung is less that diplo isn't strong but that it is too easy to dodge diplo by turtling. Tweaking some values so that you can't do that, or playing a Score game, makes the diplo more of a necessity and shows that when the core game is tweaked so that there are consequences, the diplo gets better.

Civ V is also the game that intro'ed city states, and while the implementation wasn't perfect, I just can't go back to earlier games after playing with them, because they add too much to the strategy. My only disappointment with them is that long term investments aren't as rewarded as they should be (too easy to dump cash on them to instantly turn them around).

 

[kaltorak]

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%.

Totally disagree. That works for humans. Against an AI, guessing intentions, bluffing and such, can only be defined as randomness. I want to play the diplomacy. I want to know the stats, and be able to manipulate them. Ofc, that wouldn't be how real diplomacy works, or even diplomacy in a multiplayer game. But what works with humans often doesnt work the same with an AI and it's better to not try to imitate humans for the sake of gameplay.

 

[Ikael]

To all the people talking about how diplomacy is all about bluffing and being opaque: Sorry, but you have gotten diplomacy wrong, I think.

Diplomacy is created in the first place in order to be transparent and be able to communicate with other civs on a clear, non-military manner: I need to make my neighbouring empire know that my horsemen that are approaching to their borders are traders, not invaders. Thus, embassies and emissaries are born due to the necessity of transparency and communication and predictability: I don't want my neighbours to mobilize troops every single time that a trade envoy approaches his border.

That being said, of course there's also bluffing and backstabbing, but a big part of diplomacy ought to be clearly visible. And this is where it lies its beauty: that there's a facade for everyone to see (stated objectives, public declarations, etc) so people can react accordingly to you, and an underneath current of self interests that are not meant to be public, hence why there's a diplomatic and a spy service, often related, but clearly separated (think of "police VS military").

If a civilization game is able to capture this whole game of "public relationships campaign interacting with coverted spyionage and backstabbing", it would end up being a truthly great thing (hence why my appreciation for civ 4's system).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Diplomacy is created in the first place in order to be transparent and be able to communicate with other civs on a clear, non-military manner: I need to make my neighbouring empire know that my horsemen that are approaching to their borders are traders, not invaders. Thus, embassies and emissaries are born due to the necessity of transparency and communication and predictability: I don't want my neighbours to mobilize troops every single time that a trade envoy approaches his border.

It's not important how diplomacy was created in real life, it should be interesting and immersive in game. And there are no universal answer.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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....

Too much abject game throwing, mostly because diplomacy is not well-integrated with other systems in most 4x.

I despised that the AI would give up on winning entirely in the name of diplomacy though. At that point, you're not playing a game with opponents, but rather your purported opponents are set pieces that have stopped playing the game.

EU IV's haphazard crap is less bad in its own context because there's no "winning" that game outright. Even so, the AI will engage in abject game throwing, refusing white peace while having no army on its side of the alliance and capital occupied (what kind of inane player with more than a few hours experience would willingly do throw like that?). It makes nonsense alliances where it can't even consistently reach its allies and breaks alliances over territory without any real hope of finding new alternative allies, effectively suiciding. I would not hold that up as a standard to emulate. In raw game strategy in diplomacy, Civ 5's AI was better despite its complete inability to handle tactical unit movements.

Ironically, BE probably does have the best design idea wrt diplomacy of games I've played as a model, even if its implementation is poor. The idea of providing incentive for these interactions is a good one. If developers want real diplomacy to exist, the game's mechanics have to incentivize it, well enough that you see cooperation even in MP beyond "dogpile the runaway". 4x rarely bothers with that but that's what it needs for good diplomacy.

it approached the game too much like a game it was trying to win without accounting for the role play aspect

If you want "role play", then role play by yourself or play a game with rules that incentivize it. I'd rather the AI not be instructed to play terribly *on purpose*. It's bad enough when it tries. You can still role play while it tries if playing on easy levels, otherwise in a game with rules + clear win conditions having agents participating in the game that deliberately throw it/king make/flip the table is backwards and irrational.

 

[Atlas627]

Totally disagree. That works for humans. Against an AI, guessing intentions, bluffing and such, can only be defined as randomness. I want to play the diplomacy. I want to know the stats, and be able to manipulate them. Ofc, that wouldn't be how real diplomacy works, or even diplomacy in a multiplayer game. But what works with humans often doesnt work the same with an AI and it's better to not try to imitate humans for the sake of gameplay.

If you think it is random, then that's you not noticing patterns. The AI should still follow patterns, but it should not be laid bare in front of you. At that point it is another equation to solve, just like the rest of the game. That isn't diplomacy.

If you want the AI to just be another game mechanic, that's fine. You can want that all you want. But the AI can be made to properly emulate human diplomacy, and should. The problem comes when people can't figure the AI out, so they start assuming its random. And once you start assuming its random, it might as well be, because you're not going to look for the pattern anymore.

The beauty lies in assuming its intelligent, and providing just enough logic that patterns emerge, but just enough randomness that you can never quite solve it.

Unfortunately, RNG that is not server-side does not work in multiplayer, and forcing the server to run each 3rd-party diplomatic action would be asinine, so if they *do* make good AI then it won't work in multiplayer...

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Unfortunately, RNG that is not server-side does not work in multiplayer, and forcing the server to run each 3rd-party diplomatic action would be asinine, so if they *do* make good AI then it won't work in multiplayer...

AI in multiplayer lol

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.

Predictable economics, wily opponents. That should be how it is, I think you're saying.

KrikkitTwo is right to question what "diplomacy" even is. Does there need to be more avenues of co-operation than in BNW, which has four by my count? I am dubious that the "co-operation victory" is anything more than myth.

 

[ftl]

If you think it is random, then that's you not noticing patterns. The AI should still follow patterns, but it should not be laid bare in front of you. At that point it is another equation to solve, just like the rest of the game. That isn't diplomacy.

In the era of the internet and of forums like this, that doesn't work. If the AI follows patterns, then within one month of release there's going to be a strategy article describing exactly what those patterns are and allowing you to manipulate the AI at will.

If a pattern exists, it might as well be laid bare because there's no hiding it.

If you want the AI to just be another game mechanic, that's fine.

The AI *is* another game mechanic. It is in the game, it is part of the game's code. There's no getting around it. The discussion is about how that game mechanic should work.

You can want that all you want. But the AI can be made to properly emulate human diplomacy, and should. The problem comes when people can't figure the AI out, so they start assuming its random. And once you start assuming its random, it might as well be, because you're not going to look for the pattern anymore.

The beauty lies in assuming its intelligent, and providing just enough logic that patterns emerge, but just enough randomness that you can never quite solve it.

I'd say that's not a very good approach. If there is a solution, if it CAN be solved, it will be, and the solution will be made public. The tough ask the developers have to solve is to make an AI that is fun to play with/against both before AND AFTER its workings have been analyzed to death and "solved".

 

[dexters]

Diplomacy is not trade tables, that's part of diplomatic relations.

Diplomacy is how the narrative arcs of the games work and how you can interact with the world.

There's not one school of thought. For some, immersion is consistency in relations. For others, it's the conversational nature of the diplomacy. For me personally, it's what you can do with the diplomatic tools in-game.

For me, fighting over city states and the ideas of common interest are significant factors in what I consider good diplomacy. The AI casting its interest beyond 'your borders too close, i attack' or 'we have same religion, i like' to calling the players out on their protections for city states, and actively competing for points on the map outside their borders are good diplomacy. Because it creates narratives outside of very linear war/peace/standoff situations.

This is why city-states or more generally minor actors, are in my view, essential moving forward for 4X games like Civ. Bending over and throwing games reduces the number of actors in the diplomatic scene far too quickly, so instead of having AI participants simply not compete, you add these minor civs on the map to fight over and befriend.

 

[Atlas627]

AI in multiplayer lol

I don't care about AI in multiplayer, but some people might. And Firaxis probably doesn't want to make 2 diplomatic AIs...

Predictable economics, wily opponents. That should be how it is, I think you're saying.

Sure. My personal preference is for the economics to be not-quite-solvable either, but that's for a different type of game.

KrikkitTwo is right to question what "diplomacy" even is. Does there need to be more avenues of co-operation than in BNW, which has four by my count? I am dubious that the "co-operation victory" is anything more than myth.

Right, the game mechanics do have to give you things to both compete and cooperate over. Civ5 did a better job of this than previous games with things like Research Agreements, Declarations of Friendships having real effects, and forcing World Congress resolutions on players. Still not nearly enough, though.

In the era of the internet and of forums like this, that doesn't work. If the AI follows patterns, then within one month of release there's going to be a strategy article describing exactly what those patterns are and allowing you to manipulate the AI at will.

If a pattern exists, it might as well be laid bare because there's no hiding it.



The AI *is* another game mechanic. It is in the game, it is part of the game's code. There's no getting around it. The discussion is about how that game mechanic should work.



I'd say that's not a very good approach. If there is a solution, if it CAN be solved, it will be, and the solution will be made public. The tough ask the developers have to solve is to make an AI that is fun to play with/against both before AND AFTER its workings have been analyzed to death and "solved".

You read someone on the internet analyzing the patterns (or worse, looking at the source code) and get spoiled, and that's not your fault for looking it up?

People that *want* to play with a solved AI can do exactly what you're suggesting. There will still be some RNG in the system, but if you want to manipulate it as just an equation to solve, you can look it up and do so.

People that want to play their opponents can't hide their knowledge once they already know the AI's system. It has to be developed hidden from the start. If they have to go out of their way to learn the intricacies of the system, they can choose to not do so.

You've got it backwards, basically.