Excellent diplomacy analysis just popped-up on the 2k forums of Civ5

[Buccaneer]

I agree that Civ5 is less intuitive and more random but that has to be a good thing to give the AI an advantage. Compared to Civ4, the AI has less of an advantage combat-wise so something has to make up for it. I can think of no better way than coming up with an excuse (diplomatically) to have them gang up on the human player. In no way should the AI purposely try not to beat you (you being the human player). I want the Greeks to think you are his best friend and then do everything to get all of the city-states, including your's - through bribery, conquest and declaring war on you. What would be the point of playing a game if the opponents (as least those that are able) are not trying to beat a human player?

 

[MkLh]

Is that why we hear a lot of cries and rumors to bring back religion - to make it a simpler game for casual players?

How can you possible make this game simpler.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: please stay on topic - neither snipes at those wanting a return of religion as a mechanic, nor claims that the game cannot be made simpler are on topic.

 

[Stalker0]

Bottom line, the AI ALWAYS plays to win.

I think the crutch is that the AI doesn't always play to win WELL.

I know one example has come up where an AI with a huge economic lead didn't buy every city state it could to go for a diplomatic win, when the Human with half the money was able to do it...things like that.


My problem with Civ diplomacy has not usually been the AI, its the human. The system does not penalize the human enough when he does things that have bad diplomatic consequences.

We expect the AI to "follow the rules", but the human can do whatever he wants, with little consequence.

If I join an alliance with an AI, and then break it 2 turns later, there should be some tangible impact (happiness penalty or something). Something that makes me reconsider my actions.

But right now, if I want to go to war with an AI I do...no matter what my friendliness with him is. My relations have no impact on that. Then again, some would say that's the reality of diplomacy anyway.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Wrong. AI opponents play to their programming, which is to optimize its situation towards a win. They play regardless of whether it is possible or not unlike a human who realizes he/she isn't going to win and quits. Regardless of whether it can win or not, the AI is executing its program to optimize its game (win). The AI will optimize its game based on preset conditions and random variables, which gives it a bias toward a certain type of play. This will normally lead to a particular type of win, which is why some are more aggressive, some are inclined to science, etc.

Bottom line, the AI ALWAYS plays to win.

Humans will sometimes play to the role of 'kingmaker' once they're out of reasonable contention for victory themselves. An AI that's coded to "always play to win" will not do that, and this in itself can make the diplomacy aspect of the game seem shallow and pointless- regardless of how simple or complex the underlying system to it is.

It would seem to me that the people who are complaining about the system are probably casual players who are not concerned with learning the nuances

It seems to me that you`re just looking to make condescending dismissals for... well, reasons I can only speculate on. None of which would meet moderator approval.

As I've stated several times, casual gamers who don't want to take the time to understand the system prefer a CiIV type diplomacy that is simplistically built around the religious aspect: be my religion, be my friend.

Please. Casuals dislike the religious-blocking of Civ4 just as much as they hate the "Cut-throat Gamist AI" model being promoted in this thread.

The AI has always played to win in every Civ game since the original. Civ is a war game first and foremost and comparing it to something like Simcity frames it incorrectly.

Civ has always been a hybrid between pure-builder games (like SimCity) and pure-war games (like Chess.) This is evident in the very existence of victory conditions other than pure conquest.

Because the tactical AI is still like previous Civ games I easily repulsed her invasion and took one of her cities. She begged for peace and gave me everything she had to broker it. To the person playing the game as a "God" game or a simulation I can see how this might seem like erratic nut-so behavior. To someone playing it like a war game this is awesome behavior and exactly what she should do from the big-picture perspective.

And to someone who sees it as a hybrid between the two, it's something that is 'awesome' when coming from Monte - or perhaps Elizabeth - but an unfortunate sacrifice to gamist preferences if it were done by Ghandi. Who, in all honesty, should not be in any game that is a 'war game first,' as he's either not going to act anything like Ghandi at all, or just get rolled by the warmongers every time.

 

[Buccaneer]

And to someone who sees it as a hybrid between the two, it's something that is 'awesome' when coming from the orange civ - or perhaps the red civ - but an unfortunate sacrifice to gamist preferences if it were done by the green civ. Who, in all honesty, should not be in any game that is a 'war game first,' as he's either not going to act anything like Ghandi at all, or just get rolled by the warmongers every time.

Better. Really, we should not know how any of the AI opponents will play out, diplomatically or otherwise. To do so would be yet another gamey and unfair advantage for the human player. I have long advocated, even back in Civ4, to make Random Personalities default. That only goes so far unfortunately since there will be a measure of hardcoded predictableness. The AI does not have a clue as to how a human player would act, neither should you.

 

[Civsassin]

Humans will sometimes play to the role of 'kingmaker' once they're out of reasonable contention for victory themselves. An AI that's coded to "always play to win" will not do that, and this in itself can make the diplomacy aspect of the game seem shallow and pointless- regardless of how simple or complex the underlying system to it is.

So, what's the solution here? Change the AI so that people can play as "kingmakers" after they out of contention, and the AI will accommodate them? That seems like a waste of valuable programming time that could be better spent making actual improvements.

It seems to me that you`re just looking to make condescending dismissals for... well, reasons I can only speculate on. None of which would meet moderator approval.

I am not being condescending. I am merely making a point. It would seem to me that "Civ Fanatics" would take the time and/or eventually learn the diplomacy system, and enjoy the complexities. Casual gamers who enjoy the genre may prefer a simpler, easier to learn system.

 

[Civsassin]

Better. Really, we should not know how any of the AI opponents will play out, diplomatically or otherwise. To do so would be yet another gamey and unfair advantage for the human player. I have long advocated, even back in Civ4, to make Random Personalities default. That only goes so far unfortunately since there will be a measure of hardcoded predictableness. The AI does not have a clue as to how a human player would act, neither should you.

To a certain extent, AI opponents and diplomacy are predictable. It is just such a complex system that it is more probabalistic than certain. As with any probabalistic systems, anything that can happen, will happen given enough tries. In other words, you will always be surprised.

 

[MkLh]

I am not being condescending. I am merely making a point. It would seem to me that "Civ Fanatics" would take the time and/or eventually learn the diplomacy system, and enjoy the complexities. Casual gamers who enjoy the genre may prefer a simpler, easier to learn system.

It seems to be a common misunderstanding here that *illogical nonsense diplomacy of CiV somehow makes the game more complex. In reality it's the other way around. To make strategical choices one needs to know what are the consequences of his actions. When opponents behave irrationally and your actions have no real effect, it's impossible to use diplo as a strategical tool, and you may as well largely ignore it.

Civ5 is more shallow and more "a casual game" than its predecessor in every aspect. This is true also and especially diplo-wise, where a casual gamer doesn't need to learn any rules of diplomacy as there aren't such things.

*Yes, it may make sense in a way that you may find some exploits from the XML or from the actual source code after it's published (something like "when someone asks you to join to war, agree, but make a peace after two turns to prevent to be denounced as a warmonger"), but I wouldn't call that a strategical planning.

 

[Civsassin]

It seems to be a common misunderstanding here that *illogical nonsense diplomacy of CiV somehow makes the game more complex. In reality it's the other way around. To make strategical choices one needs to know what are the consequences of his actions. When opponents behave irrationally and your actions have no real effect, it's impossible to use diplo as a strategical tool, and you may as well largely ignore it.

Civ5 is more shallow and more "a casual game" than its predecessor in every aspect. This is true also and especially diplo-wise, where a casual gamer doesn't need to learn any rules of diplomacy as there aren't such things.

*Yes, it may make sense in a way that you may find some exploits from the XML or from the actual source code after it's published (something like "when someone asks you to join to war, agree, but make a peace after two turns to prevent to be denounced as a warmonger"), but I wouldn't call that a strategical planning.

Your statements are incorrect.

1. Your opponents aren't completely irrational, and actions to a large extent are predictable. However, when using probabilities, nothing is certain. Things are likely to go in a certain direction, but often don't. There are general rules to follow if you bother to learn them.

2. Civ 5 is not a "casual" game. It is complex. If you compare it to CiIV where there were many patches and two expansions, you could consider it more casual, but certainly not casual. Give CiV two expansions and multiple upcoming patches, and you will have an equally complex and satisfying game. Although, many of us consider it to be that way now.

3. To play at the highest levels, you MUST have a strategic plan. Without one, your likelihood of victory is effectively nil.

 

[Kaosprophet]

So, what's the solution here? Change the AI so that people can play as "kingmakers" after they out of contention, and the AI will accommodate them?

I was thinking more along the lines of changing the AI so that the AI will do so after out of contention for their own victory.

I am not being condescending. I am merely making a point. It would seem to me that "Civ Fanatics" would take the time and/or eventually learn the diplomacy system, and enjoy the complexities. Casual gamers who enjoy the genre may prefer a simpler, easier to learn system.

Oh, certainly. But they're also going to be the ones who complain the loudest when the system doesn't work as they'd like it to - whether that's because it's "too easy" to exploit, or because trying to exploit it is irrelevant making the effort put into learning it a waste of time.

"Casual gamers" are also a somewhat diverse group. Some actually do prefer an arcane diplomatic system that is resistant to being 'gamed' by code-delvers, as they're not interested in gaming the system anyway. Some like the flavor created by elements such as "we covet your lands" influencing AI behaviors, while others balk at having to face the same cut-throat tactics in a casual SP game that they would in an MP one.

But most of the complaints I've seen regarding the diplomatic system, come from more mid-level gamers who lament the existence of pointless complexity that offers insignificant rewards relative to the effort of learning how to work the system.

Also, @Buccaneer:

I'll grant that if we had "green civ" instead of "Ghandi of India," the issue I brought up on that point wouldn't arise - at least not as strongly. Alternately, one could replace Ghandi with someone from India's history who was a bit more... 'well rounded' (for lack of better terms) in his approach to imperial policy and not sacrifice (as much) of the historical flavor.

 

[Mustakrakish]

In times like these, an emperor should be able to call upon his trusted advisors ( I was always partial to Elvis myself). You could find out a better option without immersion-breaking rules or code studying.

"Your Excellency- Madame Wu recognizes you for what you are, the foremost contender to rule the world. She will never give you what you want, because it will advance your aims, unless you share a common enemy.

Catherine may be both fickle and high maint. , but she can be had. She just wants to be treated better than any other ruler.

I advise you to break off relations with China, and gift some pearls to Catherine. After that she'll put everything on the negotiating table. It's the price of doing business."


I would have found such an approach much more useful than emotionally animated leaders.

My Gods... I'd love that so much!

 

[ohioastronomy]

The defenders of this game seem to miss a key point: there are a lot of us who really want a way to win games like Civ without warfare. There are plenty of real-life examples where this could apply (e.g. one could view, say, putting the first man on the Moon, or getting your country from poor to rich by trading, as "peaceful" wins.) More to the point, however, Civ has always featured ways to win the game which didn't involve warfare. Civ 5 is a failure because, by design, it favors war at every opportunity (and is awful at executing war, but that's a separate failing.)

If I'm going for a space race win, for instance, I don't want the computer to just roll over. But I want them to compete "appropriately* - that is, try to build their own spaceships, or culture, or diplomacy, or whatever. Some nations might choose combat - but the whole point of a peaceful victory condition is that you aren't forced to always conquer the planet.

This game instead decides that the USSR should respond to the Apollo launch by declaring war. Since the diplomacy is complex, you're facing with always fighting (e.g. crushing nearby enemies by force, then winning however you want) or always being subject to random attack at the worst time. A *good* system, by contrast, would have backstabbing players treated as renegades; trading networks that made co-operating profitable, and a recognition that endless wars are ruinous (favoring decisive action and incentives for peace.)

This shallow, sad game is just all war all the time. And the opaque diplomacy gives strong logical incentives to choosing the easier option rather than the random one.

 

[King Patrick]

The defenders of this game seem to miss a key point: there are a lot of us who really want a way to win games like Civ without warfare.

You can. I have, several times.

 

[ohioastronomy]

You can. I have, several times.

Do tell. It's impossible to know what you're claiming without some details. The AI tends to get hostile if you're too close; it can randomly get triggered into hostility by chain-reaction relationship issues, or because "you're trying to win the game the same way I am." They declare war if you're getting too far ahead in a "peaceful" metric.

Granted, if you have no neighbors they're incompetent at doing anything to you - is that what you mean?

 

[King Patrick]

Do tell. It's impossible to know what you're claiming without some details. The AI tends to get hostile if you're too close; it can randomly get triggered into hostility by chain-reaction relationship issues, or because "you're trying to win the game the same way I am." They declare war if you're getting too far ahead in a "peaceful" metric.

Granted, if you have no neighbors they're incompetent at doing anything to you - is that what you mean?

1. Don't conquer other civs or city-states, even in "self-defense" or because some other civ asks you to. Seems obvious, but based on the griping here about being treated as a warmonger for "only" razing half the planet, it has to be said.

2. Keep your word. If you promise Babylon not to settle near his lands, don't settle near his lands.

3. Keep a strong, up-to-date military as a deterrent to aggressive or bullying civs. Keep up with your city fortifications, too. You never want to be the easiest target.

4. Pick your Declarations of Friendship carefully. In the late game, it's often best to avoid them as the diplomatic situation can change rapidly and you can find yourself "friends" with the new enemy of a suddenly truculent neighbor.

5. Bribe AIs into wars with each other to keep them occupied / knock down their military forces to parity or below with your own, making you a less attractive target. Not randomly, of course, but strategically - if Mongolia's getting grouchy with you, a war with France might be just the thing to redirect his attention.

6. Rescue and return stolen workers or settlers from barbs. Especially in the early game, obviously, when there are more of them around. You get a ton of positive feeling from this.

Of course, if you're alone on a small continent or archipelago, it's a lot easier than on a pangaea map. But I've had success with this approach on larger land masses, too, though I haven't played at the highest difficulties yet.

Now, it's possible to follow all of this advice to the letter and still find yourself in a war. There are just too many variables, between geography, resource distribution, proximity to other civs, and the individual personality of each AI, for any single strategy to be an iron-clad, foolproof, can't-lose-no-matter-what guarantee of a peaceful victory. But if there was such a thing, what would be the point of playing?

 

[Kerosene31]

The defenders of this game seem to miss a key point: there are a lot of us who really want a way to win games like Civ without warfare.

They need to add more positive diplomacy of course and make a few other tweaks. Hopefully we'll see these in the next patch.

I don't defend the game as much as say it isn't nearly as bad as people make it out, and the rest is easily fixed.

 

[King Patrick]

They need to add more positive diplomacy of course and make a few other tweaks. Hopefully we'll see these in the next patch.

This is true, too. It's a little harder than it needs to be to keep good relations with other civs, and you need more options to repair a deteriorating relationship. I also think trade ought to count as a positive modifier, if not a huge one.

 

[ohioastronomy]

This is true, too. It's a little harder than it needs to be to keep good relations with other civs, and you need more options to repair a deteriorating relationship. I also think trade ought to count as a positive modifier, if not a huge one.

I can walk on eggshells (as you describe)...or I can do something simpler. Take out everyone near me at the start (before they get difficult to deal with), and it doesn't matter what more distant people think about me because the AI can't handle naval invasions. It's a better way to win, always, than the other route. I don't need to worry about random acts of aggression and obscure diplomacy, after all.

Now what should happen is that this gets you branded as an outcast; no one trades with you and people go to war with you whenever they can because you deserve it. Europa Universalis 3 is a good example of a game where there is an effective system for controlling belligerent nations - not being able to trade with others really hurts you. But in Civ 5 there are far too few penalties for war and far too few rewards for peace. That's a huge design flaw, and it is completely avoidable.

I think that you should be able to have actual alliances and that the threshold for a "sufficient" military in this game is too high. That's related to the cost of war being too low.

 

[King Patrick]

I can walk on eggshells (as you describe)...or I can do something simpler. Take out everyone near me at the start (before they get difficult to deal with), and it doesn't matter what more distant people think about me because the AI can't handle naval invasions. It's a better way to win, always, than the other route. I don't need to worry about random acts of aggression and obscure diplomacy, after all.

What actually happens in this case is you get branded a warmonger and nobody will trade with you, or only at exorbitant prices -- 3 of your luxuries for 1 of their own, that sort of thing. Your happiness goes to crap, your cities stop growing, and pretty soon everyone's outstripped you in science, gold, and military forces.

This is kind of bizarre, really. Half the threads griping about Civ 5 diplomacy claim it's unfair that other civs treat you as a warmonger for destroying entire nations and the negative effects make it too hard to win as a conqueror, and now we get claims that you can destroy entire nations and the other AIs don't even notice.