Fix the freaking diplo !

[ShaLouZa]

Damn, I'm sick of it !

Playing at Noble, the so-called level "with no handicap on both sides", I see every AI ganging with each other, trading techs and so on, even with people they shouldn't like due to religious differences, while I can't do anything at the same level of friendship : they just won't share their freaking techs or for a ridiculously high price.

Why ? Because with a +1 or +2 modifier everyone is cautious or annoyed with me, while they're all pleased wich each other at 0 or even -1 or -2 ! How fair is that ? When someone attacks you, don't expect your supposed allies to even close borders with the enemy : they're damn pleased with him whatever happens !

And if you're isolated or sharing a landmass with only one or two civs not too gifted in research or from a different religion, kiss your game goodbye, you'll be out-teched by 10 techs when you'll meet the others civs who had been sharing like hell since turn one, even if each one of them is from a different religion. And these civs will immediatly demand tributes, because you have longbows and macemen versus riflemen ! You don't pay ? Ok, take that -1 malus too !

If you add to that the demands the AIs make, you start with a -6 handicap. Aggressive AIs demand a tribute, peaceniks beg for techs even if they have 5 more than you (but they won't trade theirs, oh no, my precious !) and every AI at war comes to ask your help, twice ! Sometimes even before they actually declare war !

Take these damn hidden modifiers out, they totally spoil the diplo. And make AIs demand things to each other or take these modifiers out too. You must have +6 than everyone else to obtain the same result, how fun is that ? I know there are people who like games cheating on them, but the immense majority sure doesn't.

Or call the game Barbary, since it will be only for warmongering. Your choice Firaxis. I am a builder and I used to enjoy a good game developping an empire. But being the black sheep of the entire world starts to upset me slighty, as you might have noticed.

 

[johnny42strom]

While I do agree that diplomacy could be greatly improved in civ; I however think you are overreacting a little.

I agree that all they could think of for a fluctuating diplo system was for the AI to constantly nag you for free stuff and give you negatives if you do not comply is quite annoying. I understand that the AI must have ways to like and dislike the player, but how is it that their memory is endless? Is not being their religion really worse than going to war with them? How is allowing troops to march through your territory to attack one of your friends not a negative?

From what I hear of Civ 3's diplomacy, I think Civ 4 has some good ideas. however, I think it can be greatly improved.

 

[ShaLouZa]

I don't say the diplomacy totally sucks. I just say these freaking hidden modifiers between AIs suck. When you have +4 with someone and he's only cautious with you, refusing to trade any tech (Mehmet anyone ?) while he's pleased at your worst enemy with 0 or -2, it sucks.

This and the ridiculous demands excepted, I love the diplo system. That's why these details bug me, the diplo would be really great if it was more balanced.

While we're at it, an option to "red out" things to certain leaders like they do (won't trade this tech, won't talk to you...) would be great. It would save me the boredom to refuse ten times a deal clams versus oil or something like that. Or avoiding to see your enemy you've just signed a peace treaty with coming to ask you to give him a military strategic tech for free. It just looks ridiculous when Monty asks you Military tradition two turns after you've destroyed all the stacks he sent to invade you, no ?

 

[ShaLouZa]

Exemple in my last game : I was Ragnar, starting on a continent with Monty who founded hinduism and Gengis. Sure enough with these two, war ensued : Gengis attacked me after I've founded confucianism. I took him two cities and made peace to regroup.

I build some troops, and when I'm going to finish Gengis, Qin Shi Huangdi comes with a caravel. The very same turn I declare war on Gengis, he meets him : pleased from the start with each other tough being from different religions, I got a -1 with Qin for "declaring war on his ally". Man, he just met him, how the heck did they find time to become allies ? And of course it stucks to the end of the game.

Well, while I'm crushing Gengis I send some caravels to see what's going on far away. I meet the guys from the other continent : Brennus, buddhist, Hannibal, christian, Tokugawa, taoist and Qin Shi muslim. All annoyed or really cautious with me, all pleased or friendly with each other. All of them ! Even Toku ! And all pleased to Gengis and Monty from the very turn they meet them (well, except maybe Toku). How balanced is that ? Close borders spark tensions, heathen religions and stuff, and they all make a party together for 6000 years. But you're not invited.

It makes games dull. AIs don't fight each other while you're not in sight (it happens sometimes, ok, but it's reaaaally rare : in one year of playing I've seen two or three times a civ being wiped out before I meet them), they don't trade with you on the same basis that they trade with each other, etc.

The worst is that I really don't see what these modifiers between AIs give to the game. It would be really better if things were logical, AIs liking each other or not on valid grounds, fighting heatens or weak neighbours, no ? Instead we have AIs waiting to kill you or to be killed by you, and reacting to each others according to their relations with you. It's not a world with different civilizations, it's a world with the player and the others. It spoils all the realism to me.

 

[Desert-Fox]

I agree! Sometimes it is strange... I play large pangaea map, AI from another side of map just goes through the world to declare war on me... Can you image in ancient times England would declare war on China? Never... it would be too costy and the point would be zero.
If I have the most weaker military then the reason would be bad military but if I have the strongest then they just ask allies to help and it would be even harder.

I've heard about triangle diplomacy but still being ally with agressive ones means that one day they will come for you or being annoyed/furious with them means they will come for you earlier.

Diplomacy is unfair... AI never bribes you into war, they only demand, they very rarely join free into wars when I ask... And really it's very annoying when they ask my most advanced tech for free... and If I refuse then I get -1 diplo.

 

[Titus]

......................

 

[Titus]

Well, while I'm crushing Gengis I send some caravels to see what's going on far away. I meet the guys from the other continent : Brennus, buddhist, Hannibal, christian, Tokugawa, taoist and Qin Shi muslim. All annoyed or really cautious with me, all pleased or friendly with each other. All of them ! Even Toku ! And all pleased to Gengis and Monty from the very turn they meet them (well, except maybe Toku). How balanced is that ? Close borders spark tensions, heathen religions and stuff, and they all make a party together for 6000 years. But you're not invited.

Yeah, I noticed this too. I just finished a game that went to about 1500 AD. I played on a huge map with all 18 civs. When I checked the post-game map, I was on the smaller continent with only 7 civs. The other 11 civs was on another large continent. On my own continent, no-one had declared war on anyone else other than me (and I had also declared war on a few). On the other continent, there had been exactly ONE declaration of war in the entire time up to 1500 AD, and not a single city had changed hands. Ridiculous!

 

[Titus]

Diplomacy is unfair... AI never bribes you into war, they only demand

Yeah, this is also annoying. The very rare times when you have the option to get someone to declare war on someone else, it costs you enormous sums. You'd expect to get a good price yourself when someone asks you to go to war for them. No, then you are supposed to start a costly war for no compensation whatsoever.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Yes we DO need improvements in diplomacy

1. 1. No more freeloading civs
   2. Give a "what's in it for me" option where you can ask for compensation when going to war
   3. allow YOU to pick techs and items that you will not trade (outlined in red)

 

[etherealcat]

No more freeloading civs

I am not sure about this. Surely you have noticed that Gandhi is more reasonable in his tech requests than is Catherine? Annoying or placating other rulers is part of what makes diplomacy interesting. Although it might be nice to ask for something in return, rather than be a straight gift.

Give a "what's in it for me" option where you can ask for compensation when going to war

I agree, the absence of this is an annoying imbalance between the player and AI civilizations.

allow YOU to pick techs and items that you will not trade (outlined in red)

This doesn't seem important to me. Having this option could be a good thing, but if we had the ability to ask for high trade in return for a resource or tech, then leaving everything open to barter might be better.

 

[Agarwaen]

I think we need more FEAR in diplo, strong civs bullying weak ones.

And more assimetric treaties, like we have vassal states, more options

And end the "treaties between player an AI are alwayes better to the AI", trade technologies with AI is awfull!

 

[Titus]

This doesn't seem important to me. Having this option could be a good thing, but if we had the ability to ask for high trade in return for a resource or tech, then leaving everything open to barter might be better.

Exactly. I'm sick of seeing only red options every time I open the trade, even when I have the means to give the AI a fantastic deal.

 

[Titus]

Some other small points about diplomacy:

- I would like the trading screen to be customizable, and the game to REMEMBER my settings. Some things you trade more often than others. For instance, I think "Cities" are too high on the list, since they are rarely (if ever) being traded. I don't like having to scroll down, or minimize the list of cities every time I want to check out the "Declare war on" list. I would like to move "Cities" to the bottom or minimize it, and have it staying that way the next time I talk to the leader. And the setting should be unique for each leader.

- Why do defensive pacts become obsolete once you discover permanent alliances? Both options should be available.

- Maybe give the AI more money than just his "net income" available for annual gold trading. Of course, there would have to be a limit to how much, since he would be forced to raise his tax %. AI players rarely (at least not on the middle difficulty levels) seem to have more than 5-10 gold per turn available for trading. The resources you can sell to AI players are practically always more valuable to the them than the gold (net income) they have available.

As it is now, if you want money for a resource, you have to settle for a small sum, say, 5 gold/turn. Then check back later - this time maybe the leader has another 3 gold net income. Cancel the deal so his net income pops up to 8. Offer the same resource, and he WILL offer you all 8 gold/turn. It's quite tedious continuously having to raise the deals this way.

- Not being able to trade annual items for direct items limits your options greatly. These kind of deals could last for 10 turns, during which time you are not able to declare war just so you won't have to keep up your end.

 

[nc-1701]

One of the primary reasons I still prefer civ3, but the best fix I can think of is that a partial wipe of the AI memory should occur everytime either of you changes goverments. Not a full wipe for example if you attacked them or raised their cities this will always be rememberd, but treatys and such are forgotton by either side changing their goverment.