Gamespot: chat with Firaxis about Civ5 - April 22
- Thread starter V. Soma
- Start date
No, I prefer option c) Make diplomacy a level playing field for all players, both human and AI.
Ahriman
Tyrant
IRL, you are able to tell what actions you take make other countries like you, and what actions you take make them not like you. IRL, you get a ton of information about the diplomatic impacts of your policies.
How do you do that? Its impossible, because diplomacy can't work against the human player, because the human player can't be forced to act in a predictable manner. There is no option c).
Saying "I pick c" doesn't make such an option exist.
How would you do it?
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
Why do you need the "+1"? Isn't it sufficient to know that "Long-term peaceful interactions - treaties, trade agreements, alliances - with other civs will have a positive effect on you diplomatic relations with them; aggressive or inflammatory actions - attacking them or their allies, encroaching upon their territory, disrupting trade - will have have a negative effect." It is intuitive and easily remembered (if you forget, check the rules/pedia).
There are only three possible effects of any diplomatic action: They like it, they don't care, they don't like it. Since AI reactions are random (within a range) based on traits that are random (within a range), numbers are superfluous and confusing - especially to novice players who won't know what they mean anyway. By the time they figure out the numbers, they will have figured out the AI personalities.
All the player needs to know is: "Do they like/dislike me?" and, "How much does that matter to them?" If you know they don't like you, you know that anything you do to p!*s them will make them more likely to respond.
There are only three possible effects of any diplomatic action: They like it, they don't care, they don't like it. Since AI reactions are random (within a range) based on traits that are random (within a range), numbers are superfluous and confusing - especially to novice players who won't know what they mean anyway. By the time they figure out the numbers, they will have figured out the AI personalities.
All the player needs to know is: "Do they like/dislike me?" and, "How much does that matter to them?" If you know they don't like you, you know that anything you do to p!*s them will make them more likely to respond.
Ahriman
Tyrant
To evaluate the relative importance of the various actions you take that change relations, and so that you have an in-game representation of what the actual modifiers are - and thus can clearly make the player understand the implications of their actions.
I shouldn't have to remember "oh, Russia is mad at me because I once attacked one of their allies". Or "the Persians are never going to like me again no matter because of all the cities of theirs that I've razed".
Or "yes, the English are mad at be now, but only because we're at war, once I make peace we'll be fine again and we can resume trade. Whereas the French hate me so much that even if we make peace, I will never be able to trade with them again, because of all the times I've attacked them."
There is so much to be gained from revealing the numbers. There is nothing to be gained from hiding them. [If you don't want to know, then don't look!]
How hard it is to understand that a -3 penalty from razing their city is bigger than a +1 bonus from giving them some gold in tribute once?
How hard is it to understand that a +4 bonus from using their favorite civic/social policy is bigger than a -1 penalty for having some border disputes?
They can understand that in their first game. Whereas personality values will take many games.
And again, you shouldn't have to remember AI behavior from one game to the next to figure out whether your diplomatic actions are meaningful or not.
The player needs to know what actions they can take that will improve relations or not, and whether the actions they take will be big enough to outweigh any other modifiers making them hate you.
If you have a -16 relation with someone because of all their cities you've razed, then gifting them some land for a +2 modifier isn't going to help you.
The player also needs feedback to know that an action they took did make some difference, even if it didn't shift them an entire attitude category.
If "Cautious" is +0 to +5, and pleased is +6 to +10, and I'm currently at +2, its important for the player to observe that gifting them some stuff for an extra +2 did in fact make it easier to make them like you in future, even if it wasn't big enough to move them to "Pleased".
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
Ahriman is completely right. This has nothing to do with graphical displays, and everything to do with telling you, the player, why the AI feels the way it does. You can always tell if the AI leaders are happy or angry with you; I've been playing Civ since the original back in the early 1990s, and in that game it was abundently clear how the leaders felt. But there was no context for why they felt the way they did; diplomacy was a closed box, a total guessing game. The AI could have been going to war over dice rolls for all I know.
Civ4 vastly improved the diplomatic model by adding those pluses and minuses. You can see exactly why other leaders like and don't like you... which allows you to make intelligent changes to boost relations, and visibly see the results. There is no possible gain from removing that information, only obfuscation and confusion. You might as well slice out the display on how many beakers your empire is producing, and ask the player to guess from the facial expression on your science advisor.
I really hope this is a misquoting or some kind of confusion.
Civ4 vastly improved the diplomatic model by adding those pluses and minuses. You can see exactly why other leaders like and don't like you... which allows you to make intelligent changes to boost relations, and visibly see the results. There is no possible gain from removing that information, only obfuscation and confusion. You might as well slice out the display on how many beakers your empire is producing, and ask the player to guess from the facial expression on your science advisor.
I really hope this is a misquoting or some kind of confusion.
Totally wrong. Diplomacy does not require forcing anyone to do anything. Simple concepts can be used to make diplomacy work well without mechanically forcing any kind of behaviour. Here's a small example:
AI player A asks the human to help him in a war against AI player B. The human has the option of accepting or rejecting the proposal. What he chooses to do affects his standings with the other AI players. This information can be recorded without explicitly telling the player what +/- modifiers apply to the AI.
Keep in mind that the AI players are always trying to win. Therefore, they may forgive many transgressions against them if that furthers their chances of winning. They should also not be dissuaded from attacking whomever poses them the biggest threat, as failure to stop this threat means imminent defeat.
RogueNine
Warlord
I'm ok with no + or - IF when we take an action, our Foreign Affairs Advisor (FAA) lists all the effects a decision will have. For example, if we hover over 'declare war on Germany', a popup from our FAA can say something like:
- Greece will be unhappy with us for declaring on their friend
- China will be furious with us for declaring on their ally
- America will be indiferrent with us over this action
etc.
The mechanics as we know it could be that Greece is at 0 with us right now, but would move to -2, China would move from -1 to -3 and America would move from +2 to +1, etc. but instead of showing us the numbers, we just get a recap of the consequences.
But I agree in principle, that diplomacy for the human player is alot more fun when we understand clearly the consequences of our actions. If all of the above were to happen when we declare war on Germany but we don't really know about it, sure our actions changed things in the game but we don't really know about it! Three turns later when I go to arrange a treaty with my 'neutral' Greek neighbors and discover that they are now unhappy, I won't remember which of the 5 actions I took over the last 3 turns caused them to get pissed. Thats not progress, thats a definite step back to C2 and C3.
- Greece will be unhappy with us for declaring on their friend
- China will be furious with us for declaring on their ally
- America will be indiferrent with us over this action
etc.
The mechanics as we know it could be that Greece is at 0 with us right now, but would move to -2, China would move from -1 to -3 and America would move from +2 to +1, etc. but instead of showing us the numbers, we just get a recap of the consequences.
But I agree in principle, that diplomacy for the human player is alot more fun when we understand clearly the consequences of our actions. If all of the above were to happen when we declare war on Germany but we don't really know about it, sure our actions changed things in the game but we don't really know about it! Three turns later when I go to arrange a treaty with my 'neutral' Greek neighbors and discover that they are now unhappy, I won't remember which of the 5 actions I took over the last 3 turns caused them to get pissed. Thats not progress, thats a definite step back to C2 and C3.
Ddude97
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 761
I agree most with this, no +/- is fine, as long as we get an effects list.
I agree with you in principle but I don't think all consequences should be known. There should be the option of secret treaties, alliances and other agreements. These would not be known by anyone outside of the parties involved.
When you attack one of the members you are surprised and the secret is revealed!
![Impaler[WrG]](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/73/73222.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
Impaler[WrG]
Civ4:Col UI programmer
I've long felt this 'option c' is possible and would worth doing. The trick to implementing it is that the 'Diplomatic status' needs to an actual MATERIAL effect in game which both the human player and AI can simply consider objectively. I'd make Diplo-status a kind of War-weariness modifier, positive/friendly status means more weariness, negative/enemy status means less. If could even extend into an inverse effect when NOT at war, happiness from being at peace with friends, Unhappiness from being at peace with Enemies. In any case the Diplomatic status acts as a reward/punishment on your status, it dose not force anything.
Unlike Civ4 the AI should be separate from Diplomatic status and operating on purely 'Machiavellian' principles of rational self-interests, and this would mean the rational strategy is to build good relations with those you wish to remain at peace with (as it increases the cost of them waring with you). The AI might still back-stab you after you spent all game getting a +10 status with them but the player is not wholly 'cheated' as they were in Civ4, the Weariness the AI suffers will force it to break off the war earlier then they otherwise would giving the player some reprieve.
The player should see full diplomatic modifiers as Ahriman has stated but NOT get to 'see' inside the AI's real thoughts and plans just as we can not see inside another human players. An astute player should be able to get some inclination of an AI's deeper proclivities such as it's willingness to back-stab just as they would in a multi-player game. But this should be more randomized then in Civ4 ware players were able to learn the static and predictable behaviors of the different leaders. Rather this should be something the players has to do more by observing the AI's interactions in each game.
I agree with some of what you said but not all. My vision of an ideal diplomacy in Civ is similar to what you experience when playing board games such as Monopoly or Risk with a big group of friends. All of the deals you make and break among friends are totally abstract and not bounded (nor even mentioned) by the rules of the game at all.
Obviously, a computer game does not have the ability to let you express any one of an infinite number of ideas to the AI. With that being said, I think a very powerful and flexible system could be constructed to allow a very large number of different options (via combinatorial explosion). Every deal made or broken must be considered with extreme selfish prejudice. The AI should not enter (or uphold) deals that are detrimental to its own position.
Obviously, a computer game does not have the ability to let you express any one of an infinite number of ideas to the AI. With that being said, I think a very powerful and flexible system could be constructed to allow a very large number of different options (via combinatorial explosion). Every deal made or broken must be considered with extreme selfish prejudice. The AI should not enter (or uphold) deals that are detrimental to its own position.
Impaler[WrG]
Civ4:Col UI programmer
Actually the rules of Monopoly explicitly define what kind of deals can and can not be made between players, for example players may not loan each other money or excuse each other from paying rent.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes it does. If I have very good diplomatic relationships with an AI player it forces them to not attack me (with very rare exceptions of extreme aggressive/backstabber AI parameter values). Whereas I can attack the AI whenever I like, no matter how good our diplomatic relations are.
If an AI player really hates me, it can't trade with me, no matter how much it needs a resource that I have, or wants to enter a permanent alliance or defensive pact. But I can always trade with anyone who wants to trade with me.
Every AI player's decisions on trade and wars are determined by how much they like each other leader. But the human player has no such value; how much a human likes the others or not is solely up to the player, it is not a value in the diplomatic engine.
These restrictions are necessary in order to make diplomatic values actually meaningful (what does good relations mean, except for determining trade and attack preferences?) and thus for the diplomatic system actually work.
This is the fundamental difference in diplomacy between humans and AIs, and why it is impossible to build a completely "fair" and equal diplomacy system while still having diplomacy values (likes and dislikes) that have any meaning.
Sure, you could, but why would you want to? The human player should be able to judge whether or not its worth helping A against B partly by judging whether getting involved in a war they didn't particularly want is worth the diplomatic bonus with A.
With less information, it is harder for the human to make this decision intelligently.
No, AI players are*not* trying to win, in precisely this way.
If an AI player can attack any player they like, based solely on some threat index, then guess what, you've just destroyed the diplomatic system, because how much the AI likes or dislikes a player no longer affects their decisions about going to war.
The only way to make diplomatic relations meaningful is when they bind the AI players *away* from acting in what would be purely their strategic interest.
If the AI is as likely to attack you when they are friendly as when they hate you, then friendly and hate no longer have any meaning.
So, either diplomat relations/attitudes affect the AI by influencing what decisions they make, OR diplomatic relations/attitudes have no impact. Pick a) or b).
I've heard this argument before from the MMORPG crowd. They claim that an "aggro" system that allows you to control who the monsters attack and who they don't attack is mandatory for the game. This results in the monsters focusing all of their attacks on the "tank" characters while the healers in the back remain unscathed and keep everyone healed up.
It is a fatally flawed argument. You're arguing for a double standard that makes the game easier. It's effectively a cheat that gives advantage to the human player.
"Like" or "dislike" are not sound strategic parameters. The terms you should really be looking for are "trust" and "distrust". These are much easier for an AI to deal with and will lead to much better decision-making. Betray one AI's trust and you should find everyone else reluctant to trust you.
The AI should spend a good deal of effort testing the player to establish trust. A small example:
The player has moved some of his troops to an ally's border. The AI asks the player what his intentions are.
- Answer honestly (that you're planning to invade) and war is immediately declared but your honour and trustworthiness are preserved.
or - Lie to the AI (just passing through) and then perform a sneak attack and you gain the reputation for being a dishonourable backstabber.
Huh? No. You aren't supposed to derive the number. You're supposed to play the game.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, this is my take on the diplomacy situation. When CivIV came out I *really* loved seeing all the AI diplomacy modifiers-after the craziness of CivII & CivIII, it was nice to finally see some rationale to the AI's behaviour in negotiations. However, as I played more games, it started to occur to me just how easy it was to exploit the AI when you had full knowledge of the various diplomatic modifiers-an advantage the AI lacked. Also, the diplomatic modifiers revealed somewhat of a "1-size-fits-all" approach to slights & favors (one which, thankfully, doesn't sound like it will apply with the flavor system they're bringing in). I also felt that the modifiers harmed mt immersion in the game. So, whilst I'm a fan of diplomatic modifiers, I'm not a fan anymore of knowing what those modifiers are.
Instead I'd rather have this role taken over by a strengthened Foreign Advisor-one who can tell you *how* a leader feels towards you, & the strongest motivation for those feelings. I do also want to retain the ability to find out how other known civilizations feel towards each other.
Aussie.
Instead I'd rather have this role taken over by a strengthened Foreign Advisor-one who can tell you *how* a leader feels towards you, & the strongest motivation for those feelings. I do also want to retain the ability to find out how other known civilizations feel towards each other.
Aussie.
Having an explanation why the ai likes or dislikes you was a big plus in Civ IV. If one has to guess from body language why the ai is angry/happy and why, then it's really bad.
IRL, another country will let you know why they dislike you. They'll say they have a grudge over this border. They'll ask your border patrols to respect the border. They'll say you should stop persecuting the followers of their favorite faith. They'll ask for more or less open trade and tithes. If you have to guess all these reasons from the body language, it's like denying there are diplomats in the world.
Gameplay-wise, I think it's a bad move, but let's wait and see if there are explanations or reports about other civs relationships somewhere.
IRL, another country will let you know why they dislike you. They'll say they have a grudge over this border. They'll ask your border patrols to respect the border. They'll say you should stop persecuting the followers of their favorite faith. They'll ask for more or less open trade and tithes. If you have to guess all these reasons from the body language, it's like denying there are diplomats in the world.
Gameplay-wise, I think it's a bad move, but let's wait and see if there are explanations or reports about other civs relationships somewhere.
Similar threads
