Gamespot: chat with Firaxis about Civ5 - April 22

[Ahriman]

Real life humans are unpredictable, yet diplomacy still works most of the time.

What utter nonsense. Real countries act *very* predictably. Canada doesn't live in fear of being invaded by the US. Spain isn't worried that France will suddenly refuse to trade with it. Countries with good diplomatic relations do not just suddenly go to war out of the blue. Alliances are meaningful.

This is actually already somewhat in the game in the form of war weariness, it's just been greatly simplified.

Yes, and its fine in its greatly simplified form. War weariness mostly depends on war casualties, and it depends on shared religion. That's it. There is nothing where the game creates a whole separate set of diplomatic preferences for the player's population and applies modifiers based on those.

If the AI civs/leaders always act in a predictable fashion, then you only need to play one game & you know how every game with that Civ/leader in it is going to pan out.

Did you read what I said I meant by predictably?

By "predictable manner" I did not mean the AI has to be completely predictable, I merely meant that they need to be "somewhat" predictable. In that, all else equal, someone with whom you have good diplomatic relations is significantly less likely to attack you than someone with whom you have poor diplomatic relations.

This kind of predictability is necessary in order to have a functioning diplomatic system. But in a diplomatic system when AIs act purely on their desire to win, then this property is lost.

nor is having a "window to the soul" of your AI rivals a good thing either.

How is knowing that your neighboring country likes you because of your open borders, your trade, and your civics while they dislike you because of territorial disputes and the fact that you once attacked them a "window to the soul" of the AI?
All I want to know is the same level of detail as in Civ4. Do you really think that displaying the Civ4 diplomacy modifiers gives you a "window to the soul" of the AI?
It doesn't, because there are still plenty of personal particular AI background parameters - many of which also run on random modifiers.

The AI deals with it, why can't you?

Because I'm a human player with agency over my own actions.
I paid money to get to have fun playing this game. The AIs didn't.
Fighting against the diplomatic preferences of my people (which I do not get to control or influence) does NOT sound like fun.

Having the game force on you which countries you can or can't attack (and in your version, even worse; you get happiness penalties for NOT attacking countries which your people don't like) is about as much fun as the Civ1 Republic/Democracy senate preventing you from declaring war. And people hated that mechanic, so it was removed.

Happiness is also a really bad mechanic for this kind of thing, because of the discontinuous way in which happiness works (it has no impact below the cap, and then a large impact).

 

[LDiCesare]

Fighting against the diplomatic preferences of my people (which I do not get to control or influence) does NOT sound like fun.

But you WOULD control and influence them. If you decide to trade with your neighbour, your people like them more. You could also have "civics" declaring how nationalistic your people are, which could mitigate these preferences at the cost of something else. You could deliberately pick policies opposite to your neighbour in order for your people to resent that difference.

 

[Ahriman]

If you decide to trade with your neighbour, your people like them more

You could deliberately pick policies opposite to your neighbour in order for your people to resent that difference.

Ugh. This sounds horrible. I choose trade policy based not on profit, or even on making the other faction like me, but in order to maniupate my own peoples' preferences?
I choose social policies/government styles in order to give me various advantages or disadvantages, I don't choose them in order to manipulate how my people feel about another country.

Ridiculous. That's not how foreign policy works. Countries make foreign policy based on their interests, not on strategically manipulating their own population.

 

[chongli]

What utter nonsense. Real countries act *very* predictably. Canada doesn't live in fear of being invaded by the US. Spain isn't worried that France will suddenly refuse to trade with it. Countries with good diplomatic relations do not just suddenly go to war out of the blue. Alliances are meaningful.

Selection bias. Try taking a look at the history of Europe, Asia and the Middle East over the past 2000 years. Countless surprise invasions.

If there's one thing predictable about human nature it's the never-ending desire for more resources. Canada doesn't fear the US because they trade all of their resources to the US.

It should not be possible to keep any Civ happy without eventually turning over all your resources to them. And just because they want all of your resources doesn't mean they should tell you that, particularly because you'd be unwilling or unable to meet their demands.

 

[Ahriman]

Countless surprise invasions

Examples? I bet for every surprise invasion you come up with, I can give 2 that were predictable. Nearly every war in history was predictable by the parties involved, and involved sabre-rattling and ultimatiums and demands beforehand. People generally warred for a reason, and they generally tried to accomplish their goals by other means before using war to do so.

Surprise invasions from rampaging hordes that show up on your doorstep, sure. But surprise invasions from your neighbor? Incredibly rare.

Canada doesn't fear the US because they trade all of their resources to the US.

Nonsense. Your direction of causality is all messed up. Canada trades resources to the US because transport costs are lower to sell them there than elsewhere.
Indonesia and Malaysia trade their oil with Japan, China and Australia, not the US - but neither fears invasion from the US.
Invasions very rarely start because people won't trade with you (there have been a handful like that, but not many).

And just because they want all of your resources doesn't mean they should tell you that, particularly because you'd be unwilling or unable to meet their demands.

If a power wants resources, they will nearly always try to attain those resources through diplomacy before starting a war of conquest to attain them. Wars are expensive!

 

[Thyrwyn]

Have to agree with chongli on this one - the whole "does not fear [war]" is a recent development: we certainly would say that today England has no fear that they face war with France, but this "permanent peace" has only existed for the last century or so. They warred almost continually for centuries before that.

 

[Thyrwyn]

"Examples? I bet for every surprise invasion you come up with, I can give 2 that were predictable" - then 1/3 of them were surprise meaning diplomacy is only 67% reliable - which is what many of us are saying.

 

[Charles Martel]

I am generally against “hidden variables”, especially if the variables in question belong to key aspects of the game such as diplomacy. Here are three reasons why:

1) Civ4 has a neat and transparent interface that clearly shows plus and minuses associated to the information that the player is already supposed to know. I already know whether Caesar is friendly with me or not. Therefore, I'd like to be shown what “friendly” or “annoyed” exactly amounts to in game terms. I regard such qualitative descriptions as mere embellishments of a quantitative information that should be clearly displayed.

2) Plus and minuses give the clearest explanation of why the AI has a certain attitude towards the player. Experienced players will soon be able to guess with enough accuracy what the plus and minuses actually are. So the ploy of keeping that information hidden will only succeed in frustrating the beginners.

3) Hiding the diplo modifiers will NOT succeed in making the AI look more human-like. Current AI behaviour will never come remotely close to resembling that of a human player. No amount of hiding how the AI works will succeed in turning single-player diplo into a sort of multi-player experience.

 

[Ahriman]

but this "permanent peace" has only existed for the last century or so. They warred almost continually for centuries before that.

Irrelevant; for centuries before that they did not have good diplomatic relationships.

This in no way is an argument for making the chance of war occurring unrelated to diplomatic relationships.

The question is not "would France or England ever have invaded each other"; clearly they did many times. The question is; would France or England have invaded each other when they have very good diplomatic relations.

In Chongli's world, the Allied troops after D-day would have annexed France, rather than liberating it, because this would have helped them win the game.

then 1/3 of them were surprise meaning diplomacy is only 67% reliable - which is what many of us are saying.

Well, I bet I can name more than 2.

So far you've provided *zero* examples of neighbors declaring war on their neighbors unexpectedly.

I agree with Charles on all points.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Having the game force on you which countries you can or can't attack (and in your version, even worse; you get happiness penalties for NOT attacking countries which your people don't like) is about as much fun as the Civ1 Republic/Democracy senate preventing you from declaring war. And people hated that mechanic, so it was removed.

Happiness is also a really bad mechanic for this kind of thing, because of the discontinuous way in which happiness works (it has no impact below the cap, and then a large impact).

1. The happiness cap is a BAD idea, I hope it is gone and that happiness is a problem no matter what the size of the cities (health makes a much better pop cap anyways)... basically replace happiness with something that buildings can help with, but hurts/helps my whole empire (+-% total commerce or something like that)

2. It shouldn't FORCE, it should encourage (War Weariness does this and it makes sense)

3. The game Should have means of manipulating it. Just like you can manipulate the AI pop's preferences, you can manipulate your pop's preferences.

Which is why 2-way is probably the best...
Everything you do (in old fashioned Civ IV diplomacy) to make it harder for the French to attack you will Also make it harder for you to attack the French.

So if I intend to start a war I will start by doing things that make it easier for you to attack me (making arrogant demands/breaking treaties/turning down your requests)

Requests would be interesting....
If you make it and it is turned down the relationship gets Worse
If you make it and it is accepted, the relationship gets Better

So if I am powerful and you are weak, I will make demands... either you give in (harder for us to declare war) or you deny me (easier for us to declare war)

By making demands, I either
1. Make it easier for us to go to war (you denied me)
or
2. Get something from you

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Irrelevant; for centuries before that they did not have good diplomatic relationships

Complete & total rubbish. European history is awash with shifting alliances & periods of both good & bad diplomatic relationships. To claim otherwise shows an ignorance of history. Also, take a look at Japan-in WWI they were our allies, but in WWII they launched a pre-emptive strike against the US in the Pacific, because they thought it was in their long-term interests.
I want a *rational* AI, not a predictable AI-which is a completely different thing. A rational AI will occasionally act in a seemingly unpredictable fashion, when doing so is in its long-term interests. Having the diplomatic modifiers telegraphed makes the AI more manipulable, more predictable (both of which are *bad*) &-in the rare cases where it tries to be unpredictable-will probably lead to complaints of an "irrational AI"-probably from those same people advocating the visible modifiers. I'd prefer to retain a little mystery, because it makes the game more challenging-wheras those calling for visible modifiers just strike me as wanting the game to be easier!

 

[Ahriman]

European history is awash with shifting alliances & periods of both good & bad diplomatic relationships. To claim otherwise shows an ignorance of history.

Nice straw man. I claimed no such thing. I claimed that in the periods where relations were good and the powers were allied, they didn't attack each other. There would be a period of deteriorating relationships and diplomatic conflicts long before war; they never went from being great friends and allies straight into war.

but in WWII they launched a pre-emptive strike against the US in the Pacific, because they thought it was in their long-term interests.

The US and Japan had a terrible diplomatic relationship through the 1930s, long before the war started.

While the Pearl Harbor attack itself was a surprise, war definitely wasn't a surprise - and relations were terrible, the US had already implemented trade sanctions against Japan (including oil).

Again, this is not an example of an ally attacking a friend, that Just Didn't Happen.

I want a *rational* AI

Hiding the diplomatic modifiers doesn't make the AI any more rational.
The only thing which would make the AI more "rational" is if the diplomatic modifiers didn't change its behavior anymore. Which would just be terrible.

It feels like you would prefer to play against AIs that feel like Deathmatch bots, whereas I would prefer to play against AIs that feel like real historic countries.

Having the diplomatic modifiers telegraphed makes the AI more manipulable, more predictable (both of which are *bad*

Strongly disagree.
"more manipulable" is just code for "the human player can actually make sensible a diplomatic strategy that has real value to the player".
Having a highly unpredictable AI just means that the AI will appear irrational to the human player.

I'd prefer to retain a little mystery, because it makes the game more challenging-wheras those calling for visible modifiers just strike me as wanting the game to be easier!

So, I take it you play without using the combat odds calculator? Cos, you know, adds more mystery to what the outcome of a fight will be, and makes the game harder.

 

[chongli]

Okay, I'll give you that there are few examples in history of best friends stabbing each other in the back. However, there are few examples in history of "best friends" that last for any meaningful (century+) period of time.

In Civ 4 it was quite easy to keep the peace with the AI for millennia, denying them access to key resources the entire time, stagnating their economy into irrelevance. This should never happen in Civ 5. The AI should be extremely greedy and never stay happy for very long. The only way to keep the peace over a long period should be to agree to everyone's ever-increasing demands.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

So, I take it you play without using the combat odds calculator?

No, in fact I don't Ahriman-I see it as a crutch, which is how I see visible modifiers. I guess some people just need them in order to have any chance of victory.

It feels like you would prefer to play against AIs that feel like Deathmatch bots, whereas I would prefer to play against AIs that feel like real historic countries.

Wow, I'd love to know where you get this ludicrous idea from?!?! What I want is AI civs that genuinely respond to your actions-in a *rational* fashion. I just don't see how knowing *exactly* how each action influences the AI enhances the game-except by making it an exploitable *crutch* for people who aren't very good at the game.
Instead of a nuanced personality that you have to deal with in a NUANCED fashion, it sounds like you just want a nice little algorithm that you can exploit by finely adjusting the variables. This is coming from someone who has several years experience of playing CivIV diplomacy games against human players. No crutches there, but the experience is still highly rewarding.

 

[Thyrwyn]

^sums up my feelings exactly.

 

[Dale]

Ahriman, this quote is for you:

When Bill [Stealey] asked Sid [Meier] how he won, Sid said, "I could see the algorithm the computer was using."

Sid Meier describing how he beat an American naval air ace at a flight simulator.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Exactly Dale-show us the numbers & we can exploit them to our advantage. Hide the numbers & we might have to treat the AI player at least partly the way we'd treat another human being (with the obvious exception that, even though we can't *See* the modifiers, we know they're influencing the AI's behaviour-which already gives the human a distinct advantage).

 

[Dale]

Show me the numbers, and I'll show you three ways to exploit them in my favour.

 

[Thyrwyn]

"Having a highly unpredictable AI just means that the AI will appear irrational to the human player." No one has said they want a "highly unpredictable AI" - what we DON'T want is an entirely predictable one. And, as Aussie said, you can behave rationally without behaving predictably.

As for the England/France thing - what exactly were their reasons for going to war? They were typically "your land/crown should be ours" or "we don't want you to have those resources". How exactly would you translate that into Civ terms?

 

[EmpireOfCats]

Current AI behaviour will never come remotely close to resembling that of a human player.

One thing you would have to do is include "psychotic" leaders, that is, have Stalin actually purge is military (say, delete all units above a certain experience level), have an illogical like of certain units (I tend to build too many archers at the cost of spearmen), and stuff like that. Unfortunately, that just makes the AI look weak or stupid.