*Help* with diplomacy for one of dishonorable bloodthirst

[wizzlestick]

If I trade with an AI Civilization but essentially gift the item to them (like a resource but ask for nothing in return), they tell me they graciously accept. (I also hear like cheering in the background)

I consider this greasing the wheels to try and gain influence with them, but is that actually happening?

I have been nothing but helpful to the civs I decided not to destroy, giving them money/(strategic/luxury)resources for nothing as I could tell they needed it. But everytime I talk to them they just call me bloodthirsty and dishonorable lol.

I did a lot of war early on but It was never directed at these civilizations and as I said I go out of my way since early on to please them (on marathon game 850+ turns in so far)

Am I doing something wrong? My finger is on the red button at this point to just annihilate them when they insult me after holding their hand for centuries lol

 

[Yzman]

The number and status with them is the only thing that affects your standing with them. They call you bloodthirsty because you probably took out some other city states. The AI does not like when you take out too many civs. If you take out enough puppets, the others will declare war on you permanently. AI civs will do the same thing strangely. I had all the civs declare war on me the same turn.

 

[stormerne]

AI civs have a very short memory unless it suits them. For example, you'd think returning a captured worker would be a significant plus, but it's kind of neutral for them, but they certainly don't like you taking out a whole other civ.

I suggest treating it as a business deal. It may be minutes and just a few turns since you felt you were being nice to them, but decades or centuries may have elapsed in civ turns time. Be cynical, and assume they will be the same - for they surely will!

And leave all the city states intact, K? Just keep them all sweet by keeping them all allied. There's never any reason to destroy one, even if one of them asks you to destroy another. They won't care if you don't follow that request because your gold speaks louder!

 

[Nunya]

If you heard cheering when you made your deal you were probably dealing with Montezuma. No wonder you're not getting results by sucking up.

 

[wizzlestick]

Thanks for the input. So there is basically no reason to ever give something for nothing it sounds like. I have yet to have a single Civ agree to form even a pact of cooperation with me after kissing their butts for ages. (Hundreds of turns) Mind you all of these civs are way less powerful than me also, so you would think it's in their best interest not to piss me off.

I have now destroyed every city/state that was at war with me (since it was permanent from my past and i gave up waiting on peace after like 100 turns) and all that remains are my allies. I still cannot get a single civilization to be what I consider an "Ally", since the only way I can EVER get a positive response is by handing them a ton of stuff, which is not exactly a hard sell. They also then become hostile within 20-30 turns anyway so it seems like a mute point.

Just seems to me like the AI lacks in this department *shrug* much easier to just conquer than be bothered with their idiotic idea of working together.

As far as the Aztecs, are you saying I should just destroy them and stop trying to be their friend? Which I have done for 894 turns now lol. I knew they would be militaristic but doesn't seem that should also mean they are idiots. Guess I know my plan for my next marathon game.

One last question, is there any reason to allow open borders other than as a bargaining chip? It seems to me (and this has been my stance for all 894 turns) that giving them that kind of access can only hurt me strategically, and I can simply get open borders from them for a nominal charge. (usually 50 gold)

 

[Bibor]

In a nutshell, the AI monitors the demographics (or something similar) and reacts (has certain triggers) to certain events. For example on King difficulty you can expect a neighbour attack after you build the 3rd city. Happened to me after 2nd city on Immortal. Distance to their capital also plays a role.

Things I observed so far that incur diplomatic penalties:
- "don't settle near us anymore" - settling close to AI capital (distance varies with difficulty); may lead to almost instant war
- Declaring a war (either on AI or city-state)
- Capturing a certain # of cities
- Completely eradicating civs
- Not honoring "army at borders is just passing through"
- Having a city-state ally that is wanted by an AI ("we attacked your pet")
- not honoring pacts of secrecy
- getting too much own cities (getting too strong)
- AIs have different flavors in terms of how they deal with bigger/smaller/stronger/weaker civs
- getting too much wonders, culture etc. not sure what exactly works, but wonders def. give penalties

 

[dalowrider]

Well lets say I have a pact of secrecy with the other AI's against the target

Then I instigate a war and wipe the floor with the target and keep every city

Does a pact negate all negative effects?

 

[Sable]

AIs also get mad whenever you lie or backstab. If you break a research agreement to declare war, don't honor a pact of cooperation, don't honor a pact of secrecy, act rude to their children and make them cry, etc. They're touch little bastards. However, I've found that the easiest way to get civs to like you after declaring war on them is to do none of the fighting yourself.

I found this out while playing Alexander. I took out Monty early on myself, and the other civs called me a warmongerer. Later I declared war on Hiawatha, who was getting a bit too cozy with my empire. I didn't move a unit--my allied city states tore him apart. And the other civs were still perfectly happy to ally with me I probably should've accepted his peace suit, but he still had settlers near my land, so I just let the city-states obliterate him XD

 

[Nunya]

From what I read in another thread the AI doesn't get mad at you for declaring war, it gets mad a t you for conquering cities. If you declare war, kill their armies, and pillage their improvements without taking any cities, they won't get hostile with you at all.

 

[eewallace]

I have experimented with givings things to AI civs, and I agree, there doesn't seem to be any advantage. Another thing that irritates them is if you befriend city-states that they consider to be "their" friends. (LOL, or if you befriend city-states that they consider to be their enemies...)

 

[wizzlestick]

I'll try the proxy war approach next game, they just never seemed to settle the city/states in a strategic place for me to make good use of them.

I ended up destroying every civilization using my squad of combat gunships around 1895-1908, YEEEHAW (Oh yea I was American lol)

I swear one missile from those things can basically take a city on a single turn if you have the edge on them technology wise, kinda hilarious. And the xp they get from dominating like that let's them quickly promote to move 2 extra spaces, heal themselves every round after combat, and attack twice a round! Overpowered

 

[wizzlestick]

I have experimented with givings things to AI civs, and I agree, there doesn't seem to be any advantage. Another thing that irritates them is if you befriend city-states that they consider to be "their" friends. (LOL, or if you befriend city-states that they consider to be their enemies...)

Or the irony when some pathetic civ becomes friendly terms with you but finds it necessary to bring up a dialogue to remind you how you are their favorite 'city/state', when it's clear you are dominant and could crush them lol. Always the little guys!!

 

[Lyoncet]

Another thing that irritates them is if you befriend city-states that they consider to be "their" friends.

I'm pretty sure you only get a demerit if you buy out a city-state that a) was their ally, meaning you terminated the bonuses they were getting for allied status, or b) right next to them (since they think it may be a precursor to assault). Just getting friendly with someone they're friendly with doesn't actually seem to have any negative consequences on its own.

 

[themaelstorm]

I'm yet to make a defensive pact with a civ. Seems like there is currently a problem like this:

You are good/aggressive at x, they fear you/jealous of you/see you as a threat and they don't like you.

You are bad/passive at x, they think you are weak? and don't like you.

..where x maybe expanding, attacking, making wonders etc.

Can't say I want the old "hmm you looked at my boobs, so thats -2 points but you bought me pretty flowers and thats +2, we're even" system, but current one looks a bit tough to crack.

Then again, my guess is that it's not the system itself but the quality of AI.

 

[Sable]

I'll try the proxy war approach next game, they just never seemed to settle the city/states in a strategic place for me to make good use of them.

I got lucky. Poor Hiawatha was surrounded with city-states. And since they scale to the tech level of the most advanced player (me), we were talking artillery and riflemen against Mohawk warriors, crossbowmen, rocks, and trebuchets. Very funny. Quite sad.

As for the AI, I think the AIs in Civ V are geared toward winning, not toward surviving. Obviously one is a prerequisite for the other, but I feel like because the AI is dominated by an "I must win" goal, it does silly things like threaten you even if you're vastly more powerful. It doesn't think, "Hey, this civ is nudging in on my turf but could kick my ass so I'll keep my mouth shut." It thinks, "Hey, this civ is a threat to my position, and maybe they'll back down if I talk big."

 

[Lyoncet]

Actually, it's barbarians that (allegedly, although they obviously don't entirely) scale to the level of the tech leader. City-states have their own tech tree, which they climb just like a normal civ. It does seem like they usually stay a decent bit ahead of most non-science-focused civs though. Barring slingshots, of course.

 

[Drago Askani]

Actually, it's barbarians that (allegedly, although they obviously don't entirely) scale to the level of the tech leader. City-states have their own tech tree, which they climb just like a normal civ. It does seem like they usually stay a decent bit ahead of most non-science-focused civs though. Barring slingshots, of course.

While they might have their own tech tree, they always have access to the highest lvl military units that can be produced by anyone they know.

 

[Lyoncet]

Is that so? Seems like a kind of silly way of doing things, given that means if you slingshot, say, Steel, you'll be equipping all the city-states you know with Longswordsmen. Makes sense for barbs who don't have a tech tree, but for city-states I don't really see the point (apart from balance, but that seems like it could be done with a simple CS tech tree or science tweak).

 

[King Jason]

I'm yet to make a defensive pact with a civ. Seems like there is currently a problem like this:

You are good/aggressive at x, they fear you/jealous of you/see you as a threat and they don't like you.

You are bad/passive at x, they think you are weak? and don't like you.

..where x maybe expanding, attacking, making wonders etc.

Can't say I want the old "hmm you looked at my boobs, so thats -2 points but you bought me pretty flowers and thats +2, we're even" system, but current one looks a bit tough to crack.

Then again, my guess is that it's not the system itself but the quality of AI.

I just managed my first defensive pact with Nobunaga on Immortal. Though a few turns prior we agreed to go to war in 10 turns against an A.I... so I'm curious to see what will happen to our pact. I'm assuming it'll be dissolved but I'm wondering if we'll be able to resume it. I'm hoping the war declaration on my part doesn't go all buggy and lower my relations with the guy.

Also, apparently, this being my first one... you can enter defensive pacts while either or both parties are currently at war. Naturally, it didn't bring us into each other's respective war... however, it'd hope it'll deter Russia from getting involved because I really don't want to fight three fronts. I could, I'd just rather spend my money on shiny buildings.

Tell you one thing.. it's much more enjoyable to read "best of luck in your current conflict." as opposed to somebody whining about the fact that I'm at war.

 

[Nunya]

I don't think city states get the best units available to anyone they know. I've had instances when I had mech infantry and several city states still had pikes.