slowcar
King
If an AI tells me away because of the many units on its borders (in deity games sometimes a scout?) - how long is the "no no we are just running around" going to cause a diplomatic incident when i DoW them? 30 turns?
How CIV5 diplomacy works
- Thread starter Bibor
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
That's not the same as buddying up. Stalin thought it was a good thing because it meant he had time to build up and repair the military have a few (dozen) purges. Did Hitler backstab him? Yep but it wasn't like no one saw it coming.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
I think so, withdraw the army and write down the turn #. 30 turns later you should be able to attack without consequences. Or make him declare on you
My experience so far, is that the only thing affecting diplomatic relations is how strong your military is.
I've had two pacts of secrecy against a third, just like the OP suggests, but was still DOW & swarmed by troops from one of my 'conspirators', and then next turn it tells me my other 'conspirator' has done a research agreement with the intended victim.
Previous game I had a research agreement offered to me during the computers turn, accepted it, then in the very same turn (hadn't had mine yet) they DOW and even taunted that they had tricked me with the trade?! Well, they hurt themselves as much as me..
Just build soldiers and you'll be fine, doesn't really matter if you mess up the diplomacy or think you're doing it right. Rely on diplomacy without the soldiers and you will be stabbed in the back, no regard for agreements or anything else.
I've had two pacts of secrecy against a third, just like the OP suggests, but was still DOW & swarmed by troops from one of my 'conspirators', and then next turn it tells me my other 'conspirator' has done a research agreement with the intended victim.
Previous game I had a research agreement offered to me during the computers turn, accepted it, then in the very same turn (hadn't had mine yet) they DOW and even taunted that they had tricked me with the trade?! Well, they hurt themselves as much as me..
Just build soldiers and you'll be fine, doesn't really matter if you mess up the diplomacy or think you're doing it right. Rely on diplomacy without the soldiers and you will be stabbed in the back, no regard for agreements or anything else.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Every diplomatic action has a certain gravity to it, with DOW, civ elimination pacts of cooperation and "attacking weaker civs" having most impact. Pacts of secrecy, research agreements, regular trades have minimal impact. But note that wars serve as some sort of catharsis. If an AI-X is hostile towards AI-Y, and peace breaks out after a DOW, AI-X and AI-Y will actually have a better standing with each other than before (and you might become their next target). Bizarre and ridiculous, but that's how it is for now.
Nunya
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 270
Yes, I remember how in one of my early games Alexander was hostile towards me, then we had a war in which nothing happened (I got DOWed by pretty much every AI I've met after wiping out France) and then after a while we signed a peace treaty and he was back to neutral. It made me really like the guy, because at the time I thought not holding grudges was a unique personality trait of his.
Peepers
On the road again
I envision the current diplomacy model as a complicated version of the influence over city states. That system is somewhat transparent, as you can see to whom they are allied, though not the exact level of influence, and the quantitative effects of actions. There are a number of concrete factors that affect influence, including:
-Gifts given, both money and units
-Requests achieved
-State of war
-Trespassing
-Act of freeing from previous conqueror
-Normalization to zero (or 20) and rate of such
-Disposition of city state (namely: hostile, friendly, neutral, irrational)
I suggest that each AI may have many such influence and diplomacy factors. It may also have a default start level or even a default mean (example: Gandhi may settle back to +5 or Monty to -10 instead of neutral 0). Each leader personality may have certain levels where it will sign agreements of different types, and you may get different influence levels for any given action with each different leader, thus giving the AI civs their appearance of personality.
This is my working model. I may be generous with my assessment, but I hope that it approaches this level of coherence.
I am not denying that the current diplomacy system seems chaotic and somewhat arbitrary, or that it suffers from problems of poor wording or hypocritical maneuvers. I admit that my hypothetical model is probably inaccurate (as many working hypotheses are). I do not think, however, that diplomacy is totally broken or that this is not a good starting point for such a relationship system for this version of Civ.
-Gifts given, both money and units
-Requests achieved
-State of war
-Trespassing
-Act of freeing from previous conqueror
-Normalization to zero (or 20) and rate of such
-Disposition of city state (namely: hostile, friendly, neutral, irrational)
I suggest that each AI may have many such influence and diplomacy factors. It may also have a default start level or even a default mean (example: Gandhi may settle back to +5 or Monty to -10 instead of neutral 0). Each leader personality may have certain levels where it will sign agreements of different types, and you may get different influence levels for any given action with each different leader, thus giving the AI civs their appearance of personality.
This is my working model. I may be generous with my assessment, but I hope that it approaches this level of coherence.
I am not denying that the current diplomacy system seems chaotic and somewhat arbitrary, or that it suffers from problems of poor wording or hypocritical maneuvers. I admit that my hypothetical model is probably inaccurate (as many working hypotheses are). I do not think, however, that diplomacy is totally broken or that this is not a good starting point for such a relationship system for this version of Civ.
Bud Spencer
Chieftain
I like to settle a city next to the biggest badass who I think will cause me the more trouble lather, then sell it for almost nothing to Mr Pointiest Stick.
This, believe me, causes a royal rumble.
This, believe me, causes a royal rumble.
This happened last night.
Was playing Askia. Was buddy buddy with Bismarck. Had a PoC and a PoS against another AI. No open borders. And by this point in time, I have DoWed 3 AIs, 3 times.
Noticed a military build up by Bismarck at our mutual borders. He was in a war, with an AI on the OTHER side of his land. Checked Diplo - still "hi friend, bla bla". Moved 5 horsemen to reinforce the 1 horseman I had positioned there.
The next few turns, noticed even more troops gathering. Checked Diplo every turn. Still buddy buddy. Waited for DoW for the next 5 turns - None came. Troops didn't dissipate.
So I moved 5 horsemen away to the next city, out of sight. Here's the interesting part. Within the next 3 turns, Bismarck cancelled the PoC, PoS and moved his horsemen and landsknetchs to surround that border city.
I did not sign any new pacts with any other AIs, no new trade deals. Only finished some buildings - markets, colloseums, unis etc. No new units. So in that many turns, not much has changed wrt to my civ's diplo relations with other AIs.
I checked the Diplo with Bismarck every turn. It went from buddy to "What do you want" the very next turn after I moved my troops. Then after that, I became the bloodthirsty one. In that 3 turns, I went from a good friend to a hated target - with no discernible change in my Diplo actions. All other AIs remained status quo - friends are still friends, enemies still enemies.
After the 3 turns, I declared and wiped out his troops - couldn't be bothered to wait for his DoW. Slow going against rough terrain fortified landsknetchs.
What does that tell me about the AI or at least Bismarck? When he's your neighbour, take him (them) out and do it fast. And there is no such thing here as friends, only non-enemies.
Surprisngly, my relations with Obunaga remain at max friendly. We have a PoC and I can sell lux to him for 300. Never been in a mutual war. Been declining any PoS and wars together. The caveat? His lands are on the other end of the Pangaea.
So if you want to be "friends", have a good military, show it off and don't have land near to each other. Anything else, bring out the gun.
"You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word" - Al Capone
Was playing Askia. Was buddy buddy with Bismarck. Had a PoC and a PoS against another AI. No open borders. And by this point in time, I have DoWed 3 AIs, 3 times.
Noticed a military build up by Bismarck at our mutual borders. He was in a war, with an AI on the OTHER side of his land. Checked Diplo - still "hi friend, bla bla". Moved 5 horsemen to reinforce the 1 horseman I had positioned there.
The next few turns, noticed even more troops gathering. Checked Diplo every turn. Still buddy buddy. Waited for DoW for the next 5 turns - None came. Troops didn't dissipate.
So I moved 5 horsemen away to the next city, out of sight. Here's the interesting part. Within the next 3 turns, Bismarck cancelled the PoC, PoS and moved his horsemen and landsknetchs to surround that border city.
I did not sign any new pacts with any other AIs, no new trade deals. Only finished some buildings - markets, colloseums, unis etc. No new units. So in that many turns, not much has changed wrt to my civ's diplo relations with other AIs.
I checked the Diplo with Bismarck every turn. It went from buddy to "What do you want" the very next turn after I moved my troops. Then after that, I became the bloodthirsty one. In that 3 turns, I went from a good friend to a hated target - with no discernible change in my Diplo actions. All other AIs remained status quo - friends are still friends, enemies still enemies.
After the 3 turns, I declared and wiped out his troops - couldn't be bothered to wait for his DoW. Slow going against rough terrain fortified landsknetchs.
What does that tell me about the AI or at least Bismarck? When he's your neighbour, take him (them) out and do it fast. And there is no such thing here as friends, only non-enemies.
Surprisngly, my relations with Obunaga remain at max friendly. We have a PoC and I can sell lux to him for 300. Never been in a mutual war. Been declining any PoS and wars together. The caveat? His lands are on the other end of the Pangaea.
So if you want to be "friends", have a good military, show it off and don't have land near to each other. Anything else, bring out the gun.
"You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word" - Al Capone
grandad1982
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
This is all well and good but when I have been forming PoC with certain nations and then PoS against specific rivals with my PoC "friends" it seems to have little effect.
For example. In my current Babylon game I was next to Hiawatha and Bismark with Napoleon behind Bismark and Suliman south or Hiawatha. This is on an Oval map.
I settle a couple of cities in a line to block off my peninsular. I found a 3rd city in my back yard and Bismark says stop settling near me. I say no but take no further action for may turns. After about 20 turns he DoWs me but I fight him off easy with a smaller weaker force due to terrain and being a human.
Hiawatha is very close by this point but he's not being to aggresive aside from massing troops but I don't belive he will DoW.
Against this back drop of expansion I have PoC with Napleon and Suliman. Also PoC with some other AIs that are less relivant. I form PoS against Haiwatha and Bismark with my PoC friends. I don't get involved in any early wars and I trade with my "friends". I even signed RA with Suliman and another AI.
Suliman becomes a dick with other AIs and has about 3 wars, the last of which is with Monty who is the board leader by some way and has already taken several CS and 1.5 AIs.
So. Whilst Suliman is waring with Hiawatha et al, Nappy says do you want to DoW in 10 on Hiawatha (Nappy has wiped one AI out and had a couple of wars). I say yes as cannons are on their way and Suliman is my "friend". I take two Iroquios cities and eliminate them from the game saving Sulimans bacon and honouring my agreement with Nappy. The result? My "friends" cancel all PoCs and PoSs and start calling me, "dishonourable" and "the bloodthirsty one".
Won't be suprised if Bismark DoWs and bribes my former friends into helping.
I think my main problem with the diplo is the hipocracy and the selective memory of AIs when it comes to "friendly" diplo compared to "aggresive" diplo.
For example. In my current Babylon game I was next to Hiawatha and Bismark with Napoleon behind Bismark and Suliman south or Hiawatha. This is on an Oval map.
I settle a couple of cities in a line to block off my peninsular. I found a 3rd city in my back yard and Bismark says stop settling near me. I say no but take no further action for may turns. After about 20 turns he DoWs me but I fight him off easy with a smaller weaker force due to terrain and being a human.
Hiawatha is very close by this point but he's not being to aggresive aside from massing troops but I don't belive he will DoW.
Against this back drop of expansion I have PoC with Napleon and Suliman. Also PoC with some other AIs that are less relivant. I form PoS against Haiwatha and Bismark with my PoC friends. I don't get involved in any early wars and I trade with my "friends". I even signed RA with Suliman and another AI.
Suliman becomes a dick with other AIs and has about 3 wars, the last of which is with Monty who is the board leader by some way and has already taken several CS and 1.5 AIs.
So. Whilst Suliman is waring with Hiawatha et al, Nappy says do you want to DoW in 10 on Hiawatha (Nappy has wiped one AI out and had a couple of wars). I say yes as cannons are on their way and Suliman is my "friend". I take two Iroquios cities and eliminate them from the game saving Sulimans bacon and honouring my agreement with Nappy. The result? My "friends" cancel all PoCs and PoSs and start calling me, "dishonourable" and "the bloodthirsty one".
Won't be suprised if Bismark DoWs and bribes my former friends into helping.
I think my main problem with the diplo is the hipocracy and the selective memory of AIs when it comes to "friendly" diplo compared to "aggresive" diplo.
Yes, sounds like the mistake you made here was being the one to finish off Hiawatha. Being the one to eliminate another player apparently has huge diplomatic penalties with it- in such a situation you would have been well advised to just leave them with their last city and either sue for peace or just wait for somebody else to kill them and get tagged as the evil one.
Sound advice, and it runs contrary to pretty much every turn-based strategy fiber in one's body, since in most games you're incentivised to be the one who lands the killing blow on another faction.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
Because of this, in my last game I founded a city in a terrible out-of the way spot and gave it away to a civ I wanted to attack so that I could clean out all their good cities and get them out of the way without getting blamed for genocide. Works pretty well... also a helpful strategy if you can found some 1-hex island cities and give them away to civs who are in danger of being overrun by somebody so you don't lose too many RA partners.
Syntax Error
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Messages
- 544
Last night, I was playing as Siam for a GDR victory. The remaining Runaways in my 4 corners (mountain division) map were Iroquois, Ottoman and Aztec, each one occupying his own corner. For some reason, Monty expanded like the plague. He was settling cities in my territory, even breaking one of my trade routes. Well, I didn't let it bother me cuz we're buddy-buddy and he had the pointiest sticks, while all I had were 5 Mech Infantry (only two are heavily-promoted with MArch and Blitz, though). Hiawatha and Suleiman hated my guts.
All of a sudden, Suleiman DoW'ed on me. So I sold one of my puppets to the Iroquois to block off his advances and paid my buddy-bud Monty 500 gold to DoW on Suleiman. Monty's also at perma-war with CS's so that's a precedent for me to DoW on him sooner or later, and he's blocking my path. Then, the GDR's came a few turns after the Iroquois DoW'ed on me as well. As they say, don't bring muskets to a Robot fight. Hiawatha was destroyed, a couple of hypocritical civs were liberated, I sacked one of the cities I traded to him, and finished off everyone else for a domination win.
Moral of the story: Selling cities is AWESOME. Even better if you take a frontier city, sell it to a third party, have it taken back, then sell it again.
All of a sudden, Suleiman DoW'ed on me. So I sold one of my puppets to the Iroquois to block off his advances and paid my buddy-bud Monty 500 gold to DoW on Suleiman. Monty's also at perma-war with CS's so that's a precedent for me to DoW on him sooner or later, and he's blocking my path. Then, the GDR's came a few turns after the Iroquois DoW'ed on me as well. As they say, don't bring muskets to a Robot fight. Hiawatha was destroyed, a couple of hypocritical civs were liberated, I sacked one of the cities I traded to him, and finished off everyone else for a domination win.
Moral of the story: Selling cities is AWESOME. Even better if you take a frontier city, sell it to a third party, have it taken back, then sell it again.
JudgeDeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 191
With regard to Pacts of Secrecy, I can't see it having any effect at all, except that if you agree it helps keep people friendly. I now agree to all.
I also find that it's easy to keep on good turns with people who are not near to your borders, without agreeing to Open Borders* or start wars (so you can remain on good terms with all of them), and I can also 100% persuade these people to make peace with City States - even the turn after they started a war, which is much better than sending them units or DoW yourself.
This is undoubtedly why the "give a city" ploy would work very well. Seems a bit of an exploit to me though - AI needs beefing it so that it refuses poorly placed cities.
* I only take the money until I see Settlers taking to the seas - let them settle anywhere near you and friends quickly become enemies; not worth it for a measly 50gp a time.
I also find that it's easy to keep on good turns with people who are not near to your borders, without agreeing to Open Borders* or start wars (so you can remain on good terms with all of them), and I can also 100% persuade these people to make peace with City States - even the turn after they started a war, which is much better than sending them units or DoW yourself.
This is undoubtedly why the "give a city" ploy would work very well. Seems a bit of an exploit to me though - AI needs beefing it so that it refuses poorly placed cities.
* I only take the money until I see Settlers taking to the seas - let them settle anywhere near you and friends quickly become enemies; not worth it for a measly 50gp a time.
Did anyone else give gold to a civ to attack another one and then instead of Alex declaring war on Catherine, he immediately declares war on you? On your turn, too?
I hate that. Really HATE.
I know humans can be *** but if I play MP with someone who does that, I'll never ever make a deal with him again. If the ai behaves like a ******ed warmonger in order to simulate a human player behavior, it should at least try to be honest about it. There's already very little sense of immersion in Civ V but this really breaks it. Suspension of disbelief? Good bye. It sounds too gamey. We make a deal, he gets the gold when he declares war on my enemy, not before. Now what the ai does is steal the gold from you and declare war on you!!!
Did I mention I HATE that?
I hate that. Really HATE.
I know humans can be *** but if I play MP with someone who does that, I'll never ever make a deal with him again. If the ai behaves like a ******ed warmonger in order to simulate a human player behavior, it should at least try to be honest about it. There's already very little sense of immersion in Civ V but this really breaks it. Suspension of disbelief? Good bye. It sounds too gamey. We make a deal, he gets the gold when he declares war on my enemy, not before. Now what the ai does is steal the gold from you and declare war on you!!!
Did I mention I HATE that?
26-year-olds tend to underestimate the efficacy of tit-for-tat.
Seems too simple to be optimal.
Learning otherwise is called wisdom.
Similar threads
- Locked
