[GS] How to lose friends and alienate people...

[acluewithout]

I’ve had a few games where I’ve been playing around building 3 IZ / aqueduct triangles. Very fun. But the hint is, except for some early war, these games tend to have me playing a little passively because I’m focused on just building infrastructure, and then when I do decide to expand late game I still have plenty of room because I’m playing Continents + Islands so no need to step in anyone’s toes.

I noticed in my last game that initially some people liked me (those I’d been careful to develop diplomatically) and some people hated me (those I hadn’t). But by late game, basically everyone loved me. Thinking about it, it didn’t seem surprising to me that most people liked me. My empire was pretty wealthy, I had a decent amount of military, and I hadn’t done anything to hurt anyone or mess them around, and wasn’t even particularly bee-lining any specific victory.

Anyway. I know people often complain about the late game love-fest. But it got me wondering - is the love-fest actually a sign I’m not playing well rather than a problem with the AI? Perhaps it means I’m playing too passively. If I was playing harder and more aggressively, sure, I’d have a few Allies, but shouldn’t I be picking fights with everyone else - to prevent them achieving their own Victories, to Pillage yields, even to capture Wonders?

Surely it’s not surprising everyone likes me when I’m playing passively? And surely playing passively means I’m not playing the game well. I can only have so many Alliances, and moreover, by not messing with other Civs aren’t I just “leaving money on the table”? Isn’t the onus on me to do things that make people hate me?

Perhaps people that complain about the late game love fest have got it wrong. The fault is not in the AI, but in them being too ready to turtle and just stay in their lane, rather mix it up with other Civs and play everyone off against each other?

 

[Patine]

I’ve had a few games where I’ve been playing around building 3 IZ / aqueduct triangles. Very fun. But the hint is, except for some early war, these games tend to have me playing a little passively because I’m focused on just building infrastructure, and then when I do decide to expand late game I still have plenty of room because I’m playing Continents + Islands so no need to step in anyone’s toes.

I noticed in my last game that initially some people liked me (those I’d been careful to develop diplomatically) and some people hated me (those I hadn’t). But by late game, basically everyone loved me. Thinking about it, it didn’t seem surprising to me that most people liked me. My empire was pretty wealthy, I had a decent amount of military, and I hadn’t done anything to hurt anyone or mess them around, and wasn’t even particularly bee-lining any specific victory.

Anyway. I know people often complain about the late game love-fest. But it got me wondering - is the love-fest actually a sign I’m not playing well rather than a problem with the AI? Perhaps it means I’m playing too passively. If I was playing harder and more aggressively, sure, I’d have a few Allies, but shouldn’t I be picking fights with everyone else - to prevent them achieving their own Victories, to Pillage yields, even to capture Wonders?

Surely it’s not surprising everyone likes me when I’m playing passively? And surely playing passively means I’m not playing the game well. I can only have so many Alliances, and moreover, by not messing with other Civs aren’t I just “leaving money on the table”? Isn’t the onus on me to do things that make people hate me?

Perhaps people that complain about the late game love fest have got it wrong. The fault is not in the AI, but in them being too ready to turtle and just stay in their lane, rather mix it up with other Civs and play everyone off against each other?

As the saying goes, "if you want to make an omelette, you've got to break a few eggs." What you're doing is painting pretty, elaborate Ukrainian Easter Eggs instead...

 

[Victoria]

Peace works fine with a CV and RV. These games are not a guaranteed love-fest. A runaway will cause a faction with a sycophant or two.
Defending is stronger than attacking and human players are better at it than the AI. If the AI was more agressive to the human player with even odds the human would use the lure and destroy tactics more than already used making the game easier.

 

[acluewithout]

I agree peaceful play works.

My point was more that some people complain that the AI is too friendly - too many green faces - but that perhaps the problem isn’t the AI being too friendly but the player being too passive.

I try to play with Diplomacy as much as possible. But I find that, if I sort of forget about it because I’m focusing on other things then... nothing happens, actually. It doesn’t really jump up and bite you in the backside. It just basically doesn’t do anything. (See also Religion - lots of fun to play with, but feel free to ignore.)

In contrast, if I deliberately push things more, then Diplomacy does push back and the game is more dynamic. Being a horrible pillaging spying denouncing villain and also keeping a few allies on side and not having some nearby City State start getting stroppy has challenges. And there are good rewards for being a villain beyond conquest - pillage, favourable peace deals, envoys and favour from freeing Cities.

I feel like some players want the AI to pick more fights. And hey, maybe it would be good if they did. But perhaps playing well, or just having fun, requires the player to take a more active role in the game.

Anyway. Just a thought.

 

[qadams]

I feel like some players want the AI to pick more fights. And hey, maybe it would be good if they did. But perhaps playing well, or just having fun, requires the player to take a more active role in the game.

It's probably just semantics, but I strongly disagree with the idea that playing peacefully and having good relationships with other Civs means that you're "not playing well."

In my opinion, there is no right way and no wrong way to play. Some people prefer to take a supposedly "optimal" min/max approach to winning, while others, like me, play mostly for the pleasure of building a large glorious empire with lots of wonders, happy citizens, and healthy alliances. If that means I win the game maybe 10 or 20 turns later than I would have otherwise, then so be it.

 

[ehecatzin]

I agree in that if you push things, the diplomacy game does kick back, I've had games where the emergency system kicks in and it honestly turns out very entertaining. However one thing I'd like to see more is the later age governments actually forming blocks around ideologies so that we could have some good ol' world wars. maybe once Ideologies kick in, all of a sudden you find yourself falling in with a longtime friendly civ because now they are communist and you are a democracy, but getting new friends that way as well.

It could help in shacking the diplomatic innertia from earlier eras.