How to respond to AI denunciation?

[learner gamer]

Hi all, I’ve been reading some good discussion in threads lately re: diplomacy, so I thought I’d try and get some feedback from the gurus on here about the denunciation mechanic – and what I could’ve done better in my current game.

In brief, I’ve been playing a game using the vanilla enhanced mod by Thalassicus – but have posted here because, as far as I know, the mod does not alter diplomacy from vanilla Civ 5. (I will also however post this in the VEM strategy section as well.)

Now at game’s start, I found myself on a continent with Monty of the Aztecs and Harun Al-Rashid of Arabia. Very shortly after meeting the former, he denounced me...no problem I thought, that’s just Monty being Monty. I responded by denouncing him back – and Monty was subsequently denounced too by Al-Rashid.

Subsequent turns saw Monty hurl various insults my way, to which I responded “you’ll pay for this in time” to each one. I did this because (a) I did not want to appear weak by providing the alternate response (which was simply “very well” as I recall) and (b) fortunately, a CS happened to spawn at a key chokepoint. This meant that even though Monty became increasingly hostile, effectively DoWing me would mean that Monty would need to either (i) march a bunch of troops through the CS or (ii) embark a number of troops into the coast, IMHO lessening the likelihood of an early DoW.

Relations with Arabia meanwhile got off to a rocky start when I settled a very good city rather close to their capital. However, despite taking a negative diplo hit for this action, I managed to trade with Al-Rashid – and was eventually offered and accepted a DoF. I did however decline the offer of an RA – because I needed the cash rather urgently at the time for a military unit to ward off a barb unit.

Things were therefore progressing swimmingly, with me cultivating a relationship with Al-Rashid on the one hand (who indeed became friendly), whilst Monty became diplomatically isolated from both of us. Monty did try and secure me as an ally in a war against Al-Rashid, to which I replied “how dare you” – because I in fact intended to help Al-Rashid in any war, should Monty DoW, to keep my trading partner alive – at least until I met the other continent anyway.

All this however changed when my DoF with Arabia expired - although I tried renewing the DoF, they declared instead that they would wait. However, only a handful of turns later, Arabia and the Aztecs became friends / entered into a DoF. On the very next turn, Arabia then denounced me. I responded by denouncing them in turn and they went from friendly to hostile. Part of the reason given was that I had denounced a leader with whom they had a DoF in place – seemingly oblivious to the fact that my denunciation of Monty had occurred well prior to the Aztec / Arabia DoF.

The net result of all of this is that I now have two hostile leaders on my landmass. Now this won’t actually be a problem, because the war machine that I am just putting the finishing touches to will simply visit Arabia (with whom I share a border devoid of chokepoints) and then roll onto Monty – who was my original target back in the good old days when I had the DoF in place with Arabia, and Monty was the diplomatic heathen.

All of this of course brings me to my questions for you diplo gurus. Firstly, how likely is it that leaders who have previously denounced each other will subsequently enter into a DoF? I’ve seen it in a few games, but is it anything like a norm? Secondly, how do people here respond to being denounced? To put it another way, how do you decide whether to denounce the AI back? Thirdly, is there anything I could’ve done differently to help keep Al-Rashid at friendly and prevent his denunciation? FWIW, I have read Bibor’s excellent diplomacy spreadsheet, so have some idea regarding AI personalities - but perhaps I’m missing something? If BTW, you need any more information to help answer these questions, please let me know...and thanks for any and all help.

 

[chazzycat]

I think what happened here is that you blew your long-term relationship with Arabia by settling that city near them. Settling near their capital is not generally a forgiveable offense. However, they found it in their best interest to pretend to be friends in the short term. In reality that "friendly" status was misleading, and they were just waiting for the best time to backstab you. Since you were too strong militarily, they needed to rope in the Aztecs for assistance, which was easy enough for them to do since you already hated each other.

 

[Cpt. Calavera]

Sorry for using this thread to make a question but it's on topic and I don't think it's necessary to create another thread just for this so here it goes:

What is the difference between answering "You'll pay fo this in time" and "Very well"? Is there any?

 

[learner gamer]

Thanks for your replies both.

@chazzycat: That’s pretty much as far my thoughts took me too. I was aware that Al-Rashid’s friendly status potentially meant very little, given his deceptiveness rating in Bibor’s spreadsheet. What I was really trying to understand was how Al-Rashid could turn to Monty for a DoF when they’d been enemies – and then turn on me.

As you say, it could well be that my settling a city near his capital has incurred a large negative modifier. In addition, I forgot to mention that I also had another negative modifier against Al-Rashid, because I told him I’d settle where I liked after he asked me not to settle near him, post settling my contentious (but damn fine ) city.

Indeed, the funny thing is, that after making my post, I began to think about the issue a little further, when I realised that I had been overlooking the AI’s forgiveness attribute in all this: as Bibor’s spreadsheet notes, Al-Rashid is quite willing to forgive past transgressions. Now when viewed alongside with Al-Rashid’s high desire to enter into DoF’s and the proximity of my land to his (and the negative modifiers that have resulted), it’s more than possible that Al-Rashid would turn his back on me, enter into a DoF with Monty and then denounce me. Indeed, thinking about it since, it would actually be a classic backstab – so kudos to the AI. The clincher, as I’ve just mentioned in the VEM strategy and tips forum, would be clarification of the meaning of the loyalty attribute in Bibor’s spreadsheet – as a result of which, I’ve posted a question in Bibor’s stickied diplo thread. Then again, of course, it could be that the RNG roll which alters the AI’s attributes in each game may have influenced this sequence of events.

@Cpt. Calavera: No apologies necessary. In fact, someone has just asked the very same question in the VEM strategy and tips thread! As I’ve written in that thread, I was also hoping this question would get answered at some point...so had you not asked the question at this point, I certainly would’ve later on. As it happens, I have my suspicions re: what some of the different responses mean to the AI based purely on observation during my games – but they are just suspicions. Hopefully, one of the diplo gurus can help us all out by providing something more concrete.

 

[chazzycat]

I think Monty just being crazy is a factor here as well. Most other civs would probably not have joined that DOF with someone who had previously denounced them.

I believe "loyalty" is pretty much the inverse of "willing to backstab". I'm guessing Arabia has a low value?

And yes I agree with your sentiment that this is a good thing in general

 

[learner gamer]

Actually Arabia scores a 6 on loyalty IIRC, which is pretty high. This is why it would be nice to get confirmation that Bibor's view (that loyalty actually indicates willingness to backstab) is correct. If loyalty is as you believe it to be though, it could simply be that the RNG roll which adjusts AI values for each game has lowered Al-Rashid's loyalty in this game. And I agree that less formulaic / less easily manipulatable AI is generally a good thing for gameplay. You're right about Monty too BTW...he is, well, unique.

 

[chazzycat]

ah ok. I try not to use the spreadsheet too much, so that was a guess from experience. After taking a quick refresher look at the different civ's "loyalty" value, I am willing to bet that higher loyalty value means less likely to backstab. And it can go +/- 2 in either direction due to randomness.

 

[Rpger29]

I've been on the other end of this with Monty. I think he's very willing to forge alliances based on the current situation. I had him DoF me and trade favorably for the whole second half of the game after DoWing me six times and denouncing me at every opportunity in the early game.

I concur with your original sentiment that your nearby city is what did in your relations with Harun.

It would be nice if someone could figure out whether there's a difference between "you'll pay for this in time" and "very well" as far as the AI is concerned.

 

[iggymnrr]

I tend to ignore denunciations of me. Also, when an AI insults my military I just say "Very well," as a barb escorts one of it's settlers to a nearby camp.

 

[basta]

What is the difference between answering "You'll pay for this in time" and "Very well"? Is there any?

I think "You'll pay..." is there to make you feel better, mostly. I answer depending on whether I want or am prepared to go to war with that civ, or wish to continue trading.

If you tell them off, there appears to be a diplo hit, because they respond with a put-down along the lines of: "Well, we're done with the likes of you then."

Mostly though, it seems to be an alert mechanic for you: Hey, war's a-comin', and whatever you answer seems to be quite minor in affecting the AI's actions.

Also, re: denunciations, it is mostly advantageous to denounce right back and I almost always do. Reasoning: Well, they're going hostile on you anyway and you'll be at war soon and trading is over, so what have you got to lose? Also, a denouncement will identify potential allies who will pop up after and agree with you (and sometimes disagree). You get valuable info.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

What you could have done. When Monty asked you to join him in a war, you could very likely have bribed him to start the war on his own.
Then Harun would be more likely to hate him and desire friendship with you for a longer time. Especially if you joined the war and killed some of Monties units.

 

[PreLynMax]

I'm sort of a hothead, my actions very volatile, so I chose to make denouncements an act of war, and DOW almost immediately. If you are weaker and denounce me, you can kiss your sorry butt goodbye then.

 

[Lexicus]

I denounce them back and prepare for war unless they're too far away to care.

 

[snarzberry]

With hindsight you could make a good case for initiating a war involving Montezuma one you had secured Arabia as an ally. That could have been by bribing Monty to attack Harun, or by declaring on Aztec yourself. Once either of those moves have been made it's very hard to see you being on the bad end of a 2 on 1, which is the only thing you want to avoid on a 3 manned island.

However seeing as you had both denounced Monty and had a DoF then you had every reason to feel confident that your relationship with Arabia was stable for the time being, especially as Monty is likely to DoW one of you sooner or later.

The arabia backflip was probably quite unlikely, but you might as well have gotten the war against Aztec started while you know you have an ally as you're going to have to fight it eventually.

 

[Gehennas]

You became more dangerous for Arabia than Aztecs and, possibly, weaker. AI just doesn't care about all the previous conflicts if there is more easy or more prioritized target.

Here is one example from my game: I played Babylon, had Russia and America on my continent (everybody shared borders with others two). When the whole continent was divided amongst 3 civs , America started to move troops to American-Russian border, Russia denounced America. My army was small and weaker than their armies.

I have denounced America too: Cathy became friendly to me, Washington became guarded and started to move troops to my border. 3 turns after I see Russian catapults near my border. 5 turns after I get DoW from Cathy and look at more and more american troops coming (they were on American-Russian border before).

I have loaded autosaved game and haven't denounced America (Cathy and Washington were neutral to me). About 5 turns after they have started the war with each other. I only had to wait a little more and finish the one who wins in their war.

Here you can see how it works: Cathy doesn't care about her "frendly" status after you denounce Washington. She only cares about opportunity to ged rid of you while you are weaker then Washington. She also keeps in mind, that now Washington is prepairing for the aggression against you and going to declare the war soon.

 

[Le Roi Soleil]

I generally do nothing other than make sure I have troops positioned to punch face should they choose to declare war. This includes allying border CSs, if possible, both for the military support, and for the added visibility.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I'll check my InfoAddict screen to see how the rest of the world is viewing the denouncer. In the case of a 3 civ continent, I would probably leave well enough alone and just get some troops into position for a possible defensive war (like Sun King said). However, if there are more civs on my landmass (or I've met the other continent), I'll check to see the others' relations with the denouncer (call them Civ X). If I have Neutral or Friendly relations with a civ that has denounced Civ X previously, then I will respond by denouncing Civ X thereby building relations with my potential trading partners at the expense of further eroding an already failed relationship.