I Think They Hide Diplomatic Because...

[Rhygar]

guess why? there is no diplomacy either in civ5.

You can try to defend the "new diplomacy". But it is just another game element they removed

Load of drivel.

Here is a good suggestion of things to add that might float your boat, but generally this ranting about "OMG no diplomacy" is childish.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9648865&postcount=64

 

[MkLh]

What others described above sounds a bit like the latter two types of players will have a harder time enjoying Civ5 since the AI was written with "challenge" players in mind. Which is a bit sad, but on the other hand, challenge players were the group that the Civ4 AI could accomodate the last, so perhaps it's just their turn now.

I'm not buying this challenge argument. There are very few players for whom Civ4 Deity was too easy. Whether AIs are playing role or solely for winning, it has nothing to do with challenge. If you want more challenge, crank up the difficulty.

 

[PeterWimsey]

guess why? there is no diplomacy either in civ5.

You can try to defend the "new diplomacy". But it is just another game element they removed

Have you even played the game? Not only is there diplomacy in civ V, but (while there are some rough edges) it's *better* than diplomacy in civ IV.

In Civ IV, diplomacy was about using game mechanics to manipulate the other civs to behave in ways that were counter to their long-term interests. To make them act in a way that no human would act. To make them lose the game. In other words, to make them act irrationally by being your perma-friend, even though they could never win that way.

In Civ V, you have diplomatic relations with city-states and with other civs. Diplo with city states is more like civ iv diplo: it's extremely transparent and you can build up enough goodwill with CSs to make them your perma-friend. CSs, of course, aren't necessarily in competition with you. Diplo with civs, on the other hand, is more like diplo with a human; they won't forget that they are trying to win. On the other hand, there are lots of benefits to diplomacy - research pacts, trade agreements, etc. Civs will enter into these agreements if they seem to make sense to them - and cancel them when they don't. This is rational behavior. This is how civs should behave.

In my two games, I can't say I've noticed the other civs piling on me, though.

 

[teeman11]

The main problem with the AI right now is that we don't know enough about it. In time some of the standard AI actions will start to appear and therefore start to make at least a little sense. No one really knows what they are going to because the sample size is too small. I'll reserve judgment on whether the new system is good or not.

One thing I will say is that the AI, not the AI system, seems pretty dumb. I've seen ridiculous trade requests, unprovoked attacks that I have won handedly (why attack when you have no chance of winning,) and treaty offers that offer why more than needed to stop a war.

 

[need my speed]

Ah, but you weren't forced to abuse the game, and people like me could actually have fun and play to have fun and create history, instead of playing to win. In Civilizations V, diplomacy is non existent, seeing as it isn't relevant and doesn't matter much. As such, we can only play to win. And as such, Civilizations IV handled diplomaxy MUCH better.

 

[r_rolo1]

Have you even played the game? Not only is there diplomacy in civ V, but (while there are some rough edges) it's *better* than diplomacy in civ IV.

In Civ IV, diplomacy was about using game mechanics to manipulate the other civs to behave in ways that were counter to their long-term interests. To make them act in a way that no human would act. To make them lose the game. In other words, to make them act irrationally by being your perma-friend, even though they could never win that way.

In Civ V, you have diplomatic relations with city-states and with other civs. Diplo with city states is more like civ iv diplo: it's extremely transparent and you can build up enough goodwill with CSs to make them your perma-friend. CSs, of course, aren't necessarily in competition with you. Diplo with civs, on the other hand, is more like diplo with a human; they won't forget that they are trying to win. On the other hand, there are lots of benefits to diplomacy - research pacts, trade agreements, etc. Civs will enter into these agreements if they seem to make sense to them - and cancel them when they don't. This is rational behavior. This is how civs should behave.

In my two games, I can't say I've noticed the other civs piling on me, though.

You are confusing the Civ IV diplo system with Civ stock AI grip on that same diplo system. Download the Better BtS AI mod, where the AI will not be handled as that, then come back.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Civ4-style Diplomacy is for the city-states. They tell you how much they like you, and you can control it with how nice you are to them. Furthermore, they city idly-by while your strength grows if you placate them, just like a civ4 A.I.

Yeah, right, try that in Civ4 on Immortal while being next to Shaka and Monty :suicide:

I'm not really sure why so many people state that in Civ4 "the AI didn't play to win". That's just bollocks.

The idea of working together with an AI or two to eliminate competition, only to have a giant clash of three superpowers in late game was simply brilliant, and made me feel completely immersed in the gameplay world.

Now all AIs have rabies, and they'll either laugh in your face instead of proposing peace or the other way around - declaring on you when they have no chance at all - what's the secrecy pacts are for really? Anyone, please help me to find the answer for that...

 

[wingsoverithaca]

Ah, but you weren't forced to abuse the game, and people like me could actually have fun and play to have fun and create history, instead of playing to win. In Civilizations V, diplomacy is non existent, seeing as it isn't relevant and doesn't matter much. As such, we can only play to win. And as such, Civilizations IV handled diplomaxy MUCH better.

well said. the arguments for civ 5 diplo have all included the AI throwing diplo out the window since they are "trying to win the game." thus i don't see the point to diplomacy in civ 5.

 

[Psyringe]

I'm not buying this challenge argument. There are very few players for whom Civ4 Deity was too easy. Whether AIs are playing role or solely for winning, it has nothing to do with challenge. If you want more challenge, crank up the difficulty.

Could you paraphrase "the challenge argument" as you understood it, because I don't see what you mean and my guess is that you misunderstood the argument.

For a challenge player (speaking again in Soren's three categories), cranking up the difficulty will not help because he'll still see the AI doing things which (from his point of view) are "stupid" (whereas a narrative-oriented player would see them as "in character" and "fitting").

Typical example: You've built an important wonder in a barely defended city which borders the area of a long-term AI friend. The AI does not declare war to take the wonder. The narrative-oriented player thinks "Great, the AI honors our friendship". The challenge-oriented player thinks "Stupid, the AI passed on a great opportunity here". Cranking up the difficulty doesn't change a bit about that difference and its inherent incompatibility. (Granted, difficulty could be implemented to shift from a roleplaying AI to a purely min-maxing AI as you raise the level, but that's another discussion and obviously not what you meant.)

 

[mrt144]

I'm glad its hidden. The CPU doesn't have a number that tells him how much I love/hate everybody, why should I have a number that tells me about the CPU's feelings?

Put yourself in their shoes. You're a means to an end, just like they are to you. If you're being helpful to them in achieving their goals, you're golden. As soon as you're hindering them, look out. Pretty simple, and makes sense to me.

EDIT: You might say, trust no one. Problem solved.

That's stupid and you know it.

 

[r_rolo1]

The CPU doesn't have memory of the previous games, why should I have it ?

Reductio ad absurdum

 

[Ayestes]

The AI is still trying to win the game. I always remember that. They do seem to have a notion of trust though. If you want to keep an ally the entire game it seems you have to have five things.

Never break their trust.
Never intentionally or unintentionally anger them.
Keep deals which inspire cooperation.
Let them always think they are winning.
They don't desire a domination victory.

And that pretty much lines in with the chance of their personality as well. I do think Diplomacy should be more open about what would cause them to become angry with you. I can't seem to find a list of which City-States the AI have pledged to protect.

In the end, I don't trust a soul and always expect the unexpected. Much more like human opponents. Except they like to send archers in before spearmen.

 

[Venereus]

The AI is still trying to win the game. I always remember that. They do seem to have a notion of trust though. If you want to keep an ally the entire game it seems you have to have five things.

Never break their trust.
Never intentionally or unintentionally anger them.
Keep deals which inspire cooperation.
Let them always think they are winning.
They don't desire a domination victory.

And that pretty much lines in with the chance of their personality as well. I do think Diplomacy should be more open about what would cause them to become angry with you. I can't seem to find a list of which City-States the AI have pledged to protect.

In the end, I don't trust a soul and always expect the unexpected. Much more like human opponents. Except they like to send archers in before spearmen.

So it's not good diplomacy, but scheming manipulation what gives you friendship? Ok, Civ V is not dumbed down; Civ V is for 14 year old girls!

 

[DalekDavros]

Treat the Civs as if you hopped into an MP game and they're an entirely unpredictable player that could do anything at any time for no reason other than just because.

There's a reason that most of the SP players aren't playing MP games, and this is it in a nutshell. Such strategies are mutually destructive and everything comes down to "how can I totally destroy every other civilization while only mostly-destroying my own civilization?" If real-world leaders acted like Civ V AIs, all life on this planet would have gone extinct long ago.

Cooperation is a fantastic survival trait and in many circumstances it benefits everyone involved. The AI isn't "playing to win," rather it's just playing erratically. And since no one really knows what (if anything) your diplo choices do (other than the "I notice you have troops on my border" one, where your choices apparently are delightfully limited to attack now or be denounced as a liar if you ever attack me at any later point in the game), we're all playing erratically too.

I have gotten the feeling that certain leaders play differently (e.g., America is a pretty peaceful neighbor). But that's something that you learn between games: your actual actions during the game are all but irrelevant as far as diplomacy goes.

 

[r_rolo1]

The AI is still trying to win the game. I always remember that. They do seem to have a notion of trust though. If you want to keep an ally the entire game it seems you have to have five things.

Never break their trust.
Never intentionally or unintentionally anger them.
Keep deals which inspire cooperation.
Let them always think they are winning.
They don't desire a domination victory.

And that pretty much lines in with the chance of their personality as well. I do think Diplomacy should be more open about what would cause them to become angry with you. I can't seem to find a list of which City-States the AI have pledged to protect.

In the end, I don't trust a soul and always expect the unexpected. Much more like human opponents. Except they like to send archers in before spearmen.

If you can tell me exactly how can you know what angers a AI , this is even good news . Barring that, only experience or code dwelling will give you those awnsers .

In other words, this makes the game more gamey

 

[CrimsonEdge]

If you can tell me exactly how can you know what angers a AI , this is even good news . Barring that, only experience or code dwelling will give you those awnsers .

In other words, this makes the game more gamey

My experience has been that it really depends on the leader. What angers Monty and leads him to war (you existing) probably isn't the same thing that angers Catherine and leads her to war.

Ghandi, for example, would trade with me up until I took out most of Arabia, then he wouldn't really talk to me. He never declared war.

Siam never, ever, ever, talked to me.

Bismarck talked to me regularly and was very happy when we warred together.

England has been very favorable of me when I went to war with her, and has continued to be very favorable of me while we trade.

I think, though, that if this isn't a desireable thing, you could just turn on Random Personalities and have Ghandi declare war on you. You know, if that were your bag.

 

[LetMyPeopleGo]

I've to say it's the best thread so far regarding Civ V.

After reading through the entire thread and the thread "One thing (of many) that I liked more than Civ4 and Civ3 " and at the risk of inviting anger onto myself (Yakka2), I must say that I get a creepy feeling that I'm facing another blow from Firaxis/Sid Meier, and no, I didn't get my copy yet so obviously I have no experience playing Civ V.

I get the impression that a some what simplified, much less micromanagement and with a hunch of a dumber AI, the game intends to present itself to a much younger demographic target, the same thing that happened to Rail Road Tycoon 3, one of the best strategic/micro-management industrious/financial oriented game, after purchased and adopted by Firaxis/Sid Meier became one of the worlds dumbest games oriented for the 6-9 years old (hardly) and actually brought it to a final death.

I will be more then happy to be wrong and utterly mistaken and well deserved to all of you anger because playing CIV/Call to power (all the series) has been an absolute delight, but this is no secrete the for several years civ games in particular and strategic games in general are not so popular with the younger gamers community and that FPS-RPG are the absolute rulers amongst the young gamers.

I can only wish for a better and more challenging game than its predecessor.

 

[digitalcraft]

Its also annoying how blind the AI is. They'll come stick a city on your doorstep and immediately that you're building in THEIR area, even though you haven't built a city in 20 turns. They'll complain you're massing troops on their border even though your troops are across the continent from them. derp de derp de derp.

 

[digitalcraft]

My experience has been that it really depends on the leader. What angers Monty and leads him to war (you existing) probably isn't the same thing that angers Catherine and leads her to war.

Ghandi, for example, would trade with me up until I took out most of Arabia, then he wouldn't really talk to me. He never declared war.

Siam never, ever, ever, talked to me.

Bismarck talked to me regularly and was very happy when we warred together.

England has been very favorable of me when I went to war with her, and has continued to be very favorable of me while we trade.

I think, though, that if this isn't a desireable thing, you could just turn on Random Personalities and have Ghandi declare war on you. You know, if that were your bag.

I had a fairly peaceful game going on, not attacking anyone, just expanding south, and suddenly Gandhi and Caesar who lived to the north teamed up and attacked me.

That told me there's no such thing as leader traits.

 

[Venereus]

Civ V diplmacy should be based on Twitter. Think about it.

@Wahington: @Monty has a very tiny empire #ShameOnYou