I Think They Hide Diplomatic Because...

Alsark

Noble
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
841
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana
... There are no diplomatic modifiers.

I was playing a game as Babylon on Warlord difficulty. I never declared war on anybody on my own accord; however, Washington asked me twice to assist him in wars (one against Songhai and one against Egypt). I agree to assist him on both accounts. We also had a Pact of Cooperation the entire game and we had signed Pacts of Secrecy together. We also engaged in about four research agreements and were trading resources and had open borders the entire game.

Territory-wise, Washington and I are roughly even. France is the largest, having completely wiped out England and killing several city-states (I'm on the Earth map, large size, and Napoleon has all of Africa). Nobody really minds France's aggressions, it would seem. We're all at different sides of the known world, so we have no close border tensions.

Anyway, France declares war on me. That turn I ask Washington if he could go to war with France (I ask, "What would make this deal work?") and he says, "I don't think this is possible" (asking in this fashion shouldn't result in negative penalties - or at least, it didn't in Civ 4). So I ask if he can form a Pact of Secrecy, and he says no. Even if this resulted in a negative penalty, I should have something like +5 relations with him if we've been keeping track of the past events.

... Next turn, Washington declares war on me for my "wanton aggression." The "wanton aggression" that he asked me to commit :/.

... Diplomacy in Civilization V officially sucks.
 
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.
 
I have found that the Diplomatic AI is a bit, well, fussy.

It probably has something to do about all the different statistics that the AI is supposed to make decisions based on, though I find that the diplomacy side of things is one of the area's that show very little information to the player.

For instance, in Civ IV, all you had to do was put your mouse of a particular nation and it would instantly tell you the -/+. But in Civ V, I find myself more or less guessing most of the time.

Also I found that some nations are happy about you warmongering, and some are upset, don't care, and angry to varying levels.

For instance, I had one game where I was slowly moving east on a continent with multiple AI's on it. I was attacking Arabia to get some Oil as America (seriously, they were on the one desert tile that had 3 consecutive oil deposits, and I needed it) and England was in the middle. Although England did not like this, most likely because my army was right on their door step, they allowed a open border treaty at a cost and then I declared war on my oil hoarding neighbor. After capturing 2 cities, I beat his military and other cities into the ground and then declared peace. England, China (on the opposite side of Arabia) got pissed, they sent those annoying messages about how they dislike me every dozen turns or so. But Germany and France from the other side of the map were like all buddy buddy and started signing treaties with me.

It wasn't until I attacked England (there cities were located in the middle of my territory by this point) that everyone started to dislike me, saying I was a warmonger. Nobody declared war, just the annoying "we hate you" messages.

I have experienced similar instances on other maps/games, seems like the AI is too fickle for itself.
 
I don't think it sucks, I just think its different:
1. Trust no one.
2. Use trade to make peace more valuable.
3. Always protect your borders.
 
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.

I don't really think it's "hidden", it just doesn't exist (at least not very well). My scenario is the equivalent of, if in Civ 4 Washington asked you to declare war on two people (and you did), and instead of getting "+4 Our mutual struggle brings us closer together" I get "-4 You declared war on our friends" - for going to war with the people he asked me to go to war with. And if it's simply because the Washington AI doesn't like warmongers, why did he never do anything about Napoleon?

It's not so much Washington declaring war on me at a theoretical +5 relations that annoys me - it's the reason he provided for going to war with me based on the circumstances. At least Napoleon was essentially just like, "I'm declaring war on you because I feel like it."

And I agree - fickle is definitely a good word to describe the AI.
 
It's really looking very similar to civ3. So just get the AI to fight each other and exploit that, the good news is there don't appear to be any specific hidden and "anti-human" biases.
 
I was wondering about this too. Seems pretty random happenstance, but that's only after 1/2 of a game. We'll see if it makes more sense after playing for awhile. I'm still trying to get used to the City State thing. Seems like a pain. I just want to conquer them, but then people get all mad at me.

Are there random events like BTS? This question should probably go somewhere else, but I liked the quests and stuff.
 
I was wondering about this too. Seems pretty random happenstance, but that's only after 1/2 of a game. We'll see if it makes more sense after playing for awhile. I'm still trying to get used to the City State thing. Seems like a pain. I just want to conquer them, but then people get all mad at me.

Are there random events like BTS? This question should probably go somewhere else, but I liked the quests and stuff.

Yeah. Hopefully it'll make more sense with time. For now, though, I will have to assume that any aggression (even if requested by the AI) is looked down upon by most leaders.

As for city-states, they can be great, but it depends how much you want to focus on them. If you're Alexander or if you adopt the Patronage social policy, they're likely worth keeping around. Otherwise, however, it can be very difficult to maintain a friendship with them. Some people won't pay them at all and just wait for the quests to come along (which provide about 1000 GP worth of influence depending on the quest).

There are no random events. Even the quests are based on the city-states' personality.
 
The AI is designed to play the game like a human. There is no modifiers of relations. It just goes based on the whole picture of what is happening in the game. The AI is there to play with your mind. Do you trust his threats and make a bigger army or is he leading you into a trap where he wants you to focus on an army so he can make his wonders without him worrying who gets em out first. Common tactics that humans do to gain leverage on someone. Make a person aggravated and hit em while they are off guard type of situation.

I personally prefer the AI in ciV. It seems more logical from a I want to win the game or at least try to prevent you from doing it or confuse you to make a mistake. Now there are a few bugs or at least common logic would say they are bugs. What I have seen is a civ tell me I was settling too close to him but he was on another continent. And I have had one tell me that my army was too close to his borders but there was another civ between my army and his borders. Some simple things that seem wrong IMO.
 
The AI is designed to play the game like a human. There is no modifiers of relations. It just goes based on the whole picture of what is happening in the game. The AI is there to play with your mind. Do you trust his threats and make a bigger army or is he leading you into a trap where he wants you to focus on an army so he can make his wonders without him worrying who gets em out first. Common tactics that humans do to gain leverage on someone. Make a person aggravated and hit em while they are off guard type of situation.

If that's true then that makes more sense; however, it also means that there is zero reason to give resources when people ask for it as a demand (as I had done with some of the leaders in my game - including Washington). It pretty much means you shouldn't help the AI with anything, which would include wars. So I shall learn to say no to anything and everything.

What I have seen is a civ tell me I was settling too close to him but he was on another continent. And I have had one tell me that my army was too close to his borders but there was another civ between my army and his borders. Some simple things that seem wrong IMO.

Yeah, I have had the latter happen to me, as well. Luckily once I told her (Catherine) that it was just a misunderstanding, she didn't really bring up the issue again after that.
 
So... You start to build up the points swerve towards the victory path...
So you and Napoleon are probably his biggest threats...
He baits you both into a war against each other, then exploits the weakness by hitting you when your back is turned.

Well it could be a random co-incidence or it could be an intelligent multi-tiered game plan...
 
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.

Having no idea, even a very vague one, of what the AI thinks of you or what they think of each other really doesn't make any sense in a strategy game.
 
My thoughts on the matter...

In Civ 4, the AI's didn't really behave as though they were trying to win the game. They progressed from 4,000 BC to 2,050 AD, traded with friends and warred with enemies, and sometimes won by blind luck.

In Civ 5, the AI's are actively trying to win the game. They will do things that a player would be willing to do, like declare war on a 'friend +9' if that person has the one capital between them and a domination victory.



I played a a game earlier today, Greeks (me), Romans, Persians, Egyptians. Caesar tried to be my friend, but settled on my iron and horses, and died for it. Nothing personal, he got between me and my chances of victory. Later in the game, Egypt and I steamrolled Persia. I overextended myself to try to beat Egypt to Persia's central, culture-rich cities. No sooner had we put Darius in the ground when Ramesses declared war on me. Not what I'd expect a Civ4 civ to do, not what I'd expect a real-world nation to do, but something I'd expect of someone playing the game to win.

I also think that an AI that isn't trying to win the game by domination is a bit more trustworthy, as in some of my other games I've had perfectly normal interactions right up to the end with a number of the leaderheads, including Ramkhamhaeng, Napoleon, Wu Zetian, Washington, and Hiawatha. None of them except Napoleon really proved to be a military powerhouse; Ramkhamhaeng was clearly pursuing a cultural victory and keeping to himself, Wu Zetian teching up and offering research pacts, and Hiawatha and Washington getting clobbered mercilessly by Napoleon for 5,000 years...
 
There is really no diplomacy in civ5. It's sad.

Harder? may be, but harder because of more randomness, not strategically harder. And that sucks.
 
Looks like Civ V AI works like a Furby. This is "Good" AI, not the "Fun" AI we had in Civ IV. It's what Soren Johnson talks about here.
 
Yeah, I have had the latter happen to me, as well. Luckily once I told her (Catherine) that it was just a misunderstanding, she didn't really bring up the issue again after that.

From what I've seen so far, it looks like you can say that and they'll drop the issue, but if you attack them later on they'll huff and puff and threaten to denounce you as a liar to everyone else in the world. (I did this to an isolated AI who didn't know anyone else in the world and who died before she got a chance to do so, so I can't say whether they really follow through on this threat.)

There is really no diplomacy in civ5. It's sad.
Yeah, that basically sums it up. I'd like to see the data that the AI uses to make diplo decisions (whatever that data is), mainly just as a way of proving that said data actually exists. Until then, I'm treating is as a slightly dumbed-down version of ELIZA.


Looks like Civ V AI works like a Furby. This is "Good" AI, not the "Fun" AI we had in Civ IV. It's what Soren Johnson talks about here.

Seems more like the "Neither" AI to me.
 
I see little point in comparing diplo between 4 and 5. Two different beasts.

France and US could've been buddies and you asked him to attack his buddy. You might've made a defense pact since you had no probs going to war for him (or saying you would). Or France could've had much more military/military score and thus US would refuse to attack.

I do find the diplo a little random, heavily "AI favored," and often comical.

They did say the AI tries to behave like a player. Which means it only gives a crap about itself. They didn't mention that it plays like a multiplayer player (as I imagine them) - only gives a crap about itself and fighting all the freaking time at the drop of a hat.

I wish the stats at the end showed how many wars everyone got into and/or started. I just won with Ghandi via cultural on prince and the AIs fought incessantly - beating up each other and city states. Russia, USA, + England on one end of a pangea with a tiny 1 tile thread of land between me and USA (with a city state in between) and it was a blood bath down there. On my other side China had ambitions. She and I crippled Babylon early but they still went at it on and off for ages.

I managed to keep good relations with USA and China even though China cooled and basically said I was hogging all the wonders (I built a TON of them). I had a small but well placed army waiting in case China wanted to donate xp.
 
They really don't behave rationally. I liberated two enemy capitals tonight. First guy hated me before and hated me after. Okay fine. Second one loved me before they were conquered and after I single-handedly brought them back into the game they hated and distrusted me (I think?)
 
The AI is designed to play the game like a human. There is no modifiers of relations.

I'll echo what the other guy said ... if that's how the AI is coded, there's no point in acceding to any request of them, making trades, etc.... Treat them as hostile from turn 1, ignore them, never help them; because they WILL declare. If it's "coded" to act like a human, and do whatever it can to win, then unless the human's game is already lost, at some point (sooner and sooner as the human gets better), it'll turn actively hostile because the human's winning.

That takes a pretty big dynamic out of the game, IMO. I agree Civ4's religion manipulations were far too simple of a way to control the AIs, but this seems to go quite extremely in the opposite direction.

Should the AI want to win; yes. But if it's coded as extremely as it seems Civ5's is, that basically takes the layers and intent of diplomacy right out. "Diplomacy" becomes a game of "what can we sucker the human into before declaring" instead of "can we make a deal". And I don't think that's compelling game play. The diplomacy layer should enable a smart player to achieve alliances and power blocs, not just be an arena where they lose money on pacts and agreements that are broken when the AI decides "oops, Smash Time because I'm too far behind".

I wouldn't necessarily object, but the 2K marketing (word deleted) spent a LOT of time hailing the "intelligent diplomatic AI" and how diplomacy was now a realistic part of the game based on AI coded facial expressions, voice and word tones, etc... If they're going to make such claims, then release with AI coded to simply check victory values as the deciding factor in peace/war .... seems like a foul should be called.
 
Top Bottom