I want old diplomacy back

[hevans900]

and have now grown to be best friends, like the US and England did.

Best joke I've heard all day!

On a serious note - I agree with SK here... the new diplomacy system only shines through if you actually try to roleplay with it. Don't think of the AIs as mindless robots that you can exploit with some box click/drag system... play against them as if they were actual political leaders.

Low respect? Here's a list of things I've noticed can raise it... this is where the devs put the work in:

• Boosting your territory size/science/culture/production
• Building wonders
• Connecting all your cities with roads
• Being efficient with trade routes
• Utilising international traderoutes with said sponsor
• Increasing your respect with OTHER leaders

Each leader has unique responses to the above (and I'm sure I've missed some)... how is that in any way shape or form inferior to the old diplo system?

As you can see - the game is actually far more detailed diplomatically now - it's not just HUR DUR LET'S TRADE 5 ENERGY

 

[Gorbles]

Agreed with that. And, let's be fair, this is a video game. Everything in it can arguably be painted as exploiting X to attain benefit Y. Everything in any video game can be reduced to that kind of logic.

It's why I really don't get this nostalgia for the old diplomacy setup. You literally traded favours for other favours, or traded money for other favours. It was a way of exploiting X (your economy, be it Gold / Energy or Strategic Resources) to attain Y (diplomatic events, United Nations votes, other Strategic Resources, open borders, etc).

 

[crossclayton]

Agreed with that. And, let's be fair, this is a video game. Everything in it can arguably be painted as exploiting X to attain benefit Y. Everything in any video game can be reduced to that kind of logic.

It's why I really don't get this nostalgia for the old diplomacy setup. You literally traded favours for other favours, or traded money for other favours. It was a way of exploiting X (your economy, be it Gold / Energy or Strategic Resources) to attain Y (diplomatic events, United Nations votes, other Strategic Resources, open borders, etc).

I dont think its a nostalgic thing, its more of a practical thing.

When i first started the post, i did not fully understand the system, how ever now, i am having fun with it after many play through's and experimenation.

But it still has very curious design decisions. The war score being the most obvious one.

Also, resource trading and open borders should still be handled manually, rather than parts of other things, ie. trade routes and co-op status.

I also personally think that they should have included diplomatic effects for choosing to/not choosing to, attack aliens. As pointed out in another post, they coded it in but did not initialize it.

I also think that there should be a rather larger effect for being different affinities, that vastly out weighs other positive effects. Maybe even going as extreme as capping you at a neutral status with sponsors with different affinities. Or possibly some kind of empire wide negative effect, like less production or health for forcing your purity populace to accept the governments decision to co operate with harmonious scum bags or supremacist blasphemers.

Some other manual decisions that should have been left in is the ability to warn others not to settle near you (and buy land tiles near you). I have downgraded to sanctions to show my dissatisfaction with a sponsor who settled near me but i do not think it calculates in exactly why I downgraded and its after the fact rather than having the ability to warn the sponsor that if they settle near you, it will effect your respect for them, giving them the chance to ignore your request or abide by it and keep relations friendly. I would also like a warning from the AI so i know that he/she will lose respect for me if i was to settle near them.

Also, being able to discover if some one else is preparing to attack a third party through spying, and warning that third party to gain respect with them would have been nice.

stationing troops on a sponsors border is 100% cool. Their fear goes up and you can immediatley see the effect you are having, pulling troops back will reverse it, I like that very much, more dynamic then a civ asking you to declare war or promise not too and move on or break said promise.

All in all, I am having a lot of fun with the BERT system, but i still feel that less reliance on political agreements and traits, to effect fear and respect, and a little more on some other dialogue options, would have filled out the system considerably.

After all, if you look into it, there is not a lot of dialogue options to use, pretty much just accept agreements and ask for agreements.

 

[Lanth]

ALL WHILE I steal the crap out of them via spy agency (of which they couldn't care less).

Weirdly in my first game, I kept getting complimented by Duncan Hughes that I had 'spies everywhere'.

Seems like a very strange thing to be complimenting someone on.

 

[Natura]

Weirdly in my first game, I kept getting complimented by Duncan Hughes that I had 'spies everywhere'.

Seems like a very strange thing to be complimenting someone on.

Duncan has some weird quotes.

My large number of cities had him telling me "Are you planning on claiming the whole bloody planet? Leave off!" Small increase in respect

 

[kaltorak]

It's not that they are happy about it, it's that they respect you.

Haven't you seen in movies how often characters respect the abilities of their enemies?

 

[Gorbles]

It's not that they are happy about it, it's that they respect you.

Haven't you seen in movies how often characters respect the abilities of their enemies?

So much this.

 

[hevans900]

But it still has very curious design decisions. The war score being the most obvious one.

I am not defending the warscore system - it IS awful and almost everybody agrees on that.

Also, resource trading and open borders should still be handled manually, rather than parts of other things, ie. trade routes and co-op status.

I agree - but I think that different diplomatic options should arise at each diplomatic level (sanctioned/neutral/coop etc) - these relationship levels shouldn't automatically administer agreements such as 'open borders'. I think the devs missed a really immersive opportunity here - they could've implemented some kind of treaty system (maybe using the same UI as the warscore?) that would popup when changing your relationship with someone - that lets you pick and choose the terms of the treaty.

Maybe even make it such that two sponsors can initially agree to change relationship (say neutral -> cooperating) and then they have x turns of 'parlais' where they can change the terms of the agreement/add more agreements, after which they have to wait another x terms to change their treaty again - akin to a UN meeting or something in real life.

I also personally think that they should have included diplomatic effects for choosing to/not choosing to, attack aliens. As pointed out in another post, they coded it in but did not initialize it.

I also think that there should be a rather larger effect for being different affinities, that vastly out weighs other positive effects. Maybe even going as extreme as capping you at a neutral status with sponsors with different affinities. Or possibly some kind of empire wide negative effect, like less production or health for forcing your purity populace to accept the governments decision to co operate with harmonious scum bags or supremacist blasphemers.

I think there is a need for affinity-affinity specific relations i.e. two high tier Supremacy players get access to one/some unique agreements via the trait system - pretty sure Galgus has written up a huge list of ideas for this.

Some other manual decisions that should have been left in is the ability to warn others not to settle near you (and buy land tiles near you).

There just needs to be a 'discussion' section in the diplomatic screen somewhere - we need to be able to change OUR fear/respect towards AIs - just like they can to us!!!!

 

[Makavcio]

The whole concept of diplomacy in BERT is great, however we'll most likely have to mod it ourselves for it to be useful or even sane. For now, it's simply silly.

There are some things that can never be accomplished. You can never have an army "offensive" or "experienced" enough for some leaders. I was completing domination victory but I was still getting notes that "why am I building so many troops if I'm not using them"?
At the same time, you cannot disappoint anyone with your espionage if you have at least one active agent. If a leader favors espionage and you have a spy, you're good with him (I'm looking at you, Jackie Chan!). Same goes for trade routes. I think they'll even compliment you for international trade routes if these are trade routes they started themselves.

A note about wonders. I've already seen several times that people propose it as a way of increasing respect. It's not that simple. Soon-to-be-hostile leaders will mock your wonders and decrease respect. Only those in favorable or at least neutral (all informal) attitude will be pleased with your wonders. This is actually the only sane aspect of the new diplomacy system.

One of this forum's users suggested in some other thread an interesting system of rivalry. When you compete over terrain, AI gets immediately hostile. Unfortunately, this doesn't work on any other fields. I'd love to see increasing penalties for different affinities, nearby satellites, air force in range of rival's cities, high utilization of strategic resources AI might want for themselves, use of stations near AI et cetera. We don't even get any real penalties for expeditions or claiming land near enemies.

This could be amended in 2 strokes:
1) Compare your achievements with AI's agenda as it happens now with wonders. Respect would work rather as "recognition/awe" and would be earned by things that are not a direct threat to a given AI, like settling a lot of land far away from them, butchering aliens if they hate them as well, fighting a common enemy or having good health. AIs would differ not by liking certain cherry-picked factors, but rather by emphasizing some much more than others;
2) Introduce an "anger" or "vexation" factor that would decay with time and be earned (possibly continuously) by actions and states that can be a threat for a given AI, like military presence nearby, "stealing" of strategic resources, trading with or maintaining good relations with faction X, or actions and states that do not comply with an AIs "way of life", like advancing an "evil" affinity, removing miasma, having bad relations with aliens, going for "evil" victory types etc.

"Fear", a simple measurement of military strength, could remain as it is. I'd rather remove it from plain sight, though, because it's your job to evaluate how much of a danger a faction is to you.

This change would eliminate insane wars when one small faction "attacks" some other small faction on the other side of the world just because that faction is weak and doesn't have enough satellites. There's nothing to gain in such wars and nobody sane would ever start them. At the same time, it would cause AI to be wary of its strong neighbors, and actively oppose those who are going for one of possible victories. Now AI simply ignores the fact that you are playing a 20-30 turns waiting game of stuffing your Emancipation Gate or growing a Mindflower.

I'm really tired with AIs DOWing me for no reason in early game and then doing nothing about it for 100 more turns...


EDIT:

It's not that they are happy about it, it's that they respect you.
Haven't you seen in movies how often characters respect the abilities of their enemies?

So much this.

Yeah, because when Nikita Khrushchev decided to deploy nukes on Cuba, Kennedy was so awestruck, he sent navy so his sailors could better admire the accomplishments Exchange of fancy gifts and pleasantries ensued

My point is that "respect" in its current form is silly and has nothing to do with what a sane real person could think/do.

 

[kaltorak]

My point is that "respect" in its current form is silly and has nothing to do with what a sane real person could think/do.

Not defending the system, just stating that it would be possible.

Imagine 8 leaders arriving in a new planet. After 1 month, you managed to produce 100 houses. Another of the leaders managed to produce 300 houses. Would you see it impossible to think: "wow, that guy is a genious"?
Same with money/energy, number of outposts, and such.

You are not happy to be weaker than him, but you respect how good he is.

 

[Gorbles]

@Makavcio:

You're applying real-world history to game mechanics and expecting it to hold up as an example of pushing a narrative to an absurd conclusion with the end goal of getting people to assume that the mechanic is therefore also absurd.

Don't do that.

 

[crossclayton]

There just needs to be a 'discussion' section in the diplomatic screen somewhere - we need to be able to change OUR fear/respect towards AIs - just like they can to us!!!!

Yeah, that would be nice, something that allows us to let the AI know what we are thinking/feeling, instead of just being able to react to actions after the fact.

 

[crossclayton]

The whole concept of diplomacy in BERT is great, however we'll most likely have to mod it ourselves for it to be useful or even sane. For now, it's simply silly.

There are some things that can never be accomplished. You can never have an army "offensive" or "experienced" enough for some leaders. I was completing domination victory but I was still getting notes that "why am I building so many troops if I'm not using them"?
At the same time, you cannot disappoint anyone with your espionage if you have at least one active agent. If a leader favors espionage and you have a spy, you're good with him (I'm looking at you, Jackie Chan!). Same goes for trade routes. I think they'll even compliment you for international trade routes if these are trade routes they started themselves.

A note about wonders. I've already seen several times that people propose it as a way of increasing respect. It's not that simple. Soon-to-be-hostile leaders will mock your wonders and decrease respect. Only those in favorable or at least neutral (all informal) attitude will be pleased with your wonders. This is actually the only sane aspect of the new diplomacy system.

One of this forum's users suggested in some other thread an interesting system of rivalry. When you compete over terrain, AI gets immediately hostile. Unfortunately, this doesn't work on any other fields. I'd love to see increasing penalties for different affinities, nearby satellites, air force in range of rival's cities, high utilization of strategic resources AI might want for themselves, use of stations near AI et cetera. We don't even get any real penalties for expeditions or claiming land near enemies.

This could be amended in 2 strokes:
1) Compare your achievements with AI's agenda as it happens now with wonders. Respect would work rather as "recognition/awe" and would be earned by things that are not a direct threat to a given AI, like settling a lot of land far away from them, butchering aliens if they hate them as well, fighting a common enemy or having good health. AIs would differ not by liking certain cherry-picked factors, but rather by emphasizing some much more than others;
2) Introduce an "anger" or "vexation" factor that would decay with time and be earned (possibly continuously) by actions and states that can be a threat for a given AI, like military presence nearby, "stealing" of strategic resources, trading with or maintaining good relations with faction X, or actions and states that do not comply with an AIs "way of life", like advancing an "evil" affinity, removing miasma, having bad relations with aliens, going for "evil" victory types etc.

"Fear", a simple measurement of military strength, could remain as it is. I'd rather remove it from plain sight, though, because it's your job to evaluate how much of a danger a faction is to you.

This change would eliminate insane wars when one small faction "attacks" some other small faction on the other side of the world just because that faction is weak and doesn't have enough satellites. There's nothing to gain in such wars and nobody sane would ever start them. At the same time, it would cause AI to be wary of its strong neighbors, and actively oppose those who are going for one of possible victories. Now AI simply ignores the fact that you are playing a 20-30 turns waiting game of stuffing your Emancipation Gate or growing a Mindflower.

I'm really tired with AIs DOWing me for no reason in early game and then doing nothing about it for 100 more turns...


EDIT:

Yeah, because when Nikita Khrushchev decided to deploy nukes on Cuba, Kennedy was so awestruck, he sent navy so his sailors could better admire the accomplishments Exchange of fancy gifts and pleasantries ensued

My point is that "respect" in its current form is silly and has nothing to do with what a sane real person could think/do.

Just remember that a lot of what AI respects is based off the traits they choose. So you will get different things happening in different play through's.

Also, respect is not the same as liking someone, you can respect someones accomplishments and be their enemy. You can also respect something and still feel jealous of their accomplishment. So an AI who has chosen a trait which makes them respect/disrespect based off population, may respect you for having a high pop count, but harbour envious feelings about it too.

Also, the Fear is not just about your military, it is a combination of your economy, political and military size and and level.

An example is a game im playing with my wife with 12 sponsors in game. She started surrounded by 3 AI factions. There was a land grab between them on their continent and she built the last colony in the last area and the other 3 AI declared war. She was on the defensive as she did not have a large military and was hit from all three sides. The AI factions all had zero fear towards her. I came down from my northern continent with my large army and all leveled up, due to my war with my neighbor, and as soon as i met my wifes civ, i upgraded our relationship to co-op. Suddenly my wifes fear status began to increase with her Waring neighbours. After a few more turns I went allied with my wife and took out a few trade routes and stationed a force right on an enemy border. My wifes fear status got high enough to secure peace agreements with her enemies and i hung around the border until she had time to sign a few agreements and raise her respect levels with neighbours. I was then able to retreat my forces back home and so far they have had a lasting peace.

Also, having a look through the xml files, i noticed there is a hate value, it seems to be a combination of low respect and high fear, which causes the AI to declare war even if you have 9 fear, I have had this happen to me, the message pop up says something along the lines of "we wont live in fear anymore" bla bla bla. I dont fully understand how it works but maybe someone who is more knowledgeable could take a look and suss it out.

here is a bit of it in the CivBEFearRespect file X:\SteamLibrary\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization Beyond Earth\assets\DLC\Expansion1\Gameplay\XML\Diplomacy

<Row>
<ToneType>TONE_MEEK</ToneType>
<FearStageType>STAGE_FEAR_9</FearStageType>
<RespectStageType>STAGE_RESPECT_1</RespectStageType>
</Row>
<Row>
<ToneType>TONE_HATE</ToneType>
<FearStageType>STAGE_FEAR_0</FearStageType>
<RespectStageType>STAGE_RESPECT_2</RespectStageType>
</Row>
<Row>
<ToneType>TONE_DISDAIN</ToneType>
<FearStageType>STAGE_FEAR_1</FearStageType>
<RespectStageType>STAGE_RESPECT_2</RespectStageType>
</Row>
<Row>
<ToneType>TONE_DISDAIN</ToneType>
<FearStageType>STAGE_FEAR_2</FearStageType>
<RespectStageType>STAGE_RESPECT_2</RespectStageType>
</Row>
<Row>
<ToneType>TONE_DISDAIN</ToneType>
<FearStageType>STAGE_FEAR_3</FearStageType>
<RespectStageType>STAGE_RESPECT_2</RespectStageType>
</Row>

maybe someone take a look and could explain whats actually happening?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I assume that code determines what conversation lines the AI uses.

 

[Acken]

On a serious note - I agree with SK here... the new diplomacy system only shines through if you actually try to roleplay with it.

• Boosting your territory size/science/culture/production
• Building wonders
• Connecting all your cities with roads
• Being efficient with trade routes

The roleplay kinda breaks completely for me when this is what is required to become allied with someone. On the contrary that system is really gamey since it's all about your own metrics. When I say to myself: I need 10 more improvements and 5 trade routes to be friend with X, the roleplay goes out the window.

Ideology differences, territorial disputes, difference of characters, yes. But this... meh.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I am not defending the warscore system - it IS awful and almost everybody agrees on that.

I agree - but I think that different diplomatic options should arise at each diplomatic level (sanctioned/neutral/coop etc) - these relationship levels shouldn't automatically administer agreements such as 'open borders'. I think the devs missed a really immersive opportunity here - they could've implemented some kind of treaty system (maybe using the same UI as the warscore?) that would popup when changing your relationship with someone - that lets you pick and choose the terms of the treaty.

I disagree, I think the things like Open borders should be completelty linked to the 'Status levels'

War cooperation=Allied
Strategic resource trade routes, Open Borders=Cooperative
minimial foreign trade no strategic resources, lowest level agreements=Neutral

So if they want to buy your agreements/send trade routes to you, the only way to stop them is through a Sanction (or War)

If you don't want them getting strategic resource bonuses from trade routes/Open borders, stay Neutral

Maybe even make it such that two sponsors can initially agree to change relationship (say neutral -> cooperating) and then they have x turns of 'parlais' where they can change the terms of the agreement/add more agreements, after which they have to wait another x terms to change their treaty again - akin to a UN meeting or something in real life.

This I agree with, You should be able to spend Diplo Capital to raise or lower your relationship status (between Sanctioned - Allied, War would be separate)
[of course you might spend to make the relationship go up, and the other side spend to make it go down]

Costs would depend on things like affinity differences and Respect (you should have respect for the AI based on the traits you chose)

There just needs to be a 'discussion' section in the diplomatic screen somewhere - we need to be able to change OUR fear/respect towards AIs - just like they can to us!!!!

The AI can't change the fear/respect, it is calculated based on their traits.
There should be a separate value "like" that you can control (did nice things for me +, did mean things to me -).. but you would do it through those messages,... tell the AI not to do X,
says yes- like
says no-dislike

does it-like
doesn't do it-dislike
doesn't do it after saying yes, MASSIVE dislike

So rather than a slider you move, you just say X, Y and Z are important to me (Wonders, spying, settling, troops on my border) and the 'like' gets calculated automatically

 

[EpicWestern]

I definitely prefer the new system over the old system but I'm still seeing some flaws. One of my gripes with BE, and actually the Civ series in general is the trial and error aspect of diplomacy. For example in the old system you might feel at some point you need some petroleum. So you would look for a trade, but in order to achieve that trade and to get the best deal on it you would have to go through each civ and propose a trade and see if they accept it. If they don't, you would try again proposing to give more. If you can't get a trade at all, you would basically have to repeat this process every turn, not knowing exactly when conditions are met in which the civ might change his or her mind. So I'm actually happy they scrapped the old trading based diplo system. If you need a certain resource you are basically forced to grab (sometimes take) a certain piece of territory and defend it. This affects game dynamics a lot in a good way because instead of just always teching and trading you are forced to play at least a semi-military style of game.

Still, with agreements you still have the same problem where its super important strategically to make them (especially with health and science multipliers), but you still don't know which ones you're going to get. So you're basically forced (strategically) to take a trial and error approach to see which ones are actually available to load up on.

I'd much prefer a system with limited trade/agreement options, and if you ever make a proposal its automatically accepted. Any trade/agreement option a civ would deny would simply not show up in the interface.

 

[Aristos]

Boring + functional > non-functional.

The war score situation is not functional. I've seen enough of it on other people's perspectives to avoid purchasing RT. "You can't make peace because you're winning too much" indeed .

Funny thing is (not really) that Gazebo implemented a functional War Score system in its CBP for Civ5 before the release of BERT... and that one does not enforce peace terms, only serves as a good guide as to how much the winner could request/wants from the loser...

Oh, and it's free.

 

[crossclayton]

I disagree, I think the things like Open borders should be completelty linked to the 'Status levels'

Sorry, I have to absolutely disagree with you on this.

There have been many times in civ games that i have been strong allies with another faction, but not allowed them to pass military units through my borders. Allowing me to protect another weaker friend who my ally is trying to wipe out, but needs to pass through my land to get to them.

There is no reason whats over that an ally must automatically be allowed to pass his military through your space just because they are allied with you.

We should still have the option to be an ally and at the same time run a closed border regime.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Sorry, I have to absolutely disagree with you on this.

There have been many times in civ games that i have been strong allies with another faction, but not allowed them to pass military units through my borders. Allowing me to protect another weaker friend who my ally is trying to wipe out, but needs to pass through my land to get to them.

There is no reason whats over that an ally must automatically be allowed to pass his military through your space just because they are allied with you.

We should still have the option to be an ally and at the same time run a closed border regime.

Actually in BE is your ally is trying to wipe someone out you are at war with them too.

If they are at war with someone and you are protecting them, I would not count that as an ally, at best you are Neutral. (you don't want to take sides you want to protect everyone)
If you want to behave in a Neutral way, you should take a Neutral stance.

You Should be able to use your DiploCapital to help persuade the two to make peace (ie if you pay enough they should be forced into peace..and they should split some of that diplocapital based on War score)

Doing it by blocking their units is just gamey