I want old diplomacy back

[Acken]

You can raze the cities if you don't want them.

You still got nothing of interest for winning the war.

 

[DefiantMars]

War is definitely borked right now. But so far I'm enjoying the more "human" and transparent nature of the diplomatic relations. It actually feels like a relationship and not just the AI barking at you and you exploiting them solely for resources.

BUT if they layered some of the older Civ V lines back into the system, I think that would be a nice compromise. It would give us a way outside of "how were're doing" to influence the AI opinion of us. Things like "Don't settle near us" and "hey you have a lot of troops on my border" with actual recognition of fear and respect might actually be cool. If you have high fear or respect and tell their settlers to buzz off, they might actually be inclined to listen to you. Hopefully they investigate the possibility. It also gives the opportunity for MORE LEADER TEXT!

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I do think the war score should offer a lot more peace terms than just "nothing" or "surrender 1-2 cities". And I do hope the devs change the war score to allow the player to pick among several options. However, the fact that the AI can accept your war score based peace term now, is a big step in the right direction. The system has gone from being "completely broken" to now being "not broken but still needs improvement".

 

[Manannan]

Because in the old system, the different leaders had no distinct personality. They were all the same, and reacted the same way. And diplomacy could be completely ignored. There was no reason for the player to even use the diplomacy system. But for a more eloquent answer, please see my thread "Rising Tide diplomacy is fantastic".

I'm curious as to how you define "distinct personality" exactly? The new diplomacy system didn't add "unique personalities" to the AIs so much as it added 3 random rolls to decide different reasons for the AI to like/dislike you. Leaders are all still bland, beep-boop-I-am-a-robot non-entities, just now they have some obnoxiously implemented flavour text and occasionally declare war on you because they disagree with your choice of favourite spice girl member. Diplomacy can still be completely ignored, beyond those silly messages that pop up on your screen every time you do anything.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I do think the war score should offer a lot more peace terms than just "nothing" or "surrender 1-2 cities". And I do hope the devs change the war score to allow the player to pick among several options. However, the fact that the AI can accept your war score based peace term now, is a big step in the right direction. The system has gone from being "completely broken" to now being "not broken but still needs improvement".

The fact that the AI can refuse something for which the player has sufficient minimum war score is evidence that the mechanic is broken outright, not "less broken".

That the winner can't name lesser terms is a junk concept in a strategy title. It also doesn't pass the "sniff test" in terms of plausibility. My nation can't accept lesser terms even if doing so is beneficial? Really?

It's a mechanic that is doubled-down in poor implementation right now, but as a concept could work if war score is properly represented as something that forces the losing side to accept, rather than forcing what the winning side can demand.

 

[Deon]

You can raze the cities if you don't want them.

I did not mean "I don't want cities in those locations". I meant that "I don't want the health penalties AND I don't want to wait through many turns waiting for the cities to become pacified and razed, and getting Warmonger penalties with other AIs."

 

[GAGA Extrem]

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 .

Tsk, tsk, that's easy to fix. Just suicide some units and the warscore will even out.

...I am so glad that I am a peaceful player. Otherwise warscore would indeed be gamebreaking. (And even as a defensive peaceful player I ran into situations where I couldn't make peace because the AI would have given me cities that I didn't want...)

 

[Makenshi]

We'll have to wait another whole year, hoping for yet another expansion focused on fixing diplomacy... because I don't believe they will make another system in a patch. I just hope they knock some sense in their heads and do the obvious: mix CiV's diplo system [which was poorly used in vanilla BE] with BERT's current system. War score and diplo agreements, yes; but with fully negotiable peace, war compensations instead of just territorial concessions, etc.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The fact that the AI can refuse something for which the player has sufficient minimum war score is evidence that the mechanic is broken outright, not "less broken".

It is less broken because according to what we saw in the LP's prior to release, the AI would not accept any peace terms so there was no way to end wars. At least now, the AI will accept peace terms so we can at least end wars, we just need to be able to change peace terms.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I did not mean "I don't want cities in those locations". I meant that "I don't want the health penalties AND I don't want to wait through many turns waiting for the cities to become pacified and razed, and getting Warmonger penalties with other AIs."

I get it that you want to be able to offer a white peace even when you are crushing the AI because you want to be able to make peace without taking more cities. And I do hope the devs make that possible when they release the patch for the war score.

 

[Deon]

I get it that you want to be able to offer a white peace even when you are crushing the AI because you want to be able to make peace without taking more cities. And I do hope the devs make that possible when they release the patch for the war score.

That's exactly what I meant . And I play with what I have so far because I enjoy other aspects of the DLC a lot. Let's just wait for the patch and see how it goes from there! I mean... we don't really have another choice, haha.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I'm curious as to how you define "distinct personality" exactly? The new diplomacy system didn't add "unique personalities" to the AIs so much as it added 3 random rolls to decide different reasons for the AI to like/dislike you. Leaders are all still bland, beep-boop-I-am-a-robot non-entities, just now they have some obnoxiously implemented flavour text and occasionally declare war on you because they disagree with your choice of favourite spice girl member.

I think you are totally missing the point of the new diplo system. The "3 random rolls" as you put it, is what creates the "distinct personalities" because the traits they pick give them different personalities. For example, based on those traits, each civ is different. One might be an expansionist/warmonger civ and another might be a pacifist/growth civ. In base BE, you did not really know the personality of each civ, because they all liked and disliked the same things. Now, each one is different. Hutama likes trade routes because he is a trader, Kozlov likes orbitals because he was in charge of a space program etc... And they respond to you based on those preferences.

Diplomacy can still be completely ignored, beyond those silly messages that pop up on your screen every time you do anything.

Not really. If you ignore diplomacy, you miss out on some powerful agreements, especially if you nurture a relationship to cooperative or ally. In all my games, there were agreements that were must-haves for me to deal with a particular situation.

 

[NukeAJS]

Mixing the systems is the best way to go. Having to cooperate to get open borders (and cooperation with one civ can be condemned by another) is silly. Open borders should absolutely be part of any cooperation agreement, but there should be a different way to get open borders with neutral rivals (IE- the old way).

It's also a little silly that you can cooperate with a civ, but not truly cooperate. EX -- Don't settle near me! or Please stop attacking the aliens! or Stop clearing miasma! . Those kind of requests/demands should be put back into the game.

But the traits and the AI liking you based upon those traits/what you're actually doing is pretty cool and I like it. Also, I like that resources are traded via cooperation+trade routes. However, I almost never use trade routes for this because I find myself drowning in resources. I like the idea that the resources are actually carried around, and furthermore, that they can be attacked and the resources lost.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I just want some diplomacy.

Seconded.

I just want some goddamn diplomacy! Some goddamn interaction! Is that too much to ask? I feel like some passive mute when it comes to diplomacy now.

Now don't get me wrong, white knights, while implementation didn't exactly go 100% smoothly, I DO like the concept of the new system... here's hoping we do get that patch soon, that's supposed to "do something we'll like" about war score.

My gripe is why did they take away everything else? All I can do is buy agreements and manually change relationships. I can't do anything else. I can't even offer to sell an agreement until they themselves show up. Okay, I can live with that last one, no one likes a door to door salesman anyway. But...

1. Why can't I tell them to stop attacking someone or some station?
2. Why can't I tell them to stop expanding my way?
3. Why can't I tell them not to spy on me? Why won't they? Don't they care anymore?
4. Why can't I demand something? They may (in theory) fear me 9/9, and yet I can't demand anything. Should be able to demand a lump sum of energy at least, as well as putting it on the table during peace negotiations (maybe will be addressed in war score patch).
5. Why don't they care about different or same affinities? ONCE I got a tweet from ONE AI saying "our culture differs too much" or something, with absolutely insignificant minor decrease. Same AI stayed at 9/9 all throughout the game, just because I bought a couple of agreements from her, it seems. It really doesn't require much!
6. Why can't I simply tell them I don't like their face, for a major decrease just for the LoL's of it and because I can?

Is that too much to ask? Will someone in all seriousness claim that the above would somehow take away from the new system? The above could perfectly coexist and have small to large decreases like them space tweets. I don't even need research agreements, tech trading, useless & redundant denunciations (when we have perfectly good and natural 'sanctioned' state) or bribing to attack (if alliances will work as they were supposed to), and I'm perfectly fine with resource trading being handled through actual trade routes. All I want is some goddamn interaction.

 

[Manannan]

I think you are totally missing the point of the new diplo system. The "3 random rolls" as you put it, is what creates the "distinct personalities" because the traits they pick give them different personalities. For example, based on those traits, each civ is different. One might be an expansionist/warmonger civ and another might be a pacifist/growth civ. In base BE, you did not really know the personality of each civ, because they all liked and disliked the same things. Now, each one is different. Hutama likes trade routes because he is a trader, Kozlov likes orbitals because he was in charge of a space program etc... And they respond to you based on those preferences.

Except that isn't the case. Any given AI is as likely to like your internal trade route spam as Hutama, or your orbital units as Kozlov based on the other traits they may pick up, while those two are just as likely to stress other aspects based on their additional traits. The AIs still don't have their own unique personalities, they just have slightly more obvious likes/dislikes that are entirely arbitrary any given game. To put this another way there's still no finding an AI and thinking "beh, expansionist jerk, better get my cities up ASAP" like when you find Hiawatha next to you in CiV, or thinking "crap, warmonger, better get my defenses up and ready for the inevitable DoW" as per finding Shaka, or thinking "oh good, I have lots of time to peacefully expand towards this sucker" like when you find Gandhi. BERT's AIs spamming you with "grr, I dislike you for this arbitrary reason" or "heybae, I like you for this arbitrary reason" messages is entirely independent of who the AI is, it's just a matter of what dice roll has come up. Again, beep-boop-I-am-a-robot non-entities that are simply empty vessels for random traits does not personality equal.

Not really. If you ignore diplomacy, you miss out on some powerful agreements, especially if you nurture a relationship to cooperative or ally. In all my games, there were agreements that were must-haves for me to deal with a particular situation.

Nurture a relationship? Lolno. If you just keep playing the way you usually play and the AI decides it likes your improvements/food/production/orbital units/orbital coverage etc. There's absolutely no interaction with the system required, the player is simply rewarded for playing the way they normally would based on a dice roll.

You may miss out on some powerful agreements ignoring diplomacy, yes, but that's no different than ignoring diplomacy in the base game and losing out on all kinds of money and the ability to have the AIs perpetually squabbling with themselves while ignoring you. Diplomacy is no more required now than before to cruise to an easy sub-t200 win, sorry.

 

[Derydlus]

I'd really like to see energy and diplomatic capital used far more heavily in negotiations. I think that will help with the war score issue as well, by giving the AI more to offer than just cities.

To put this another way there's still no finding an AI and thinking "beh, expansionist jerk, better get my cities up ASAP" like when you find Hiawatha next to you in CiV, or thinking "crap, warmonger, better get my defenses up and ready for the inevitable DoW" as per finding Shaka, or thinking "oh good, I have lots of time to peacefully expand towards this sucker" like when you find Gandhi. BERT's AIs spamming you with "grr, I dislike you for this arbitrary reason" or "heybae, I like you for this arbitrary reason" messages is entirely independent of who the AI is, it's just a matter of what dice roll has come up. Again, beep-boop-I-am-a-robot non-entities that are simply empty vessels for random traits does not personality equal.

Honestly, I'm not certain I follow this line of thinking. It's similarly arbitrary and random whether you have Shaka or Gandhi next to you. I liked the emerging narrative that my last game gave me, where Kozlov kept calling me gluttonous for my food production and Hutama, my neighbor, attacked me primarily because I had too much land. Especially given the limited number of sponsors at present, it's nice to know that they'll act differently in my next game. The traits make them see far more nuanced than Civ V's leaders, who are almost all entirely devoid of personality and act the same in every game.

To each their own, though. The current system definitely needs more interaction and a bit of balance.

 

[Manannan]

Honestly, I'm not certain I follow this line of thinking. Having Shaka or Gandhi next to you and reacting accordingly is just as random as the new diplomacy system.

Uh, what? No it isn't? In the sense that it's random which AIs will be next to you I guess that's accurate but that isn't what we're talking about? Those AIs will always act in predictable ways because they have distinct personalities that they do not deviate from. On the other hand there's no telling how your nearest neighbour is going to act in BERT, as every civ is equally likely to want to invite you over for a slumber party or want to set your house on fire as no AI has a particular personality.

I will agree that with the lack of sponsors it's probably a necessary evil to keep the game from becoming even more ridiculously stale, but that doesn't make the current mess somehow good design.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I agree with the above Manannan's post. I DO like the system, but damn, I agree with the above post.

I think they should pick their traits more according to who they are, and NOT randomly pick them. Maybe 3 predefined and one random. Because in the end, it does all seem very very random. I do absolutely nothing, NOTHING to "nurture" anything, I just buy agreements I like on the market shelves as they and DC become available and I end up with 3-4 AI's with 9/9 respect by mid-late game because they randomly like my energy-culture-production output, my orbital coverage (a favorite of theirs) etc. ALL WHILE I steal the crap out of them via spy agency (of which they couldn't care less). The only actually fitting trait that spammed me although the game (and not random crap that rotates randomly between them), I experienced during 3 games was Elodie twitting about my lack of culture or synergy or something like that.

 

[Derydlus]

Uh, what? No it isn't? In the sense that it's random which AIs will be next to you I guess that's accurate but that isn't what we're talking about? Those AIs will always act in predictable ways because they have distinct personalities that they do not deviate from. On the other hand there's no telling how your nearest neighbour is going to act in BERT, as every civ is equally likely to want to invite you over for a slumber party or want to set your house on fire as no AI has a particular personality.

I see where you're coming from. I still prefer the new system, personally. I consider being able to predict what enemy factions will do in Civ V a design defect rather than a feature. I shouldn't be able to predict what enemy factions will do the moment I see the leader screen. The new BE factions do have personality: you just can't predict it.

 

[Acken]

Well you can always check random personalities for Civ5.