That's one option, but personally I think the better way to go would be to WEIGH the traits differently, specifically having the AI's inherent trait carry more weight than any of the other ones they pick-up. This, along with affinity and proximity should be far more important to whether or not the AI likes you than the secondary traits the AI picks up. Wouldn't fix all the issues, but would be a step in the right direction.
I want old diplomacy back
- Thread starter crossclayton
- Start date
That's one option, but personally I think the better way to go would be to WEIGH the traits differently, specifically having the AI's inherent trait carry more weight than any of the other ones they pick-up. This, along with affinity and proximity should be far more important to whether or not the AI likes you than the secondary traits the AI picks up. Wouldn't fix all the issues, but would be a step in the right direction.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Yes, they do have unique personalities. Each Sponsor gets 1 character trait that is unique to each sponsor. That character trait gives them a basic personality that is unique to them. The other 3 traits just add to the base personality.
No. That unique trait is no different than unique sponsor bonuses in the base game. Elodie's cultural bonus didn't make her any more or less likely to DoW you than any other AI then, and it being a trait doesn't make it any more or less likely now.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
The character trait not just gives the sponsor bonus but also affects their respect level and what they like or don't like. Plus, each sponsor has their unique fear/respect levels so some sponsors are easier to ally than others.
Ok, again, one unique trait that gets quite easily over-ridden by the other random traits does not equate to the AI finally having personalities, especially when they frequently ignore those traits and just kinda all do the same AI things anyway. Honestly, I'm running out of ways to phrase this. Regardless of who you're playing as, who your neighbours end up being, and who is in the game in general the actual gameplay doesn't change in the slightest. You have no reason to change your approach to the game based on your nearest neighbour's entirely insignificant personality trait, nor do you have any reason to expect them to act in any one way in particular as a result of it. + or - respect from whatever arbitrary actions is not personality, it's just the AI getting entirely random weights in it's decision to DoW you or ally you.
What else do you want them to do? I don't know what else other factions CAN do to you. They can Ally you or DoW you, both of which are affected by the new system. What kind of personality changes would not boil down to "random weights in their decision to DoW you or ally you"? An embassy mechanic would be relatively pointless, but might help. They might adjust how much they trade with you, but war already affects this, and I would likely not notice a few extra trade routes anyways. I agree that if they made it more obvious when factions send trade routes your way and made fear/respect affect the trade routes that it would add more dimension to things. When my neighbor starts warning me about having negative health, I take it as an indicator that they're going to be more likely to DoW me if I don't fix it and adjust my game accordingly (or make the decision to ignore it), just as I would if I settled with a Civ V warmonger next to me. It's not like the AI is particularly subtle about what is going to piss them off, considering how much they message me.
Or, to put it another way, don't the Civ V leader personalities just amount to how willing they are DoW or Ally you?
No? Again, I'm running out of ways to phrase this. The AIs in CiV would act entirely differently from one another and would frequently change the way you approached a game. Finding yourself plopped down next to an aggressive or expansionist AI in CiV will change the way you play compared to finding yourself next to a peaceful AI that doesn't tend to expand very much. While it might not be a very good idea to expand aggressively into an AI like Shaka or Atilla in the same situation on the same map it would be completely fine to do so into Gandhi or Al-Mansur. Similarly in CiV you may decide it isn't a very good idea to try for many cultural wonders when you notice an AI like Darius in the game, or to try for religion when you notice a bunch of religious AIs in your game, while deciding both those things are fine when you find a bunch of warmongering AIs that tend to ignore wonders/culture/religion.
This kind of decision making has been entirely absent in BE since launch, and hasn't been changed with the new diplomacy. No matter who you find yourself competing with you can approach the game the exact same way with little to no regard for what the intended personalities of the AIs are. At no point in time does the player have to ponder building a bigger army than usual because ________ is close to them, or consider focusing on going taller than usual because _______ isn't going to allow them to expand as aggressively as the other AIs would. The exact same approach to the game works no matter what AI the player has to deal with first, and a minor change like "Kozlov will kinda-somewhat-sorta be friendlier towards you if you have satellites, maybe pending you don't annoy him as a result of the other arbitrary dice rolls we're adding" does nothing to change the fact they're all entirely interchangeable non-entities.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Well, I disagree. The 3 traits don't override the character trait. All 4 traits add up to a distinct personality. And who your neighbor is does matter. I played a game where Barre was my neighbor. Barre is a pacifist who likes growth. He did not mind so much that I was close to him on the same continent. He liked me a lot and gave me the trait that boosts outpost growth which was exactly what I needed. And being close to me, I was able to trade with him early. Another game, Elodie was my neighbor. She hated my guts for being close to her and because she thought my military was inexperienced. So she attacked me early. It was only after I held her back and made peace that she respected me more.
Westwall
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,341
A combination of the two systems would've been best.
The new diplomacy screen should've been a subset of the old one, under the "discussions" tab.
Seriously, how could they not realize this? This is what happens when developers don't play the games they're making.
They do what "sounds nice" but never stop to ask themselves, "What options would I like to have available to me in this situation?"
So they end up scrapping a lot of the useful features from the old system and never caring about the repercussions.
The new diplomacy screen should've been a subset of the old one, under the "discussions" tab.
Seriously, how could they not realize this? This is what happens when developers don't play the games they're making.
They do what "sounds nice" but never stop to ask themselves, "What options would I like to have available to me in this situation?"
So they end up scrapping a lot of the useful features from the old system and never caring about the repercussions.
Amrunril
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,239
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!
This would be an excellent addition. And when the AI comes to you asking you to stop settling near them etc., your response should impact that leader's respect for you. Considering factors like this and placing a greater focus on factors like agreements, trade routes and common enemies would make the AIs feel more like leaders/players considering who it makes sense to cooperate with. There's nothing inherently wrong with factors like culture being part of the AIs calculations, but as the system currently stands, it's too easy to gain everyone's respect simply by doing well.
More generally I'd like to echo the sentiment that the trait/agreement system is an amazing addition to the game but that there's no reason it had to come at the expense of conventional civ-style resource and energy trading. I also think the war score mechanic is a badly implemented solution to a problem that didn't exist.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
They scrapped useful systems without completely clearing them out. (and without fully installing the new system)
So, for example, the AI (or you) can decline to give an agreement to someone that is
1. willing to pay the diplo capital/war score
2. has the right level of relationship
That should not be possible
If they had just said
All diplomacy is about
-setting the right levels
-spending diplocapital (or spending war score)
Then it would work, and make the diplomacy less of a milk the AI system. (at least it would allow Apollo AIs to milk the player as well)
crossclayton
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 152
You can but a lot of the time I just want peace and dont want to smash the inept AI even more, by destroying its cities just after a "peace" negotiation.
Maybe if there was a major respect loss from all the other sponsors for setting millions of innocent people to the flame, just after agreeing to a peace deal, it would make a little bit more sense. Maybe add also a huge fear increase for sponsor who's ex-city you just obliterated.
I still think we should have manual control over open borders, peace negotiation and resource trading.
Other than that, I'm sold on the diplomacy system, I have played through multiple games now and have a nice understanding of it and I must say it works well once you understand how it functions.
crossclayton
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 152
This is what I thought the BERT diplomacy was going to be. thats why I was initially disappointed. I am now having fun with the new system, but I would like to have seen Civ V system enhanced by the BERT system instead of replaced by the BERT system.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
According to Pete, via Twitter, the AI pick their diplomatic traits partially by strategy and partially by personality, among other factors.
Funny I completely ignore the new system far more than the old. New system is just a new currency. I buy up the traits and agreements i need and click accept for free diplo currency from agreements for my traits.
Almost every game so far has me at peace throughout the game. Clicking enter till (far to early for my liking) victory.
I agree that the old system didn't need to be completely removed but merged. After several games i have yet to take an AI city so haven't really played around with the war score system yet, but from what I have read in this thread I won't like that either.
Almost every game so far has me at peace throughout the game. Clicking enter till (far to early for my liking) victory.
I agree that the old system didn't need to be completely removed but merged. After several games i have yet to take an AI city so haven't really played around with the war score system yet, but from what I have read in this thread I won't like that either.
crossclayton
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 152
try a game on standard size, low sea level, sparse resources, terran and edit civBEworlds to get all 12 sponsors in one game. Creates some grounds for conflict because of land and resource limitations.
crossclayton
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 152
Edit a file? Why isn't it in the game in the first place...
no idea
In my second game as Hutama, I did absolutely nothing aimed at getting my relationships up; I just played like I usually did and expanded out. Thanks to a continuous stream of respect gains from my trade routes and production/food, I was able to get to co-operative with every sponsor in the game. There was no "nurturing" involved.
I then very intentionally didn't go to Allied status with anyone because the benefit (better agreements) didn't outweigh the downsides (inevitably being dragged into wars I didn't want, which would break trade routes and remove potential agreements/cancel existing ones).
I do like the agreements and the better personality in the new system. It just hasn't really changed anything for me except getting me much further ahead. It's also frustrating if, say you did want to base a strategy around certain agreements, you're limited to what your neurotic opponents have. In my Hutama game I had tons of covert agents running but not a single agreement showed up to allow me to improve them.
