Illogical\Bugged (?) AI?

[Socratatus]

The AI in this games isn`t bad at times, but at other times it seems to totally lose the plot.

Example 1, I`m England:
In a long Prince Campaign on a single landmass with multiple Civs, Haille Selassie (who`s afraid of me), asks for `Open Borders`, I say, yes, then he says, `that`s not good enough` and won`t accept Open Borders.

? So I just quit out of that diplomacy crazy moment. He did it twice before asking for Citrus for 45 turns.

Example 2:
The mayan leader attacks a City State that I am protecting. He contacts me and tells me then says, "What are you going to do about it?" Obviously daring me.

Problem is, he`s been reduced to 1 capital city by Sweden and I`m huge. He`s stuck on the tip of a bit of land and I own the whole area around him. I could take his city in a few turns with ease. And I do, to his last ship.

Now what was the logic there? `I will attack that huge nation`s city state then inform him so he can attack and destroy my last city?`

Sometimes the AI really screws up.

 

[Avatan]

The AI in this games isn`t bad at times, but at other times it seems to totally lose the plot.

Example 1, I`m England:
In a long Prince Campaign on a single landmass with multiple Civs, Haille Selassie (who`s afraid of me), asks for `Open Borders`, I say, yes, then he says, `that`s not good enough` and won`t accept Open Borders.

? So I just quit out of that diplomacy crazy moment. He did it twice before asking for Citrus for 45 turns.

Example 2:
The mayan leader attacks a City State that I am protecting. He contacts me and tells me then says, "What are you going to do about it?" Obviously daring me.

Problem is, he`s been reduced to 1 capital city by Sweden and I`m huge. He`s stuck on the tip of a bit of land and I own the whole area around him. I could take his city in a few turns with ease. And I do, to his last ship.

Now what was the logic there? `I will attack that huge nation`s city state then inform him so he can attack and destroy my last city?`

Sometimes the AI really screws up.

Example 1:
Are you sure it wasn't an expired deal? When a deal has just expired and the AI is not willing to reconduct it the deal screen will show up, but the dialog box will display something in the tone of "I'm not happy with this agreement anymore".

Example 2:

Well yeah it's I'll placed pride I admit. But it knows there is a diplo price to attack him and risk everything to survive. What else can he do?

 

[bcaiko]

Example 1 is almost certainly an expired deal and you didn't read the "This deal has faded in our eyes..." text. Many players have made the same mistake.

 

[Socratatus]

Example 1:
Are you sure it wasn't an expired deal? When a deal has just expired and the AI is not willing to reconduct it the deal screen will show up, but the dialog box will display something in the tone of "I'm not happy with this agreement anymore".

Example 2:

Well yeah it's I'll placed pride I admit. But it knows there is a diplo price to attack him and risk everything to survive. What else can he do?

Hmm. I see.

Example 1 is almost certainly an expired deal and you didn't read the "This deal has faded in our eyes..." text. Many players have made the same mistake.

Ah, ok. I don`t usually read those bits, I try to fuigure it out by his `personality` and his actual words (lol). Would`ve been nice if they could actually make HIM say what he means... Ok thanks, guys.

 

[Yzman]

I really hate point 2. If someone attacks a city state you are protecting you should be able to say "this means war!" and not get as big of a diplo hit due to it being justified.

 

[nokmirt]

I really hate point 2. If someone attacks a city state you are protecting you should be able to say "this means war!" and not get as big of a diplo hit due to it being justified.

You should get no diplo hit. It is under your protection.

On the first point the AI can be insane and rather silly at times. Which can be rather annoying to say the least. What the devs should do with expired deals, is display what the AI would like as far as any changes to the original deal. This would save time and get you back into the game. Instead of wasting time trying to haggle out a new deal, with that lunatic AI.

 

[Peng Qi]

You should get no diplo hit. It is under your protection.

Which is exactly why nobody in the entire world gets mad when the United States steps in and protects Israel, amirite?

 

[nokmirt]

Which is exactly why nobody in the entire world gets mad when the United States steps in and protects Israel, amirite?

A valid and interesting point, except Israel is no CS. What you seem to be saying is that diplomacy should be guided moreso by religious beliefs. Israel being a Jewish state, in the middle, surrounded by her Islamic enemies. If that is the case, religion should matter more when it comes to diplomacy and politics, within the game. However, the diplomacy in this game is far from that found in the real world. My god man, Canada, Mexico (especially), and countless other brute nations would covet our lands and DoW us.

Anyway, the fact is we'd all be dead. Someone would have pushed the button long ago. Probably Ghandi.

 

[PhilBowles]

I really hate point 2. If someone attacks a city state you are protecting you should be able to say "this means war!" and not get as big of a diplo hit due to it being justified.

If you declare war shortly after saying "You'll pay for this", you often won't get the warmonger penalty - at least not with everyone.

Like so much in Civ V, this stuff's there but good luck finding anything in the manual/Civilopedia admitting it...

A valid and interesting point, except Israel is no CS

Not literally, but it serves the same function in international relations in real life as a Civ V CS does (while many real-life CSes, like Singapore, don't), as a focal point for the attention and policy-making of more major powers and whose political relevance is inflated by those outside interests.

 

[Bob_]

If you declare war shortly after saying "You'll pay for this", you often won't get the warmonger penalty - at least not with everyone.

Huh really? Can someone confirm??

 

[Peng Qi]

A valid and interesting point, except Israel is no CS. What you seem to be saying is that diplomacy should be guided moreso by religious beliefs. Israel being a Jewish state, in the middle, surrounded by her Islamic enemies. If that is the case, religion should matter more when it comes to diplomacy and politics, within the game. However, the diplomacy in this game is far from that found in the real world. My god man, Canada, Mexico (especially), and countless other brute nations would covet our lands and DoW us.

Anyway, the fact is we'd all be dead. Someone would have pushed the button long ago. Probably Ghandi.

It's not always about religion. Sometimes it's just about political realities. The US's continued protection of Taiwan doesn't make us more popular with China. Russia protecting North Korea for so long didn't ingratiate them to us either. That is to say, protecting a smaller state doesn't make you popular with the enemies of that state or, perhaps more prominently especially in ancient history, with those who stand to profit from the conquest of that state. I'd say stepping in to protect a CS you've sworn to protect should really only have a Diplo hit with other nations near that CS who have not guaranteed it, but I wouldn't say that a zero diplo hit with everyone would necessarily make sense.

 

[shaglio]

Example 1:
Are you sure it wasn't an expired deal? When a deal has just expired and the AI is not willing to reconduct it the deal screen will show up, but the dialog box will display something in the tone of "I'm not happy with this agreement anymore".

I've been experiencing this situation since Vanilla, long before expired deals could automatically be renewed. Several times people who are Afraid will come to me in diplomacy and look for straight-up Open Borders trades and then, when I choose to Accept it, they tell me I need to do better. At first i used to scratch my head over it, but now I just shrug my shoulders and move on.

 

[nokmirt]

It's not always about religion. Sometimes it's just about political realities. The US's continued protection of Taiwan doesn't make us more popular with China. Russia protecting North Korea for so long didn't ingratiate them to us either. That is to say, protecting a smaller state doesn't make you popular with the enemies of that state or, perhaps more prominently especially in ancient history, with those who stand to profit from the conquest of that state. I'd say stepping in to protect a CS you've sworn to protect should really only have a Diplo hit with other nations near that CS who have not guaranteed it, but I wouldn't say that a zero diplo hit with everyone would necessarily make sense.

Again, I understand what your getting at, but the diplo system in this game is far from realistic. The system apparent in the game, is radical and sometimes incomprehensible. Many times I would love to know what is on the AI's mind.

"I'd say stepping in to protect a CS you've sworn to protect should really only have a Diplo hit with other nations near that CS who have not guaranteed it"

I do agree with this. Now that I think about it more closely. That is completely logical. But I do not feel the protecting civ should get a diplo hit across the board. Localized diplo hits should apply. Here again though, this kind of thing could potentially expand diplomacy. The devs should make it so you can talk to the surrounding civs, about the politcal and military situation, as it pertains to the CS in question. By talking with these civs perhaps they would back you on your mission to protect the CS. Even if it is to just stay out of the conflict. This would also be another way for the human player to gain a hint on what other civs think about the situation, in that area of the map. More localized diplomacy within the game, could be an improvement IMO. If it is done in the right way.

In the game recently, I have not really messed around with either bullying or protecting CSs. From what I understand they are supposed to stick up for each other, band together against aggressors. (Which is what happened in ancient Greece against the Persians.) So, the protecting civ should not get backlash from those CSs. The CSs in that pact should give influence in that case to the protector civ.

I feel that CSs should war with each other too. Then the civs protecting these CSs would also be at odds with one another. Perhaps expanded diplomacy between two civs protecting two CSs, could come to terms to promote peace. Using their influence as powerful empires, to calm the two beligerent CSs down a bit. To help them get along better. Of course, things could potentially go the other way as well. Leading to horrible relations, or war.

 

[Peng Qi]

I think what the game really needs to make that kind of thing happen are more formalized coalitions. Diplomacy in CiV (and all Civ games ever really) has been between two parties, which makes it impossible for third parties to understand or interact with the events that take place between them. Declarations of Friendship were a huge step forward into multidirectional diplomacy for Civ, but it needs to go deeper.

And yeah, I agree that CS's should engage in their own diplomacy.

 

[apocalypse105]

Example 1:
Are you sure it wasn't an expired deal? When a deal has just expired and the AI is not willing to reconduct it the deal screen will show up, but the dialog box will display something in the tone of "I'm not happy with this agreement anymore".

Example 2:

Well yeah it's I'll placed pride I admit. But it knows there is a diplo price to attack him and risk everything to survive. What else can he do?

you are completly wrong at example 2 the Ai doens't know that there is penalty for wiping out civs or declaring war because they do it constantly and will conquer a entire civ if they are wining..


Same goes for atacking city states if it can conquer it will do it..


The AI in this game is just made to troll you don't know wich person at firaxis thought this was a good idea

 

[smallfish]

I feel that CSs should war with each other too. Then the civs protecting these CSs would also be at odds with one another. Perhaps expanded diplomacy between two civs protecting two CSs, could come to terms to promote peace. Using their influence as powerful empires, to calm the two beligerent CSs down a bit. To help them get along better. Of course, things could potentially go the other way as well. Leading to horrible relations, or war.

This.

Since the expack, I don't think I've seen City-States war with each other by themselves. There were many memorable moments with CSes warring each other in the original - like this one time Singapore and Kuala Lumpur started south and north of each other, and they would ask everyone and anyone to help them kill each other while they had a brushfire war with riflemen and artillery.

Which also reminds me... Devs need to bring back those "kill other CS quests" too!

 

[nokmirt]

I think what the game really needs to make that kind of thing happen are more formalized coalitions. Diplomacy in CiV (and all Civ games ever really) has been between two parties, which makes it impossible for third parties to understand or interact with the events that take place between them. Declarations of Friendship were a huge step forward into multidirectional diplomacy for Civ, but it needs to go deeper.

And yeah, I agree that CS's should engage in their own diplomacy.

Formalized coalitions, an excellent suggestion and idea. I agree diplomacy should go deeper. CSs, should have their own diplomacy. If they have elections they have a government. So, they should have to deal with all the issues involved in running a government. Even if on a smaller scale.

There are many more radical things that could be added to the game, confederations, protectorates, vassal states, things like that. Although, from what we have discussed, the AI could handle deeper diplomacy, as well as CS diplomacy. I am sure of that.

This.

Since the expack, I don't think I've seen City-States war with each other by themselves. There were many memorable moments with CSes warring each other in the original - like this one time Singapore and Kuala Lumpur started south and north of each other, and they would ask everyone and anyone to help them kill each other while they had a brushfire war with riflemen and artillery.

Which also reminds me... Devs need to bring back those "kill other CS quests" too!

What you mention here smallfish is very interesting. The "kill other CS quests" got out of control in vanilla. What the devs should have done, I feel, is alleviate this a bit. Make it so it occurs much less. I feel that eliminating it completely took something away from diplomacy. What they have done is added several new quests, which could have watered down the "kill other CS quests" quite nicely. They should have kept the quest though.

Now the other mistake they made is that you got a severe penalty for conquering a CS in vanilla, when you are given a quest to do just that. Who wants to complete the quest if you get this huge diplo penalty that lasts the entire game? I believe a localized diplo penalty would be appropriate, but not an everlasting worldwide one. Although the act of conquering a CS, could potentially turn everyone in the world against you. But that should be based on the changing political situation as the game continues, not from a immediate penalty. Something like that could lead to a chain of denouncements for instance. Which it used to anyway.

City states should be able to war with each other. I use to love those squabbles. Little countries should have the potential to start very large conflicts. It seems to me they have added WWI units, but did not add the concept of how that war began. One assasination leads to millions of lost lives.

*On another note* Assasinations should be added to espionage. Espionage should be expanded. In fact it is time for me to listen to the next Polycast. I think they talk about that very issue.

 

[Yzman]

CS do war with each other, in fact its quite annoying because I don't know a way to make them stop. Typically I see 2 CS that are close to each other attacking, particularly if one is militaristic. The problem is, if both are my allies, I don't want them reducing each other to nothing. I wish I could tell them to STOP.