I'm so Glad the Slide is Gone

[Egnarts]

In what way is diplomacy in civ5 streamlined? Is it because you don't like how it works?

It's hard to have any feelings for or against something that simply do not excist. That's kinda my point, you can call it diplomacy all day, but it really isnt.

 

[PieceOfMind]

It's hard to have any feelings for or against something that simply do not excist. That's kinda my point, you can call it diplomacy all day, but it really isnt.

So when Bismarck asks me to stop purchasing land near his cities and I assure him that it won't happen again, yet I do it again within a couple of turns and he immediately comes back saying how disappointed he is that I did that, and 10 or so turns later he declares war, that is non-existent diplomacy?

Look, I can understand if the seemingly erratic behaviour of AIs and the lack (most of the time) of tangible feedback to the player with their diplomatic interactions can be frustrating, but I think you're kidding yourself in denying that diplomacy exists in the game, or just intentionally exaggerating to make your point.

When my people are incredibly unhappy, I've had leaders approach me saying they can hear the screams and cries of the people living under my rule. I get the impression that AIs take into account various factors that weren't used in civ4. The happiness of my population is just one example.

 

[Guardian_PL]

So when Bismarck asks me to stop purchasing land near his cities and I assure him that it won't happen again, yet I do it again within a couple of turns and he immediately comes back saying how disappointed he is that I did that, and 10 or so turns later he declares war, that is non-existent diplomacy?

Look, I can understand if the seemingly erratic behaviour of AIs and the lack (most of the time) of tangible feedback to the player with their diplomatic interactions can be frustrating, but I think you're kidding yourself in denying that diplomacy exists in the game, or just intentionally exaggerating to make your point.

When my people are incredibly unhappy, I've had leaders approach me saying they can hear the screams and cries of the people living under my rule. I get the impression that AIs take into account various factors that weren't used in civ4. The happiness of my population is just one example.

I'm sorry but this is all smoke and mirrors - an illusion of meaningful diplomatic choices. The truth is that no matter how amicable you are to the AI you then settle a city 15 tiles away from them, or defend against some other AI earning bloodthirsty status and that's it. Inevitably, EVERYTHING ends in a bloodbath. In the aftermath if you've survived (sometimes on Deity you actually CAN be swarmed over) then it's "next turn, next turn" till whichever victory is closest (went Rationalism? Go for Space. Bought all City-States? Go Diplo, nobody will stop you).

I agree with Egnarts on this one - atm there's no diplomacy in fifth installment of game about civilizations. And I find it actually hilarious that some folks counter such statement with saying that in Civ4 other AIs never played to win It happened way too often for me to lose late game in Civ4 with "befriendable" AIs then now - because in Civ5 by late game there's like two of them remaining, and they have no clue how to actually win

 

[PieceOfMind]

Inevitably, EVERYTHING ends in a bloodbath.

I have already had games where this is simply untrue, including one at Deity where I was significantly outgunned in all aspects, including size of military, technological progress, culture, number of cities and so on. In that game none of the AIs declared on me, though I was doing nothing to particularly annoy them either.

So either you've been very unlucky to have never seen a game where everything didn't turn into a bloodbath, or you haven't played many games where you weren't so close to winning.

I think part of the cause of everyone finding the game turns into a bloodbath is that the human player is usually in a position where he is advancing towards a type of victory. For example, if you are befriending lots of city states or building lots of cities, or conquering people even though they declared war on you, these are all things that would make an AI jealous or annoyed at you.

I know that people don't like the board-game type AIs, where their interactions with you are possibly more influenced by their desire to win the game than by any pretending to act like a historical leader personality, but I think there is thought going on under all of it and that the way they behave is just very different to civ4. I also suspect there are a few bugs involved and that those may be contributing to some of the erratic behaviour.

In civ5 I have noticed that the leaders who are more annoyed at me (e.g. because I have expanded close to them) tend to offer me less for the deals I propose. Just another example of how diplomacy in civ5 is at the very least a bit more than non-existent.

 

[TheBlackAdderBG]

Yes ,the sliders are streamlined feature.Look at Victoria 2,is so streamlined with all the sliders for budget control.

 

[need my speed]

There is no diplomacy. Well, there is, but it all leads to war no matter what you do. If in some games you didn't wage war, then you didn't do diplomacy.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I disagree. Maybe it workes well on lower levels, but on higher levels like emperor you could better LOWER your science research, building up cash and make soe war here and there to get "free techs" from the AI players. Then, at the right moment, you switched to more science research. This strategy works way better when done right.

So no, your one fits all solution isn't valid at all in all cases. There are better strategies to follow.

Diplo in CIV 5 is streamlined while you cannot trade tech anymore. That's one good example.

The tech trading was asinine, and I'm very glad it is gone. One shouldn't be able to get ahead in science by simply demanding technologies from other civs.

 

[Jediron]

You do not simply demand them, you have to fight for it and it makes perfect sence. If i hold a gun at your head, there's a good change you give me "anything" , aren't you ?

 

[Guardian_PL]

The tech trading was asinine, and I'm very glad it is gone. One shouldn't be able to get ahead in science by simply demanding technologies from other civs.

Don't like it? No Tech Brokering. Complaining that leaders behave the same? Random Personalities. Don't like Espionage? Disable it.

Why any form of tech trading as well as foreign trade routes had been axed from Civ5? Isn't it what diplomacy and foreign relations should be about in empire game?
...
Oh, sorry, I've just answered my own question here - what diplomacy?
No diplomacy=no meaningful trade=streamlined and organic CivRev2 Civ5 world

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Don't like it? No Tech Brokering. Complaining that leaders behave the same? Random Personalities. Don't like Espionage? Disable it.

Why any form of tech trading as well as foreign trade routes had been axed from Civ5? Isn't it what diplomacy and foreign relations should be about in empire game?
...
Oh, sorry, I've just answered my own question here - what diplomacy?
No diplomacy=no meaningful trade=streamlined and organic CivRev2 Civ5 world

IOW, you are saying that you hanker for Civ IV. That is perfectly legitimate. But I repeat that getting technical advances thorugh bullying or warfare is silly, and that I hated the espionage feature in BtS. We clearly disagree. There's nothing wrong with that, but you may be posting in the wrong forum.

 

[lschnarch]

So when Bismarck asks me to stop purchasing land near his cities and I assure him that it won't happen again, yet I do it again within a couple of turns and he immediately comes back saying how disappointed he is that I did that, and 10 or so turns later he declares war, that is non-existent diplomacy?

Yes, it is non-existent diplomacy.
Do you know how LONG you're bound to such an agreement?
Do you know whether this includes the cultural extension, too?
Do you know whether this pact is influenced by him, Bismarck, found a new city even closer to your borders?

I have to admit, I don't know any of these things. Which actually renders all possible repliese meaningless, if not in raising the chance of getting attacked to even a higher level ("We settle where we want").

Look, I can understand if the seemingly erratic behaviour of AIs and the lack (most of the time) of tangible feedback to the player with their diplomatic interactions can be frustrating, but I think you're kidding yourself in denying that diplomacy exists in the game, or just intentionally exaggerating to make your point.

Actually, I think YOU are kidding yourself.

You want the diplomacy to be meaningful in a certain way. Yet, as long as there isn't any meaningful, understandable feedback, it comes down to some kind of multiple choice.
Pick whatever option pleases you, and still you don't know about the results.

When my people are incredibly unhappy, I've had leaders approach me saying they can hear the screams and cries of the people living under my rule. I get the impression that AIs take into account various factors that weren't used in civ4. The happiness of my population is just one example.

Yes, and when you and say Askia are already at war against say Gandhi, Askia comes later and asks about a pact of secrecy against Gandhi.
Now, how meaningful is this?

Obviously, this request at that moment isn't meaningful in any way. So, what are the consequences of the option which you will pick?
Are there any consequences at all?

You don't know it. I don't know it, either.
When in diplomacy, you are just in a black box and don't get any feedback. Which means, there isn't any "diplomacy" at all.

 

[lschnarch]

IOW, you are saying that you hanker for Civ IV.

I don't think he is saying this.
He is, though, saying that the mechanics in Civ4 were more meaningful, to which I agree.

That is perfectly legitimate. But I repeat that getting technical advances thorugh bullying or warfare is silly, and that I hated the espionage feature in BtS. We clearly disagree. There's nothing wrong with that, but you may be posting in the wrong forum.

The fact that espionage, just to stay with that example, was rather poorly implemented does not mean that espionage itself is meaningless.

We have read so many complaints about how poorly warfare was implemented in Civ4.
Yet, it was not cut in Civ0.V.

Why not? They have cut almost anything which was allegedly poor or weak in Civ4. So, why does warfare constitute the big exception?
Can you answer this? And when you are answering it, why has combat been changed?

 

[joyous_gard]

I liked the slide. Now I need to go to all my cities and adjust them for the focus I want. The slider was a case where CIV IV version of dumbed down was better.

 

[need my speed]

100% correct.

That was to Ischnarch.

 

[Lone Wolf]

From where all that "demanding tech in civ4 was asinine! - no, it was kewl!" debate comes from? Civ4 AI were very reluctant to part with their tech when getting beat down (and it was a good design decision).

Many points both for and against Civ4 made on these boards are plain weird.

Don't like Espionage? Disable it.

To be fair here, "disable espionage" option was clumsy because it produced a number of weird side effects.

 

[Guardian_PL]

To be fair here, "disable espionage" option was clumsy because it produced a number of weird side effects.

Really? What kind? I've never encountered any.

 

[Windsor]

All espionage points where converted to culture, so cultural victories became very easy with espionage off.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Really? What kind? I've never encountered any.

All espionage points got converted to culture; though Windsor's post is incorrect, because the culture victory threshold was changed with that option. Still, it was a gameplay change.
Spy specialists and all wonders that gave Great Spy points, after applying the option gave weird "neutral Great People" points, which gave GPP but didn't effect the chances of the next Great Person at all.

 

[r_rolo1]

All espionage points got converted to culture; though Windsor's post is incorrect, because the culture victory threshold was changed with that option. Still, it was a gameplay change.
Spy specialists and all wonders that gave Great Spy points, after applying the option gave weird "neutral Great People" points, which gave GPP but didn't effect the chances of the next Great Person at all.

You forgot the event that in 3.19 No espionage was a auto-war sentence because the other 2 options of the event were espionage related, thus blocked

 

[LDiCesare]

I miss the slider.
I now have to micromanage cities to get a global happiness resource. I think it's jusst completely backwards.