I'm so Glad the Slide is Gone

[Lone Wolf]

Where did you get this stuff? Surely not from Civ4? All too often AI was DoWing at Cautious/Annoyed/Pleased...
I honestly don't know where all civ5 fans are getting this idea of AI's behaviour/diplomacy in Civ4 from - it has nothing to do with the truth! Like they never played to win, not attacked the player when they could, and diplomacy was stale and predictable - that's just nonsense

To be fair, someone who delved into XML files knew what AI's attack at Pleased and what don't (complicated by some factors). Random Personalities dealt with this problem, more or less, dunno why so many people who disliked the predictable AI never tried it.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

I'm unclear about why people hated the slider. Was it the actual mechanic of the slider, or did they dislike being able to alter their budget allocations? If it was the latter, one could simply set the allocation at the beginning of the game and leave it, you weren't forced to take advantage of the flexibility.

 

[lschnarch]

It isn't going to prove your point because it's anecdotal evidence. You can't cherry pick examples. I could find specific examples when Civ5 diplomacy works very well, when Civ4 diplomacy works very well, and when Civ4 diplomacy is complete rubbish.

The examples which I gave are not "anecdotal examples" as anybody can prove it by himself.

Wait for the next time when an AI asks you not to settle close to its borders.
Then come back and tell me what this means:

• Is it only related to founding new cities?
• Does it include extension of your borders by culture?
• Within what range (in hexes) aren't you allowed to settle by the terms of that treaty?
• Does that only include the current area, or does the treaty include any other areas on the map as well?
• Does an agreement in this matter in 3000 BC stand valid 1500 AD, still?
• Constitutes the settling of the AI next to YOUR borders a violation of said treaty?
• Is the AI (A) then considered a double-dealer by other AIs (B, C, D, ...)?

If you're playing a board game with friends and can't predict the outcome of another player (because human beings are free agents with free will), does that mean the game can't have any diplomacy? This is not entirely the best way to put it. You can still predict their response to some extent, but there is nothing stopping another player in a board game of doing something completely unexpected, especially in context of how they should be reacting given their past negotiations with you.

To this I agree and this is exactly why the attempt to mimic "human" players fails so bitterly.

• With humans you typically always will have some kind of feedback. You see their facial expressions change, you can see (and interprete) their body language, you hear the tone of their voice change and after all, you LEARN a bit about how their reactions in total are changing due to your actions.
• "Players". Humans in a game act very differently from how they would act in real life, since after all it is just a game.
  Some are just backstabbing you for the fun of seeing the surprise and anger on your face, although such things they wouldn't do in a real life situation.
  To do so in a game comes at no costs. To do so in a real life situation can spoil relationships for a lifetime.

I have to admit that I cannot interprete Monte's body language nor his tone when he is dancing in front of these fires. Bismarck is completely opaque as well, although in general I understand his words. But not his tone.
And so on.

You don't know what impact it has? Use your imagination a bit.

No, I don't know which impact which answer has. All I can IMAGINE is that the more polite answer MIGHT extend the time until they declare war on me.

Have you played the game with the latest patch? Those are now listed in the political overview.Argument by intimidation: state something is obvious, despite not having proof.

I am referring to these items here:
a) deal history


b) global policies


I agree and stand corrected, the cooperation pact is displayed.
This makes it an UI problem, because now I have to check to screens to get the information.
Still, I don't have any chance to retrieve such information when being in "diplomatic negotiations" (especially not if dealing about a third nation). I have to have an external overview at hand (or to keep my games from the last two weeks with all their different aspects in memory). Once again, an UI issue.

Again, let's wait til the AI code gets released and we can have a look at this stuff. You think it will not factor into AI decision making at all?

I don't have any clue what factors into AI's decisions. I don't have any clue to which degree certain actions of mine factor.
And I am pretty sure you don't know either at the current moment.

What I know is that I have been confronted with all kind of remarks:

• Your military is weak, so I declare war on you
• Your military is strong, so I declare war on you
• You have settled next to my borders, so I declare war on you (after I have settled)
• You have settlede next to my borders, so I declare war on you (after THEY have settled)
• You are so puny, so I declare war on you
• You are so big, so I declare war on you

End of story: "Whatever you've done, I declare war on you"
Well, that's a funny, interesting and compelling diplomacy, offering me so many options to influence the other nations, isn't it?

Then we have other things like me asking say Suleiman to war with me against say Monte, which he declines. So far, so good.
The very next turn Suleiman declares war on Monte. Hm hm... sounds like a very logical and comprehensable way of acting, doesn't it?
The same it is when meeting another leader for the first time. Ever tried to form a pact of cooperation with him? Doesn't work THAT turn, yet the very next turn he may show up and offer what? A pact of cooperation!

What kind of "diplomacy" is this?

No, that just suggests a poor UI or lack of easily viewable information about your diplomatic interactions. It doesn't prove they have no impact.

Once again: if I as the human player am not supported by feedback there isn't any difference to random choices. Behind those there would be impact as well, but still I don't know it.

It looks like you're basically suggesting that if a variable or factor is not present in the UI, then it can not possibly be considered by the AI in its decision making. Let me ask, are there any parts of your decision making that would not be obvious to the AIs? Does that mean that the AIs would be fair to claim (if they had a true voice) that diplomacy with you was meaningless, because you weren't telling them everything about how you made those decisions?

Do either of us know if our actions are really taken into consideration by the AI?
As you said in your previoius posting, we might know after checking with the coding. At the moment, we are left in the dark and wondering what is going on.

What about the occasional scout claiming your troops at the other end of your empire to be a thread to them?
Does this have an impact on their decisions (apart from being so ridiculous)?

Just because diplomacy involves more guesswork, doesn't mean that diplomacy is non-existent.

Once again: yes, it does mean exactly this.
There may be an impact of my actions, but I don't have any chance to identify that impact, thus rendering my actions as meaningless as random choices.
Diplomacy is not about random choices. It is about "I give you this, you give me that" with the chance to evaluate both parties' actions.

Ok, now I think we have revealed what your argument really is. You want feedback, and I do too. I think good feedback is just good game design. Games at their most basic level are about rewarding a player (via feedback) for the actions they take and the decisions they make. In civ5 diplomacy does not provide much tangible feedback from diplomatic interactions, and the ties between action and effect are too delayed or too mysterious to feel meaningful to the player. As a result, the system feels frustrating and the player is likely to simply not bother with considering diplomatic consequences because other aspects of the game do provide more tangible feedback and are more enjoyable to play.

Exactly.
Diplomacy is ALL ABOUT getting feedback.
I don't mind to have frauds in the game. I don't mind being backstabbed from time to time (and preferrably not by all leaders in almost the same way).

What I do MIND is having no clue what is going on, not getting feedback. This renders "diplomacy" obsolete as I don't have any meaningful way to learn about the impact of my actions.
At the current state I could as well throw a coin.

EDIT
Perhaps something that would help the discussion here, is if you could state explicitly in no uncertain times what it is you would change about diplomacy in civ5. In other words, don't just say "make it more transparent". Things like, you want to see the + or - modifiers with reasons for each leader you have diplomatic interactions with.

The very least which I would expect is to have my "advisor" pop up and telling me: "Sir, we have an agreement not to settle next to the [insert name]. If you proceed, it may make them angry with us, thus making deals more unlikely or even leading to a declaration of war [based on an "estimation" of the current relationships]"

This would be some kind of indirect feedback allowing me to consider my planned actions.
Furthermore, I would like to see some modificators for such settling in case of grabbing important resources by doing so.
For instance, if I would have agreed not to settle next to Ramses, but by doing so I grab the first iron resource (while he already would have say 5 iron) then he should show up with a message like "We have observed you breaking our no-settlement agreement to get vital resources. Although we respect that, the violation of our agreement makes us concerned about your trustworthiness"

Napoleon under the same conditions might come up with the message "The Grand Nation consideres your action of settling next to our borders a violation of our agreements. We therefore consider all current agreements obsolete"
... and so on.

Do you want AIs to be one dimensional in the sense that all interactions either cause a + or - effect on the AI's 'state'. Humans don't work this way of course. They might consider other players to be more or less trustworthy, or cunning vs. foolish, or aggressive vs. friendly, or generous vs. greedy. Would it be OK if diplo interactions affected all sorts of different dimensions of an AI's opinion, or must they all effect just one universal (and unrealistic) number, all modifiers adding and subtracting to the same thing (which is essentially what civ4 boiled down to)?

As I tried to explain already (and I stay with the settling), such an action by me should have some impact to any other leader.
The way in which they react according to this action should be considered differently based on the "individual" nature of the leader, our current diplomatic relationship, whether I am blocking him or whether he's still got much space to expand, whether I take a vital resource which he hasn't got yet and so on.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Ok.

Your view is that there is no diplomacy in civ5. My view is that there is. Whether you or I like the way it is implemented I don't particularly care to argue.

You seem to have picked a non-standard meaning for diplomacy, which makes it hard to argue about the same thing.

 

[r_rolo1]

To be honest , both are using non-standart definitions of diplomacy

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture, environment and human rights. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner

Using this definition there is no diplomacy in any of the civ games ( no treaties negotiated by diplomats ), but if you pick the informal version ... I have to agree with lschnarch partly , there is no discernible ( not meaning that it isn't there ) AI diplomacy at parts of the game, since the AI actions don't seem to be geared towards either to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge

 

[Öjevind Lång]

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

The term "Civ0.V" has apparently been coined as a derogatory name by those who simply have decided that they hate Civ V. Let me respectfully suggest that since this is so, you'd be happier posting about how cool Civ IV is in the proper forum, which is the one for Civ IV. Not to mention that there are some here who get fed up with your incessant, inconstructive whining.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Removal of the slider is one of the best features of Civ5. Why was it in Civ4? Wait, why was it in Civ3?!

Probably because it's been around since Civ I, and no designer ever before thought of what a rather tacky, simplistic mechanism it is.

Let me add a general plea, one directed to everybody. Would you please refrain from flamebait such as writing "Civ.0.V" or writing about Jon Shafer as if he should be hanged, drawn and quartered? I think he's done a good job, and that Civ V is no worse than Civ IV when first published. It's just different from Civ IV, not inferior. Of course, basically it all comes down to what one prefers.

 

[Lone Wolf]

No! Shafer Consolization Dumbed Down 0.0V needs to get exactly what it deserves!

 

[DavidPBacon]

Well, my view is that sliders are not in the game but somewhat their effects(or mechanism) are. You just have to do much more work to adjust how the resources of your economy are distributed. Sliders make it easier and in a way that makes sense. You have access to the resources of your economy and may distribute them at will. This how it works in real life, but it's just more complex in RL. The history of economy is full of examples of change of distribution and economy policy.
In Civ you just have a simplification of the way you research stuff, but IMO is just a case of gameplay>realism, cause for the majority of players (not me, I like more details and Micro) having the way it is real life, that is, with no direct control of the research pace and direction would be boring and tedious. In that simplification, you can allocate resources to speed up your research in both versions. In Civ IV you adjust a slider. In Civ V you adjust city focus. I prefer Civ IV way cause it gives you control and it means less tedious work. To say one is realistic and the other is not is pointless, cause both are unrealistic.

 

[El Caballerion]

I never found the slider compelling, since just setting it to the max science your empire could support was pretty much always correct. Might as well have automated it.

Agreed. Sliders were kinda pointless.

 

[Roxlimn]

PieceOfMind:

To be fair, it seems to me that all the players who complain about the Diplomacy AI actually have a feel for what's triggering the responses - they just don't like it. For instance, it's quite obvious to me that having borders adjacent to AIs makes them more likely to be hostile, regardless of who they are. The solution is to not expand, if you want the AIs to be friendlier. In fact, people who play 1 city challenges have occasions where the game is too boring because the AI won't declare war, even when the player is on the verge of imminent victory.

Players know that having a much smaller army count predisposes the AI (and therefore all Deity and Immortals AIs by dint of their huge armies) to attack you. But they insist on having small armies with big promotions or tech advantages. And then they get mad when the AIs get aggressive. They know, but they don't like it.

It is possible to have interesting diplomacy with the AIs, but not when you're a bloodthristy Civ out to conquer the world, or a small civ on AI borders which it perceives as weak and/or useless.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

So Rox you are stating tha expansion, building and pacifism are rotten in this game and drive the Ai to attack you.

By the way Mongolian Empire is cool and powerful, i took over my continent on Immortal level just with four horseman and a khan! It looks loke the real Golden Horde!

 

[Roxlimn]

JLoZeppeli:

Not directly. I'm saying that something that Immortal and Deity players are doing, or something in the settings, is predisposing the AIs to be more hostile than it should be. The AI doesn't declare war all the time, when I play, so it's not inherent to the AI coding.

 

[Eskel]

I liked visible diplomacy modifiers in Civ4. I could go however with hidden diplo stats, but under one condition.
There should be a possibility of gaining information on diplomatic attitudes in descriptive form. In RL, when you have a problem with somebody or want to make a deal/improve relations, you can ask what irks your partner.
Diplomacy is full of subtle messages, that allow you to make reasonable claims and offers.
Full info probably kills the immersity. But ripping it completely off - kills strategy, and then immersity as well. So far, I choose the lesser of two evils (for me), and prefer full info.

Additionaly, I'd like to see making more deals possible.
I dont like pact of cooperations, city-state bribes or research pacts as they are handled in Civ5. That said, I have to admit I didn't like tech trading or tech conquering in Civ1-4.
All above are too much artificial for me.
I loved research pact and commercial unions that gave temporal bonuses to both sides in SMAC. Always wanted them included in Civ series. I like slow building of relations. Long period of peace, trade agreement, open borders, research pact - relation improve. This should apply also to City-States: long time peace, cooperation, joint war effort should be factors that will grant positive influence.
If devs want to make Civ great game still, they should create AI that will behave more human way. Ah, and before somebody will say he has enough backstabbing in MP - diplomatic info should also include opinions of former behaviour of particular AI, making untrustworthy civs more and more isolated over time, what should be appropriate penalty.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I don't need to see modifier, bu i will be pleased with a diplomatic use of the old beautiful embassy (a real blast from the past). Please give me embassy again to have some information on the quality of the reletionship, not numeric, but at least with some hint to make diplomacy worth of it... Now not only i can't understand at all the AI, but my relationship with them are too plain and silly, and with little poor management of the Ai desires and personalities (too similar, i quite don't see difference at all between Caterina or Nobunaga...).

 

[Roxlimn]

JLoZeppeli:

I don't know how it is with your game, but in my games, I can always tell when the AI is friendly or not - it has to do with the greeting statements and the animations. The AIs also make a habit of telling you what's pissing them off. They tell me when they think my army is weak. I buff my army. Relations improve.

It's hard to do anything about border tensions, but getting into RAs and luxury trades tends to soften that a good deal, especially when you can point to a third Civ that's a bigger boogeyman. If you're the biggest Civ on the block, well then, there's just no helping that - you're going to make everyone nervous.

Caterina tends to like luxury deals. I notice she softens a bit faster when we're trading in luxuries, though that might be just my perception. She's a little untrustworthy, though, compared to Ramkhanhaeng and Gandhi. Nobunaga seems to like Pacts and things. Haven't been in enough games with him to get a bead on his personality.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

JLoZeppeli:

I don't know how it is with your game, but in my games, I can always tell when the AI is friendly or not - it has to do with the greeting statements and the animations. The AIs also make a habit of telling you what's pissing them off. They tell me when they think my army is weak. I buff my army. Relations improve.

It's hard to do anything about border tensions, but getting into RAs and luxury trades tends to soften that a good deal, especially when you can point to a third Civ that's a bigger boogeyman. If you're the biggest Civ on the block, well then, there's just no helping that - you're going to make everyone nervous.

Caterina tends to like luxury deals. I notice she softens a bit faster when we're trading in luxuries, though that might be just my perception. She's a little untrustworthy, though, compared to Ramkhanhaeng and Gandhi. Nobunaga seems to like Pacts and things. Haven't been in enough games with him to get a bead on his personality.

My impression from the games where I met him is that Oda Nobunaga is very honourable. As long as you play straight with him and do trade and research deals he won't attack you - unless your army is completely pathetic.

OTOH, I hate George Washington. What a sanctimonious git. I always cheer when some other civ takes him out.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

JLoZeppeli:

I don't know how it is with your game, but in my games, I can always tell when the AI is friendly or not - it has to do with the greeting statements and the animations. The AIs also make a habit of telling you what's pissing them off. They tell me when they think my army is weak. I buff my army. Relations improve.

It's hard to do anything about border tensions, but getting into RAs and luxury trades tends to soften that a good deal, especially when you can point to a third Civ that's a bigger boogeyman. If you're the biggest Civ on the block, well then, there's just no helping that - you're going to make everyone nervous.

Caterina tends to like luxury deals. I notice she softens a bit faster when we're trading in luxuries, though that might be just my perception. She's a little untrustworthy, though, compared to Ramkhanhaeng and Gandhi. Nobunaga seems to like Pacts and things. Haven't been in enough games with him to get a bead on his personality.

Caterina out of blue asked me gift when we barely meet each other (silver that i had 1)... The next turn she declares war.... And at the same time Ghandi after the first meeting, like he was a Caterine follower... Obviuosly, on Immortal level, i crushed them all (it was early and was using Alexander...), then all the other civs, and so the losers, call me bloodthirsty... And i'm not speaking of when someone asks me to put my butt in a war togheter and after that they speak to me as an enemy....Or when i freed France from Shongai, and then they made a pact of reserch with their former oppressors and after 25 turns declared togheter war on me....

If you can call it diplomacy, we can have some madmen as foreign ministers in the real world, ehi they can be very diplomatic!

 

[Roxlimn]

JLoZeppeli:

As I mentioned, I think the inflated army sizes (among other things) of the AI at Immortal is causing the diplomatic AI to behave in unforeseen ways. Immortal, after all, is kind of a niche difficulty level. Most players don't play Immortal, so I imagine that the game wasn't too well tested there.

Catherine likes gifts and luxuries and trades. As long as you give them to her, she's happy and friendly. She doesn't like it when you don't give in to her requests. I think the diplomacy at Immortal would make a lot more sense to Immortal players if all the AIs had a +1000% military unit bonus.

 

[Ricci]

Talk about an exploit and a dumbing down! "Are the crowds unhappy? Just move the culture slide upwards a bit!" "Is science lagging? Just live on a deficit for a time!" Now you actually have to check what is happening in your cities and with your trade. I know that the slide has been around since ur-Civ, and I think taking it out was long overdue.

Lång, what do you mean the slide is gone?