I have been playing Civ 4 alot so that I can get a lil bit more prepared for Civ 5. Ive noticed how the AI dosent co-operate well. I have invaded countries and cut them off (political boundary wise) from a city and they still want to keep the city! The AI dosent pay attention to the boundaries of their country and are super stuborn about cities. What would you all like to see change about diplomacy and the AI? And what do you all know about the new diplomacy system?
Improved Diplomacy
- Thread starter D712
- Start date
Eklabiaan
Chieftain
I have been missing the following options in diplomacy:
- Exchange of information
Example: if an army from A is marching through or near my empire to attack B, and I am friendly with B (no ally/vassal situation) I want to warn B in exchange for an improved attitude.
Other possibility is geographical knowledge: location of resources, continents. (more detailed than a blunt worldmap exchange),
Or attitude of leaders I know but others have not yet met (create a middlemen position)
- Coordination of attack
Real coordination, not just telling him/her to attack city X. To tell a vassal to attack a city is mostly dissapointing as they cowardly stroll around the target.
I mean unity of command or real commitment from your ally AI. Hopefully this new layered diplomacy algorithm is capable of this behaviour.
I hope they removed armies marching through neutral lands all together, and with 1upt, I can't really see how they can keep it in. Imagine if Napoleon is marching through your lands to attack Elizabeth and Alexander declares war on you. You can't move your units around because Napoleon's are in the way. Or Napoleon's units magically teleport out. Now if it would only be possible to move military units into someone else's territory when you have a defensive pact (available with Chivalry probably), and not just open borders, that would be a lot better, because Napoleon's units would have to help you defend against Alexander (they might still be in the way though).
smackthewise
Prince
The Better AI mod for Civ 4 improves this largely, I often see the AI conquering as good as any human player. I've used vassal 'attack city X' to good effect since using Better AI. hopefully the ciV incorporates all the improvements.
Tylerryan79
Emperor
I would love for open borders to only allow trade, and units such as great people, scouts(if they are in still) passage through your land. Then if you want to move troops through someones land you must ask before doing so, and possibly have to pay them some sort of compensation in return, such as gold or a resource for x amount of turns. If you are strong allies or fighting against another civ together then there would be no compensation asked/needed. If they deny you passage you must either go around, or declare war. This would all help out with crowded land, give you a pause before war (do I really want to give civ x 10 gpt to cross their land just to attack civ y), and Imo it will add substance to diplomacy.
Units have 2 movement points min. and can move throug occupied tiles...that should solve the problem partially
.Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
umm you really think a country wouldnt want thier city back you stole from them? It's not like you bought it in a fair trade, you killed thier people and took it from em, of course thier gonna harbour resentment and desire thier city back.
Not only that, but I suspect there's some misunderstanding of how culture works. Those cities that have been captured probably still have a huge deal of the victim's culture around them and it only lies dormant because the tiles are no longer within the culture radius of any of its cities. In other words, to own a tile you have to have the greatest share of culture on it AND it be inside the radius (which can be more than 2 tiles!) of one of your cities.
The victim has good reason to want their city back. If they got it back, most of their culture would still remain.
The victim has good reason to want their city back. If they got it back, most of their culture would still remain.
I think he is trying to say that mostly you can't trade a city for a peace offer even if you're winning the war & the city is surrounded by your borders.
Just what barbi said. I know they would be mad, but the AI cant tell when they are loosing until they are down to their last city. Its stupid for them not to realize "wow, my people are being killed by this amazing conquerer. we should settle for peace at a reasonable cost." instead of in civ4 which was "this leader has killed thousands of my people, taken 5 of my 7 cities, and has more tons of troops coming. THEY WILL NEVER DESTROY US!!!" and keep the war going till thousands of more people die. Does that make more sense than just handing over a city to save thousands of lives? Nope.
Hey ! I am not a Barbi (doll). I am Babri.
Yeah ! In reality while fighting a war you had actually 2 options in diplomacy. Either you vassalize the enemy which needed you to conquer more than half of your enemy most of the time. The second option was to ask him for some techs & gold that was rare when fighting inferior civs. In Civ V it might be better as now you can ask for relatively larger amount of gold which would be useful.
Hey ! I am not a Barbi (doll). I am Babri.
Yeah ! In reality while fighting a war you had actually 2 options in diplomacy. Either you vassalize the enemy which needed you to conquer more than half of your enemy most of the time. The second option was to ask him for some techs & gold that was rare when fighting inferior civs. In Civ V it might be better as now you can ask for relatively larger amount of gold which would be useful.
Haha sorry Babri. And I agree, there should be a system within the AI where they can see when they are loosing and can consider what they should accept as a peace offer. Gold should be offered in higher amounts considering how important gold is in Civ5.
Units have 2 movement points min. and can move throug occupied tiles...that should solve the problem partially
I'm not so sure. If there are 6 units (which sounds like a decent sized army, but nothing major) or so together, you can't move through them to an unoccupied tile with a 2-move unit. It also depends on how roads work, something we don't know yet.
The civ4 system is broken, however I think I could also help shed some light on things, just to help you out.
Firstly, opinion wise, I agree this needed to be fixed and mechanics like vassalization were ridiculous or poorly implemented in various ways.
In civ4, the AI considers things that are mathematically not obvious at all when determining when to make peace. They consider war success (number of units lost/killed) and relative strength on power charts.
The problem is, these ratios can both get extremely skewed and have little to do with the number of units/army size of either party in a war.
If lots of weak or suicidal units are lost, even if you still vastly outnumber the AI, they will consider it as having great success, making them less likely to give in. So if you have 15 axemen, and 7 die but then 4 kill the defenders and take the city, the AI will actually think it came out ahead, for having killed more units - something a human would not think.
As for power, the power rating units does not relate strongly enough to army size and perhaps some factors like remaining cities/population. In particular, the passive effect of technology can skew things horribly. If both civilizations are at roughly the same tech level, you will have exactly the same "power" in technology. Then, even if you have 3x the military of the AI, it will be like:
tech/other factor on power +1 military <VS> tech/other factor on power +3 military
So the AI doesn't actually realize you have 3x the military, because you don't have three times the "power."
Again, this all can and should be fixable in civ5. They also said though they are trying to introduce more limited wars and new reasons for AI wars, like taking a certain city/resource, we'll see how that works out.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
Some of my problem with the diplomacy system for single player, has to do their design goal of challenging the player. The AI is there to challenge the player.
But there is also a sometimes contrasting goal.
The AI is also there to create the illusion that you playing a game against other people, and/or that you playing one ruler among many similar rulers in the world. I think they have concentrated on the first goal a little too much at the cost of the second goal.
Different people have different tastes. I am just stating mine without implying that it is better than someone else's.
Some proposed changes:
1. Multiply the attitude scale by for example 10. (What is -5 now would be -50 on the new scale.) This would leave room for many smaller impacts on diplomatic status. There still might be some -40 (on the new scale), but there could also be lots -3s and +2s. Certain effects can build up or wear off more gradually. Attitudes should be on a closer to continuous scale.
(Should involve no more work for the player.)
2. Get rid of nonsense that ruins my suspension of disbelief.
(You traded with my worst enemy, before we were even in contact. I am -1 with my "Worst enemy." Since you traded with him, I am -4 with you, and you are now my worst enemy.)
There are players, rulers, or countries who act that way, but they are a distinct minority. In contrast this is typical for CIV IV AI.
(I can see that you were just attacked by two of your neighbors and are involved in a tough war. Since I already dislike you, I refuse to trade with you, I have never helped or cooperated with you, you are in no position to help me, and I am making peace in a turn anyway, I will ask you to help me in my war. When you refuse, -2 to you!)
3. More symmetry. If the AI makes annoying requests of me it should make it of other AIs as well. (I refuse to trade away any of my techs, so why don't you please give me one of yours.) (I know there will no tech trading in CIV V.) The constant requests from the AI are so annoying that I usually just ignore them. Yes I know this decreases ones chance of "winning". So be it. I can not be bothered to "pat my head and rub my tummy," just to satisfy a computer program. Think of it as a self-imposed handicap.
But there is also a sometimes contrasting goal.
The AI is also there to create the illusion that you playing a game against other people, and/or that you playing one ruler among many similar rulers in the world. I think they have concentrated on the first goal a little too much at the cost of the second goal.
Different people have different tastes. I am just stating mine without implying that it is better than someone else's.
Some proposed changes:
1. Multiply the attitude scale by for example 10. (What is -5 now would be -50 on the new scale.) This would leave room for many smaller impacts on diplomatic status. There still might be some -40 (on the new scale), but there could also be lots -3s and +2s. Certain effects can build up or wear off more gradually. Attitudes should be on a closer to continuous scale.
(Should involve no more work for the player.)
2. Get rid of nonsense that ruins my suspension of disbelief.
(You traded with my worst enemy, before we were even in contact. I am -1 with my "Worst enemy." Since you traded with him, I am -4 with you, and you are now my worst enemy.)
There are players, rulers, or countries who act that way, but they are a distinct minority. In contrast this is typical for CIV IV AI.
(I can see that you were just attacked by two of your neighbors and are involved in a tough war. Since I already dislike you, I refuse to trade with you, I have never helped or cooperated with you, you are in no position to help me, and I am making peace in a turn anyway, I will ask you to help me in my war. When you refuse, -2 to you!)
3. More symmetry. If the AI makes annoying requests of me it should make it of other AIs as well. (I refuse to trade away any of my techs, so why don't you please give me one of yours.) (I know there will no tech trading in CIV V.) The constant requests from the AI are so annoying that I usually just ignore them. Yes I know this decreases ones chance of "winning". So be it. I can not be bothered to "pat my head and rub my tummy," just to satisfy a computer program. Think of it as a self-imposed handicap.
Geek113377
Human (Usually)
when you ask someone to declare war through diplomacy, i want them to actually kill the enemy, not just take ur gold and techs and then sit around until ten turns are up and make peace.
Namaspamus
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2010
- Messages
- 206
Agree about the exchange of informations (moving armies), also sharing only a part of the map.
About coordination there could be something like "secret pacts": "we both will declare war on this civ in 10 turns". And of course at war.
Agree with the "red lines" too, across wich the other civ couldn't found cities. This could be one of the of conditions you put to end a war with an expanding neighbour.
Another problem in Civ IV is that the AI civs don't weight how actively you defend them during a war. Either you just declare war on their enemies then stay at home or send troops on their ground fight like dogs to defend their cities, it's the same.
It's said there will be "puppets governments" (for conquered city-states if i remember or maybe replacing vassal civs). But each time we conquer a city, we could have the possibility to make it a sort of province. So we wouldn't have to pay the over-expansion penalties. This province would pay gold every turn but you would not control production. We would fix the level of the tribute but a high level would increase revolts and a low one make easier their full integration when the day has come you want to expand again.
Also if we could form large alliances including 3 civs or more.
About coordination there could be something like "secret pacts": "we both will declare war on this civ in 10 turns". And of course at war.
Agree with the "red lines" too, across wich the other civ couldn't found cities. This could be one of the of conditions you put to end a war with an expanding neighbour.
Another problem in Civ IV is that the AI civs don't weight how actively you defend them during a war. Either you just declare war on their enemies then stay at home or send troops on their ground fight like dogs to defend their cities, it's the same.
It's said there will be "puppets governments" (for conquered city-states if i remember or maybe replacing vassal civs). But each time we conquer a city, we could have the possibility to make it a sort of province. So we wouldn't have to pay the over-expansion penalties. This province would pay gold every turn but you would not control production. We would fix the level of the tribute but a high level would increase revolts and a low one make easier their full integration when the day has come you want to expand again.
Also if we could form large alliances including 3 civs or more.
paradigmx
Say yes to Steam
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 205
I hope they completely get rid of the "redded out" options during diplomacy. I'm a firm believer that everyone has their price and IMO, if I have 4000 gold and a stack of units I'm willing to trade for a city in a deal where I'm really getting the short end, then I should be able to make that offer instead of seeing the text as red and the hover text as "we just don't like you enough" or something.
Sure, make some things very high priorities for the AI(and thus extremely expensive, prohibitively expensive in some cases), but don't make it completely impossible to even attempt the offer, especially if the city is in a position where it doesn't help the AI Civ in any way.
Sure, make some things very high priorities for the AI(and thus extremely expensive, prohibitively expensive in some cases), but don't make it completely impossible to even attempt the offer, especially if the city is in a position where it doesn't help the AI Civ in any way.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
As with all such complicated subjects, there are many ways to divide it up.
The way you mention is one way. There are others.
Some realworld leaders are more trustworthy than others.
In the game, we would expect a leader named Gandhi to be much more trustworthy than a leader named Hitler.
Players have a right to build such expectations into their play.
(We are not saying Gandhi never attacks you and Hitler always does.)
CIV leaders already have a range of personalities and therefore sometimes act differently than each other in the exact same situation.
When I was younger I played a lot of the classic game Diplomacy.
Some players are more trustworthy than others.
All good players realized that backstabbing at every opportunity was not an optimal strategy.
All good players realized the importance of cooperation.
All good players realized that one should be less likely to attack someone who is and has been friendly towards you.
So if we were trying to simulate a good, mature player of Diplomacy, it would not be that much different than the current AI. (However, the player would be more clever, harder to trick, etc.)
1. Cooperate with some others.
2. Based on personality get a reputation for being either somewhat trustworthy or very trustworthy.
3. When and if you betray someone, make sure it is worth a lot.
4. Be less likely to attack those to whom you have a good attitude and more likely to attack those you dislike. More importantly, be less likely to attack those who like you and more likely to attack those who dislike you.
The way you mention is one way. There are others.
Some realworld leaders are more trustworthy than others.
In the game, we would expect a leader named Gandhi to be much more trustworthy than a leader named Hitler.
Players have a right to build such expectations into their play.
(We are not saying Gandhi never attacks you and Hitler always does.)
CIV leaders already have a range of personalities and therefore sometimes act differently than each other in the exact same situation.
When I was younger I played a lot of the classic game Diplomacy.
Some players are more trustworthy than others.
All good players realized that backstabbing at every opportunity was not an optimal strategy.
All good players realized the importance of cooperation.
All good players realized that one should be less likely to attack someone who is and has been friendly towards you.
So if we were trying to simulate a good, mature player of Diplomacy, it would not be that much different than the current AI. (However, the player would be more clever, harder to trick, etc.)
1. Cooperate with some others.
2. Based on personality get a reputation for being either somewhat trustworthy or very trustworthy.
3. When and if you betray someone, make sure it is worth a lot.
4. Be less likely to attack those to whom you have a good attitude and more likely to attack those you dislike. More importantly, be less likely to attack those who like you and more likely to attack those who dislike you.
