Is anyone else praying for Alpha Centauri style diplomacy?

[archmagej]

i think the AC leaders all tend to be somewhat aggrressive on the higher levels. In my current game early on the spartans demanded tribute even though i'm 2nd in power and they are last or nearly so. If you don't pay they usually declare war, even if they can't back it up

 

[Forbiddentwo]

I just don't want diplomacy to feel like I'm playing with a psycho ex Girlfriend.

 

[AriochIV]

I just don't want diplomacy to feel like I'm playing with a psycho ex Girlfriend.

Or specifically, I would prefer that not every AI leader plays like a psycho ex-girlfriend.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Or specifically, I would prefer that not every AI leader plays like a psycho ex-girlfriend.

I believe one of the problem of late game aggressiveness in BNW is ideology. AI tries to pick ones different from human player and it worsens the relations. Similar system for affinities is confirmed for CBE, so at least this part of the problem could remain.

In BNW on difficulties up to Emperor you could solve this by passing your ideology as world one very fast so civs which didn't make their choice yet have good chances to choose your ideology. I don't know if this will be possible in CBE - on one hand, the first choice comes earlier, on the other hand transmission from one affinity to another looks much more smooth than revolution in Civ5.

 

[Karmah]

I ve never found Civ5 Ai behavior to be psychotic , in fact they are quite predictable somehow. In my games , I ve always the feeling that i can 'follow' their attitude towards me and t ALWAYs seems logical , taken into account their personalities.
That being said , I ve no issue with a better diplomacy , especially in termes of options available for both AI and humans !

 

[A Bucket O Spam]

Bah, its all part of a "the big lie" diplomacy pretense,

I actually would agree with this. No nation in real life wants to acknowledge that they were responsible for causing horrible world events such as the persecution of a culture or religion, be found out for espionage in another country, or responsible for devastating wars that surged across their continent or took place overseas, especially if it involved (a) annexation of hostile territory (think Germany's annexation of Alsace-Lorraine causing France's great feud lasting into WWI), (b) creating puppet states (Vichy France, WWII), or (c) burning down cities/salting the earth type tactics (almost anywhere in history) causes resentment. While I do agree with the city "borders are too close" issue, your AI friends generally won't give a **** if you take the city that was just settled next to you unless you really had no casus belli or you are a backstabber. Likewise, if you do get the signal from an AI that you should move troops away from your borders, remember: historical context teaches us that most mass mobilizations of troops towards a border of a foreign country is cause enough for alarm as either a prelude to an offensive for war or purposely mobilizing a defensive force in forethought that someone else is threatening one's borders. In this case, if the AI is really plotting against you, notice that they will probably not ask you about your intentions, especially because the AI might perceive that (a) player knows that I will make an attack and/or also (b) the units at the border are primarily within player's own territory near my borders.

Essentially, I am not asking people to completely re-think the Civilization V AI diplomacy as intelligent, but simply as programmed according to historical conventions, knowledge and AI "personalities".

EDIT: Oh, and do I hope for SMAC-like diplomacy? Yes, of course I would! The question of whether that would be implemented, however, is now a bit more obvious. I am simply hoping that the diplomatic penalties will be altered to cater to the fact that this is something a bit more than civ in space. Just a warning: if you are in a cold war with AI, expect there to be diplomatic penalties if you steal their colony out from under them. The only case where the AI might consider this rational is if the colony is insanely close to your base, and even then it might still give you the diplomatic penalty unless it is afraid and unwilling to question your authority. They also may care if you raid their stations or steal them out from under them. Expect the same or more warmonger penalties to be added for attacking another colony without a very good reason such as "they started it!" or if you have the appropriate friends to back you up in supporting your cause. Differing affinities will also force conflicts, if only for the fact that the affinities may head to polar extremes.

 

[3of5]

I actually would agree with this. No nation in real life wants to acknowledge that they were responsible for causing horrible world events such as the persecution of a culture or religion, be found out for espionage in another country, or responsible for devastating wars that surged across their continent or took place overseas, especially if it involved (a) annexation of hostile territory (think Germany's annexation of Alsace-Lorraine causing France's great feud lasting into WWI), (b) creating puppet states (Vichy France, WWII), or (c) burning down cities/salting the earth type tactics (almost anywhere in history) causes resentment. While I do agree with the city "borders are too close" issue, your AI friends generally won't give a **** if you take the city that was just settled next to you unless you really had no casus belli or you are a backstabber. Likewise, if you do get the signal from an AI that you should move troops away from your borders, remember: historical context teaches us that most mass mobilizations of troops towards a border of a foreign country is cause enough for alarm as either a prelude to an offensive for war or purposely mobilizing a defensive force in forethought that someone else is threatening one's borders. In this case, if the AI is really plotting against you, notice that they will probably not ask you about your intentions, especially because the AI might perceive that (a) player knows that I will make an attack and/or also (b) the units at the border are primarily within player's own territory near my borders.

Essentially, I am not asking people to completely re-think the Civilization V AI diplomacy as intelligent, but simply as programmed according to historical conventions, knowledge and AI "personalities".

EDIT: Oh, and do I hope for SMAC-like diplomacy? Yes, of course I would! The question of whether that would be implemented, however, is now a bit more obvious. I am simply hoping that the diplomatic penalties will be altered to cater to the fact that this is something a bit more than civ in space. Just a warning: if you are in a cold war with AI, expect there to be diplomatic penalties if you steal their colony out from under them. The only case where the AI might consider this rational is if the colony is insanely close to your base, and even then it might still give you the diplomatic penalty unless it is afraid and unwilling to question your authority. They also may care if you raid their stations or steal them out from under them. Expect the same or more warmonger penalties to be added for attacking another colony without a very good reason such as "they started it!" or if you have the appropriate friends to back you up in supporting your cause. Differing affinities will also force conflicts, if only for the fact that the affinities may head to polar extremes.

I agree with your analysis and want to offer europa universalis IV diplomacy system as a baseline for how good diplomacy takes into account reputation hits on anexation. Its just done wonderfully, with friendly factions not bothering much, when you expand, but neutral and enemy factions forming huge coalitions against you if you anex too much with to flimsy a pretense (yes, i'm, looking at you France i played on my first playthrough).

 

[beetle]

I ve never found Civ5 Ai behavior to be psychotic , in fact they are quite predictable somehow. In my games , I ve always the feeling that i can 'follow' their attitude towards me and t ALWAYs seems logical , taken into account their personalities.

Your experience seems to be rather unusual. What level do you typically play at?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Your experience seems to be rather unusual. What level do you typically play at?

I could confirm AI is predictable enough up to Emperor. I would say AI is predictable on highest level too, but the war modifiers make them always consider player an easy prey (due to military size), so they may look psychotic.

 

[Ailure]

The main thing I'd like in a diplomacy system is a casus belli system similar to what is in the paradox games, where you need a reason for war (land dispute, idelogical differences etc) and starting wars for no or weak reasons gives you penalties. This would also make the AI come across less schizophrenic, since he would need a actual reason to declare war on you without penalty.

 

[Mustakrakish]

The main thing I'd like in a diplomacy system is a casus belli system similar to what is in the paradox games, where you need a reason for war (land dispute, idelogical differences etc) and starting wars for no or weak reasons gives you penalties. This would also make the AI come across less schizophrenic, since he would need a actual reason to declare war on you without penalty.

I'd like that.

But from what I see from the demo, diplo looks like exact clone of civ 5.

 

[Kolbeg]

One reason the computer may become/feel irrational, especially when suddenly declaring war is perhaps because it suddenly thinks about winning the game. The game feels like a repetitive Co-operation game early on, but as soon as its is becoming clearer who is actually going to win the game-theory changes fast. Not sure if that was different in SMAC or not, but the difference there was that the simple mechanic of Social Engineering and its connection to Politics made things feel like they made more sense at least.

I liked the idea about your society/Virtues/affinity affecting your diplomacy resulting in Wars being popular/unpopular. You of course dictate what you do but then you need to prepare the ground, planting false evidence and preparing your society for aggression. Virtue choices could then help you mobilize your society with propaganda or brute force. I´d like ideological differences to start to form early in the game but perhaps not in a way that you are never going to be able to come to like someone that you recognize early on that is going a different affinity/virtue route than you are going.

Ps. I´m so excited for this game. Cant wait for some further info on Virtues and its affects.

 

[beetle]

I could confirm AI is predictable enough up to Emperor. I would say AI is predictable on highest level too, but the war modifiers make them always consider player an easy prey (due to military size), so they may look psychotic.

The AI is predictably treacherous, but that is not much help. They look psychotic because a player can have all solid bright green relations, all game long, and they will still DoW you during an active DoF/RA under certain conditions. It would be okay if three or four (or five or six) AI personalities did that, but every single one of them is enslaved to this psychotic behavior. The only ones that don’t exhibit this characteristic are the ones that are the most warlike, so they don’t bother with the deceptive friendships.

 

[Kolbeg]

...And one other thing. The Planetary Council in SMAC, where the different ideological blocks fought about the rules and norms for inter-factional relations.

This happen relatively early on and its decisions had huge impact. "Peaceful/humanitarian" values began on top but based on how a few factions decided to play the game (Police state vs. Democracy) and how early power struggle this could easily change.

Also if you were on the more totalitarian side of things it could be detrimental for you to try to persuade the council to revoke the UN charter ect. So cool mechanic, I hope they include something like it in Beyond Earth!

 

[3of5]

So cool mechanic, I hope they include something like it in Beyond Earth!

i liked that too. And the basis of the system would be already there in whe world congress mechanic. Just link votes to population and you would be set. But between keeping the game optimistic (no nerve gas pods, no planet busters), no global geoengineering (no sea level rise/fall), no world religon or world ideology no diplomatic victory and no city state maybe there was not enough left for the developers to feel the mechanic warranted to be in the game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

i liked that too. And the basis of the system would be already there in whe world congress mechanic. Just link votes to population and you would be set. But between keeping the game optimistic (no nerve gas pods, no planet busters), no global geoengineering (no sea level rise/fall), no world religon or world ideology no diplomatic victory and no city state maybe there was not enough left for the developers to feel the mechanic warranted to be in the game.

Yes hopefully there will be enough "3rd party agreements" ('You' and 'I' agree to do something to 'Him/Her'..Because of X) to make it interesting

*Because of X would be good....
I don't just "denounce" you I denounce you because (you spy on me, you are a military bully, you follow supremacy, you settle in my territory, you are encouraging aliens to grow near me/ you are killing to many aliens, you refused to honor your commitments, you follow prosperity, etc.)

 

[A Bucket O Spam]

The main thing I'd like in a diplomacy system is a casus belli system similar to what is in the paradox games, where you need a reason for war (land dispute, idelogical differences etc) and starting wars for no or weak reasons gives you penalties. This would also make the AI come across less schizophrenic, since he would need a actual reason to declare war on you without penalty.

Actually, starting with the BNW dlc and content, they did have a sort of system in order. Before you declared war on someone, if you attempted to move-say-your spearmen into foreign territory without an open borders treaty, a screen will pop-up and ask if you really want to declare war on the AI, displaying all the different deals that you have with that leader as well as denunciations which can be used invisibly as justification for the war. From that screen you may have justification for being unhappy with that Civ- consider your past deals and/or disagreements, as well as their demands or even previous wars. It does you no good to randomly declare war as it will only serve to justify the warmongering penalty, but if you have asked them not to settle near your borders and they have, the AI friends (assuming that each leader knows the affairs of another) may "sympathize" and you will not receive the warmonger penalty, or at least the permanent penalty.

The AI can be a little erratic in its decision-making as well, though this is likely from the combination of their personality with previous diplomatic motivations and previous penalties. Some AI friends will never betray you, especially those that claim you as their liberator. However, the "grand strategy" section of the AI will also inevitably try to find ways to achieve victory through any means possible, and sometimes that means that you were not part of the plan. This is the main contention, but also somewhat the flaw of the AI. Historical context will only somewhat support the AI's behavior in that each leader of history has set their own goals for what they consider to be their legacy. Though I do not want to get into this example, consider Adolf Hitler's policy/idea of "lebensraum" ("living space"), where he re-annexed Austria, Czechoslovakia, and a host of other countries in the name of his goals. Where he finally was considered to have figuratively crossed the line with his goals was in the agreement to seize Western Poland, which angered Britain due to the violation of neutrality and the failure of the original "peace in our time" appeasement policy pursued by Neville Chamberlain. Consider this in Civilization terms then- Germany has expansive tendencies and annexes or demands tribute from a number of city-states (no insult to the aforementioned countries implied). This elicits warmonger penalties from Britain, but not enough that Britain is willing to go to war. However, two situations occur: (a) a defensive pact/declaration of friendship is signed between Britain and Poland shortly before the attacks, and Russia is ignored because of fear of reprisal, and (b) Poland asks for Britain's help in the war against Germany and Britain agrees due to its vested interest in keeping Germany at bay. This is further bolstered when Germany also declares war on France and essentially leaves behind only several puppet states in its wake. America signs a declaration of friendship with Britain, and then begins trading with them using cargo ships. Again, two possible situations: (a) -trade convoy is attacked, America declares violation of American neutrality, war declared or (b)- Britain asks America to declare war, America asks for 10 turns. And this proceeds, etc. etc. My point is to assume that, while no AI likely has goals as specific as these, assume at least that the expansive tendencies of certain AI will throw them into rather erratic conflicts with those who want to or that the AI thinks will contain them.

Pardon the wall of text, je suis desole

 

[3of5]

America asks for 10 turns

lol'ed hard,

 

[beetle]

I had forgotten about revoking the UN Charter. I would like to see that added to Civ5 actually.

 

[3of5]

I had forgotten about revoking the UN Charter. I would like to see that added to Civ5 actually.

you can already raze citys almost with impunity. And the other part is the nonproliferation treaty. There is no ufficial ban on the use of nuclear weapons in our time (scary when you think of that, and then think of Ghandi).

It was only small consolation though seeing everyone turning on Chairman Yang after he obliterated my capital sitting deep in my territory with all the science boost wonders in it with a fracking planet buster he had built in not more than 12 turns in a landlocked city.