1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is the diplomatic AI more clever than we get to see, or not?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Baleur, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    This reveals an important point that is rarely discussed in the conversations about the failings of the AI. In light of the 'boardgame' design, where civs are rivals in a game competing to win, I think there is much more emphasis in this game than there was in civ4 on 'taking care' of the guy at the top of the scoreboard. It's like a jealousy factor.

    If you're small and weak, it's easy for bigger neighbours to pick on you and take your cities. If on the other hand, you're leading in score, the other AIs want to slow you down. It's possible to find a place somewhere in the middle, but it requires a particular playstyle and I think a lot of people who are severely disappointed with the AI and can't see any rationale to any of its decisions are not playing in that middle playstyle.
     
  2. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody King

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    934
    To win what? A game? They shouldn't know, or act like, they're playing a game.
     
  3. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody King

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    934
    In Civ IV? Doubtful. The only AI that will declare on you at Friendly is Catherine, & even then she has to be bribed into it.
     
  4. C~G

    C~G Untouchable

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,146
    To call it "diplomatic AI" is as much as of insult towards the term "diplomacy" as it is in case of the term "AI".

    I must admit that the AI has never been great in Civ series though but with version V we have found absolute new low.
     
  5. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    This is not viable in the real world.
     
  6. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    Just :goodjob:

    Some superb posts in this thread, but this sums up best why many dislike this game. The Civ series always did a fair job at a loose simulation of human history. Trade and Diplomacy are probably the two biggest influences on human development. Both have been for all intents and purposes removed from this game. Civ A will dow on Civ B on a whim, and absolutely noone will care, hence by definition no diplomacy. Nations don't act in this way, because you need friends and allies to trade with. Trade has almost always been hugely underepresented in the Civ series, now the vague illusion of it mattering at all has been removed too.

    But that doesn't matter, its called streamlining. No this isn't a CIV game in any way shape or form, it's just a game undeserving of the CIV moniker. Not to name call here, but I wonder if the designers were actually mature enough to grasp the concepts of what actually makes a CIV game a CIV game.

    I vote Ohio to start concept designing the real succesor to Civ IV right now! :)
     
  7. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    Well, it certainly helps. Anyway, I was discussing a computer game here, not the real world.

    Bledsoe, the AI does not DOW on you on a whim. You don't seem to realize that there are things make the AI civs annoyed at you or feel that you have to be stopped. One should learn what those things are, and avoid doing them unless one wants to provoke a war.
     
  8. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    Why?
    It will finally happen anyway, just because the AI sends a scout or a ship to the other edge of the world, where some troops of mine happen to spend their vacations.
    "You're amassing troops at my borders. This is much worse than our 3500 years of good relationships. I will be terminated by you. Let's go for war!"

    Much fun, really.
     
  9. mihaifx

    mihaifx Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    Romania
    Ok, so it's a minor bug. If you can't deal with it, there are other games on the market, it's not like Civ is the last game on the planet, or the most bugged one.
     
  10. Calouste

    Calouste Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,725
    I don't know what history you have been looking at, but nations do declare war on a whim. Until the early 19th century, peace hardly ever lasted more than a decade and wars could last far longer than that. International trade in that time was also often accompanied by conquest and wars with rivals, see the history of the Dutch East India Company for example.
     
  11. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    Why is that good game design?
     
  12. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Using the VOC as a example is surely a bout of irony or sarcasm, given that the VOC was not even a country, even more a civ ;)

    Ok, nations sometimes declare war on a whim sometimes ( even on the XX century where Iceland and UK had 3 wars because of cod fish :p ), but that is not the standart way things go in any time of history. Wars normally have their motives behind and the casus belli is normally the least important part ( do you know why WW II started , btw, just for a example ? Because a German broadcasting tower was destroyed ( most likely by german forces in a false flag attack ) and the Germans decided to blame the Polish ... but you will not say that WW II was started in a whim just because a radio tower was destroyed, right ? :p ). But confusing causes and excuses of a war is a bad idea and the causes are almost never based on whims.
     
  13. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    Thank you Rolo :). I just don't have the time or inclination to go into lengthy history discussions. My main point wasn't really the whim, but that no-one cares. There isn't really any reason to have solid alliances in Civ 5. Alliances and Pacts should mean something, and breaking them should carry a severe penalty to future diplomatic relations with everybody, thus hindering future trade and aliances (even though again neither matter). But they don't, because you are not playing against nations anymore, but other "players" (and terrible ones to boot). The design is flawed at its very core.
     
  14. Varanid

    Varanid Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Location:
    Texas
    Ceaser makes me think of those people in "To Catch a Predator (Preator maybe :p ). I make it a point to conquer them because he's oily and I don't like him.

    I guess I'm as bad as the AI then.
     
  15. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,838

    Right now, I'm keeping somewhere near the "average" number of troops (probably slightly below it most of the time) and I'm not the highest on the score board no more so while Egypt and the Iroquois are still hostile to me, England isn't anymore so I'm doing something right.

    There's apparently some kind of order behind AI diplomacy but its so different from CivIV diplomacy that its a shock to the system for many players.
     
  16. da6d

    da6d Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    I am finding it hilarious that people are citing the relative peace of a post-hegemonic world as an example of how diplomacy should work in a simulator that at least makes a vague attempt at conveying the full sweep of human history.

    Most humans for most of history have been either worthless peons, or ruthless savage leaders. In a few rare instances a regional hegemon in a brought about a period of a few decades to a few centuries of relative quiet at which time trade and science could progress rapidly. See: Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Mongols, Egyptians, etc.

    Now we have America/NATO as the sole hegemon thanks to unrivaled military might and technological prowess, permitting their allies to remain largely unarmed thanks to the umbrella provided by the hegemon. Russia, China, et al are scrambling to take them down, or at least establish themselves as regional hegemons, thus marginalizing the US. However, the rise of the internet and mass transit have allowed economic espionage to become a more reasonable method for waging a "cold" war than buildup of weapons. Thus people these days have a silly notion in their heads that armed conflict was somehow rare in the past, or should be unnecessary in the development of a culture. A hot war between major powers is nearly unimaginable at this point, not only because of the nuclear deterrent factor, but because of the importance of economic codependence these days. This is a very, very new phenomenon.

    I have no issue with people who wish CiV was more of a sandbox game (because alternative peaceful histories can be fun), or that the AI was more transparent (I love the suggestions re: the AI explaining post facto what you did wrong to annoy them so you can at least play better next time).

    However, absolute military force has been, and probably will forever be the only possible way to ensure peace and security. Without the threat of force protecting your resources, most people will come take what you have rather than trading for it. It's human nature. An AI that "plays to win" primarily through military force may not be a ton of fun in its current form (which I believe can be fairly easily patched to be more transparent and a bit less capricious-seeming), but it certainly is a fair reflection of the warlike nature of nations throughout history.
     
  17. Calouste

    Calouste Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,725
    Ok, countries don't declare war "on a whim", but their allegiances can change pretty quickly:

    In 1665-1667, the Dutch Republic and England were fighting the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War. Within a year after the end of the war, the Netherlands and England signed a pact siding with Spain (who the Dutch had finished fighting the 80 years war with a mere 20 years earlier) against the French. At the same time the English king Charles II was negotiating a secret pact with the French, which led to a combined English-French declaration of war on the Netherlands in 1672.

    Things changed again in 1688 when the Dutch prince William III desposed James II of England and the Nine Years' war ensued with England, the Dutch and Spain on one side and France on the other. More or less the same line up reappeared after just 4 years of peace with the war of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), but the sides shifted with the war of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720) pitting Spain against the other three.

    A relative peace descended on Western Europe for two decades until the War of the Austrian Succession broke out (1740-1748) with Spain and France on one side and Great Britain and the Netherlands on the other, followed not too long after by the last pre-Napoleon war, the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which the Dutch managed to sit out for a change, but otherwise contained the usual suspects. Austria and Russia swapped from the British side in the previous war to the French side (where the Russians teamed up with long time rivals Sweden), and Prussia went the other way.

    I think alliances in Civ5 are actually a lot more stable than that :)
     
  18. Just Checking

    Just Checking Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    I love Civ5 so far but the AI is just ridiculous and a fanatical warmonger.
    I don't buy the 'Play to win' argument - the AI doesn't play to win by any means other than Domination victory it seems. In that case it doesn't make sense and it's far more likely that the AI is just an extreme warmonger and doesn't really care all that much about winning as much as it cares about declaring war on everything that moves.

    Latest example - In my current save i somehow ended up being at war with everyone on my continent at the same time.
    Now that may seem like a very clever plan by the AI to gang up together and conspire against me, i'm all for that kind of stuff, but that's obviously not the case given the conflicts between some of the civs.

    The most bizarre crap was this - Suleiman declares war on me, Bismarck who sits between us is also at war with him. I get an open borders trade with Bismarck to start moving some units and help him and eventually i actually fight alongside him in his own territory even though i could have been perfectly happy to just let those 2 fight it out since Bismarck would have made a good buffer zone between me and Suleiman anyway.
    And then, peace between Suleiman and Bismarck and about 2 turns later Bismarck DoW's me. What the hell? A minute ago we were in great relations fighting a war together and now you're basically allying yourself to a guy who was rampaging in your territory just 2 turns ago and you give him open borders and a license to march huge armies my way.

    Then you have the liberations. What's the point in liberating any civ really? They'll end up hating you in a matter of a couple of turns anyway, and will turn hostile and ally themselves to the civ that just destroyed them.

    Also about the AI, even after the patch i've yet to see evidence of better decision making. Catherine has declared war on me when she had a vastly superior military, both technologically and in numbers. She amassed huge forces but pathetically mismanaged them, she didn't attack with her full force yet and let me get on level terms technologically and i destroyed about 5 embarked units with a single Trireme.

    The AI has some serious problems that need addressing, playing to win is all good but right now it's killing off the immersion more than anything else and makes the game feel more like a board game where you treat the AI as players and not as actual civilizations and nations. That sort of thing should be reserved to the Multiplayer, or at the very least give people an option to keep the AI from going crazy like this. (Wasn't there an Aggressive AI option in Civ 4? Why not just do the same for Civ5? Everybody wins).
     
  19. Ribusprissin

    Ribusprissin Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    114
     
  20. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody King

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    934
    That's fine if it's part of the AI's "personality". Say, for example, Caesar may change his opinion of you "on a whim". Sure, i guess I could see that. Or Monty may certainly decide to invade you "on a whim". That makes sense. He's a nut.

    But not *all* AI's should behave that way. They should have personalities, not just different reasons to go to war with you (whim, too many wonders, too many cities, too close borders, etc.). Gandhi should be a peacemonger, no matter what you do. There should be a tech-whore (Mansa Musa in Civ IV) or two who don't care what you do as long as you do Research Agreements with them. There should be builders (probably Ramesses, for instance) who just play in their sandbox, not DOW because you built a Wonder.

    Right now, they just have some slightly different reasons to DOW you. They shouldn't know they're playing a game, much less be trying to "win" a game. They should be personalities you interact with, not MP simulations.
     

Share This Page