Is there a way to stop the AI repeatedly asking for the same thing e.g. help with war

[gettingfat]

While the game is not a true "realistic" game, the logics and AI responses used in the game is based on realism, or the game is not playable to start with.

How about playing a game, where the AIs love you more if you raze their cities, dogpile on them, adopt different state religion.... true, you'll soon know how to exploit this SM style "diplomacy" system by being an irrational bully, but this is simply nut and will only lead to one style of gameplay.

One may argue this is too extreme, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. In the current game, if Civ A declares war on Civ B, 30 turns later the war ends, Civ B will tag a -3 modifier vs Civ A because A declares war on B. If during this period, the human player Civ H located 10000+ miles away on another continent was demanded to join the war 5 times by Civ B, what? Civ B tags a -5 modifier vs Civ H... so Civ B is eventually happier with the actual aggressor! And in fact Civ H will fare better dogpiling on Civ B during that war because he will ONLY get the -3 from killing their men instead.

This is pure crxp, illogically flawed design! You know it, I know it, so stop defending it.

What is worse is it's an asymmetric design... only the human players receive this crxp. Also, where's the cap? We human players get the +4 cap for good trade relation to avoid "exploit" but we are essentially exploited by the AIs for their non-stop non-capped one-sided demand?

 

[Gyprsn]

I hate the AI constantly asking me every turn, let alone asking the same thing over and over again. This is a BIG issue in multiplayer games. With simultaneous turns, timing can be crucial, and if you have an AI contact at the beginning of a turn when you really need to make important moves to kill units/take cities/reinforce/move units out of danger, the AI can instantly end any hope of success.

I would REALLY like a feature that allows you to "refuse contact" with certain AI who constantly bother you. However, this could be abused by a human player because they would get no negative diplo modifiers just because he/she doesn't have the opportunity to refuse requests. To balance this I would just make a small negative diplo hit, which would be much better than racking up so many other negative diplo modifiers through unrelenting refusal in response to never ending demands and requests.

However, I would be happy with a option to have AI requests come at the end of my turn. If that were available, I would be a lot less frustrated in most of my games due to lag and missing early moves in multiplayer because the AI is compelled to make the game as difficult as possible for me. The AI asking the same thing over and over is overly ridiculous, that should be changed :/

 

[PieceOfMind]

I hate the AI constantly asking me every turn, let alone asking the same thing over and over again. This is a BIG issue in multiplayer games. With simultaneous turns, timing can be crucial, and if you have an AI contact at the beginning of a turn when you really need to make important moves to kill units/take cities/reinforce/move units out of danger, the AI can instantly end any hope of success.

I would REALLY like a feature that allows you to "refuse contact" with certain AI who constantly bother you. However, this could be abused by a human player because they would get no negative diplo modifiers just because he/she doesn't have the opportunity to refuse requests. To balance this I would just make a small negative diplo hit, which would be much better than racking up so many other negative diplo modifiers through unrelenting refusal in response to never ending demands and requests.

However, I would be happy with a option to have AI requests come at the end of my turn. If that were available, I would be a lot less frustrated in most of my games due to lag and missing early moves in multiplayer because the AI is compelled to make the game as difficult as possible for me. The AI asking the same thing over and over is overly ridiculous, that should be changed :/

In principle I like your idea.

How about have AIs who are attempting to contact you ring you like how it works for human to human diplomacy at the moment. That way, you know you're trying to be contacted. You could grant the audience to the emissary at any point during your turn but if you did not talk to them that turn it would be taken as a refusal to talk and so the negative modifier hits in.

One issue might be that you'd forget about it and end your turn without remembering to do it. To fix this, you could make your turn not come to an end until all requested diplomacy discussions have taken place. ie. by pressing enter you don't end your turn until that little green circle has turned red.

 

[Powerslave]

There already is a way to refuse contact with the AIs.

 

[Gyprsn]

There already is a way to refuse contact with the AIs.

And that way would be?

 

[King Flevance]

Declare war

The diplomacy system can be defended by whoever wants to. But the bottom line is, it needs work. Saying people need to stop "role playing" their Civ isn't the answer. I role play my civ alot, and I win enough to not need to base my gameplay moves off of the system's tactical "weak points" to get anything out of it. I don't get as much back in return as someone who would but I can still play monarch and get away with it a decent amount.

The problem is that the AI is anti-human. Yes, I know that it "should be because the player is better" but its basically the same thing as Civ 2 to an extent. "France and Mongolia signed an alliance to stop American aggression." Civ 3 eased up on this a bit, Civ 4 more. But they are afraid to finally just kick it to the curb it seems. And I personally think it time for player raping tactics of the AI to be shoved aside. Instead make modifiers mean something to make the AI's more responsive instead of giving them minor but stackable offenses. Make declaring war on another civ give you a -10 with that civ. That alone will make things heat up in a more proper manner. Most players hold strong grudges against aggressively role-played AI civs. Just look at Monty's reputation on this board. I personally hate Louis XIV. But turning on random personalities helps me not carry my grudge over to the next game. Because Monty could end up extremely peaceful that game. But when people war monger in my game, I hold a grudge all game long. And I hate having to be asked every 10 turns if I will jump into a war half around the world when I can't send any aid and its a war between 2 people that hate me anyway. Besides even when I say yes, alot of times they take advantage of their opponents fear and sign peace effectivly shoving the war off on you. IMO this is simply a broken game concept and needs to be addressed, not defended.

If I want the positive modifiers for "mutual military struggle" I will declare war myself without a prompting of being asked. Otherwise it shouldn't really be a factor. It wouldn't be too bad if only pleased and riendly civs asked for aid. (Unless you already at war with them) But having someone that hates you ask you to declare war on a trade partner, its more than a little rediculous.

 

[Iranon]

The system might be unintuitive, but it's not necessarily unrealistic. If an expected ally doesn't help one in a moment of crisis, I'd expect resentment for the perceived betrayal to linger for a long time... longer than it takes for relations to a former enemy to relax.

***

After World War 2, the Federal Republic of Germany quickly enjoyed fair relations with most of western Europe and downright cordial ones with the United States while there was a bit of bickering and quite a lot of public resentment between the former allies (blatant generalisations follow):

The British were annoyed with behaviour of American troops in Europe they considered overbearing ('Overpaid, oversexed and over here'), the French disliked being painted as a useless ally ('I'd rather have a German platoon in front of me than a French platoon behind me') and Americans felt underappreciated for their effort in the war ('If it wasn't for us, you'd be eating Sauerkraut today').

And this was just good-natured bickering compared to the climate that quickly ensued between the former allies of either side of the Iron Curtain...

 

[gettingfat]

The system might be unintuitive, but it's not necessarily unrealistic. If an expected ally doesn't help one in a moment of crisis, I'd expect resentment for the perceived betrayal to linger for a long time... longer than it takes for relations to a former enemy to relax.

But over 80% it's not your "expected ally" that ask you for help, it could even be your enemies (imagine Nazi Germany asked US for help to attack England), Also why ask multiple times? It's also ridiculous for receiving the penalty when I am having my war and there's no way to start 2 wars at a time.

I say if somebody "friendly" ask you for help, you refuse, tag you a -3,
if somebody "pleased" ask and you refuse, -2
anybody else, -1
And the AI can only ask you once. Once and for all.
And if you are already engaged in another war, there's no penalty even you refuse.

There should be a counter-offer option, like "sending strategic resources", "financial support" etc, or ask for a tech in order to help. If the AI agrees, no penalty.

Once Civ A ask the human player to attack Civ B, Civ A cannot negotiate peace with Civ B within certain number of turns.

 

[Minmaster]

i like the minimum 20 turns before asking is good.

 

[bonafide11]

I also find it extremely annoying. They shouldn't be able to ask me to join in the same war more than once. I meant it when I said no the first!

 

[Minmaster]

they should have a check-box option to pre-screen diplomatic requests.

ignore all join the war demands: check
ignore all give me resource demands: check
ignore all change religion demands: check
ignore all change civis demands: check
ignore all give me tech demands: check
ignore all give me gold demands: check
etc..etc...

i say this because 99% of the time i never say yes to any of these demands.
just curious, how often do YOU GUYS actually say yes to these things?

 

[Mista]

I have never been asked repeatedly to join, but have been asked more than once. And there might be reason. If i am in a war with Kublai Khan to the north, and America wars with Korea, I don't want a war on my east coast right then. I'm on good terms (friendly) with America, but I say no. Ten turns later, my war is coming to a close. If I then declare war on Korea, i'm an aggressor. If America asks me again at that time, I can say yes. It will be ten turns or more before i can deploy any troops to Korea, and their war was over by that time. I quietly asked for peace. When Monty asked my to support his war with France, I said no, moved troops and built ships on the west coast, and waited. Mongols declared war on me when after I moved my troops away from his territory, so I was not in position to war with Monty when the call came. A few turns later I was able to say yes.

 

[Minmaster]

it just doesn't make sense for AI to ask for help in war in most instances. most human players prepare for a war long before declaration of war. we build up an army and only when we feel right we enter wars. yes there are exceptions, but thats why the AI asking us to join the war out of the BLUE makes no sense, especially if it's half a world away. no thanks...

 

[gettingfat]

they should have a check-box option to pre-screen diplomatic requests.

ignore all join the war demands: check
ignore all give me resource demands: check
ignore all change religion demands: check
ignore all change civis demands: check
ignore all give me tech demands: check
ignore all give me gold demands: check
etc..etc...

i say this because 99% of the time i never say yes to any of these demands.
just curious, how often do YOU GUYS actually say yes to these things?

Since I went up to monarch level I realized that it's almost an integral part of the game to give in to AIs demands. The AIs have significant bonuses over human players. Given similar start locations aggressive leaders like Bourdica, Montzy, Alex etc will always build more units than you for a good part of the game. So I don't feel bad at all using my tech to buy more time to get myself more ready. But it is clear that the diplomacy of this game is not implemented properly. Why is it always the AI bugging human, not AI vs AI? There are all kinds of other issues people already mentioned.

I actually think that the game designers are so afraid that some features in the diplomacy system can be exploited by human players. But seriously, I'll tend to say probably only a few percent of players can do that, and in fact these superplayers are going to take advantage of anything. Maybe the game dev should focus more on the majority of the "non-expert" players, and give us a fairer game?

 

[Minmaster]

hmm i play emperor and 99% of the times i don't give in. but then i do try to keep a decent size standing army. that's the only way you can earn respect and get away with being a NO-man.

 

[KMadCandy]

I have never been asked repeatedly to join, but have been asked more than once. And there might be reason. If i am in a war with Kublai Khan to the north, and America wars with Korea, I don't want a war on my east coast right then. I'm on good terms (friendly) with America, but I say no. Ten turns later, my war is coming to a close. If I then declare war on Korea, i'm an aggressor. If America asks me again at that time, I can say yes. It will be ten turns or more before i can deploy any troops to Korea, and their war was over by that time. I quietly asked for peace. When Monty asked my to support his war with France, I said no, moved troops and built ships on the west coast, and waited. Mongols declared war on me when after I moved my troops away from his territory, so I was not in position to war with Monty when the call came. A few turns later I was able to say yes.

there's no benefit to saying "yes i'll help you" instead of just declaring war on your own. the only thing you earn with the asker is the + "our mutual military struggle brings us together" bonus from fighting in the same war, you'd get that either way. you don't earn anything by saying yes to their request. and you don't avoid any negative penalties by starting a war that way. i'm not at all sure what you mean by being the "aggressor", but you still earn the normal -3 you DoWd us and -1 you DoWd our friend. so if you do want to join in, you might as well just join in and not wait for the phone call.

that's part of why those requests are so annoying. you can't get any benefit out of it. somebody comes asking, you're guaranteed to lose points with one side (by refusing) or the other (by declaring war on 'em). yippee.

oh actually there is one difference, but not on your side. say isabella asks you to join a war vs monty. if you join in by saying yes to her, rather than just declaring on your own, isabella earns negative "you brought in a war ally against us!" points with monty. so i suppose it is to your advantage to wait for a request if you really want to make sure monty holds a long-term grudge against isabella, if he survives the war.

total SMAC sidetrack: in diplomacy there, you could bribe someone to vote a certain way on upcoming council votes. and sometimes, they'd accept the bribe, and then vote the other way. greedy backstabbers! that was so cool.

 

[BeyondCivilized]

total SMAC sidetrack: in diplomacy there, you could bribe someone to vote a certain way on upcoming council votes. and sometimes, they'd accept the bribe, and then vote the other way. greedy backstabbers! that was so cool.

Sweet Nostalgia.

 

[Diamondeye]

And that way would be?

D.O.W

 

[BeyondCivilized]

D.O.W

Drums of War? Yeah they be loud enough to shut the AI up

 

[gettingfat]

that's part of why those requests are so annoying. you can't get any benefit out of it. somebody comes asking, you're guaranteed to lose points with one side (by refusing) or the other (by declaring war on 'em). yippee.

total SMAC sidetrack: in diplomacy there, you could bribe someone to vote a certain way on upcoming council votes. and sometimes, they'd accept the bribe, and then vote the other way. greedy backstabbers! that was so cool.

Strongly agree. To ask my AI "friend" to join a war. My "friend" may ask for a dozen of techs + 1000 gold, and even the AI agrees usually what he does is sending a few obsolete units to join the cottage pillaging contest, but when somebody who I'm "annoyed" with ask me to help, I have to do it unconditionally.

Even the AI doesn't give us any tech or cash, at least give me a +3 dip rating for my help and his/her friends should grant me a +1 for "this guy helps my friend". If I get tagged for -3 from the target AI and -1 from this guy's friends I want some compensation.

PS. SMAC was just great. I like Civ4, but in certain aspects it actually regresses a bit. Maybe in today's gaming world the game dev are pushed to placing more emphasis on graphics and MP potential, sometimes I just think many new games simply don't spend enough time to perfect the gameplaying aspect. It's just like after Baldur's gate and Planescape Torment I haven't seen any RPG with as much depth. Well... I'm getting old