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

[Merkinball]

Ive never seen that many calvary. The AI will build up that kind of army at the end of the game though. - Yesod

Well, like I said, sometimes I think people are playing a different game. In almost every game I play I get multiple large stacks that are difficult for their time. In the game I have now, I was facing a 40+ unit stack on one front, a 25 unit stack on another, and was dealing with random pillaging cavalry across another front. There are games when I feel like...WTH...the AI is so horrible at war. This isn't even fun. But more often than not the AI does a decent job.

I agree with you though Yesod. It just seems like Fireaxis decided to cut some corners in regards to how the game plays out. You're absolutely right about the AI SHOULD have some sort of code which plays into each civilizations traits. Your examples of Immortal rushes and Beserker amphibious assaults are spot on. I'd MUCH rather deal with that, then deal with a ******** diplomacy engine.

They can start in 1860 and just never finish at all. Rocketry is light years away from fusion when you research ever tech in between. - Yesod

Agreed. The AI is also like a cat, "Ooo look, a ball of yarn!" It's real easy to distract. Worst comes to worse, I'll build an army, make some declerations of war, and the AI stops making spaceship parts and I'll make my ship.

Merkin, you just need to learn how to use the diplomacy system. Get Hannibal up to Friendly, and he'll trade with you again. - Powerslave

A.) I have a pair of "Friends" in this game. They fear I'm becoming too powerful too. Don't believe me? I'll get you a screenshot. B.) It's not very difficult to use the diplomacy system. It's not very fun to do it either. Giving, and giving, and giving, and never getting anything in return gets old real fast. Old and boring and not fun. If this is the way Fireaxis feels the game the should be, with endless ridiculous demands. "Hey, I'll give you five gold for rifling? What! You don't think it's a good deal! -1 diplo modifier for you!" If it's gonna be like that. Then I'd rather have the whole world angry at me and fight wars the entire time. I'd rather do what I can to stave off the dogpile than just mindlessly, senselessly give in to their demands. Both scenarios are just plain stupid, whereas, it could easily be modified (not be me, I'm a programming dummy, but by the pro's of course.)

That game is on Prince. I see no reason to move back down when every Noble game I score Hammurabi or Caesar. I've just gone up, my first two Prince games I easily won playing conservatively. I'm only behind in TECHS. I have the most land, the most production, the most commerce, the largest Army most powerful Army. But there is NO F'N WAY to stay in a tech lead when NOBODY WILL TRADE WITH YOU and the entire world of Judaism is happily cutting themselves favors, and tech trading amongst themselves. Even careful bee-lining bears no fruit.

 

[Mista]

I find it hard to predict the AI. Perhaps i just haven't played enough. This game I find myself between Monty and Shaka. I can see Monty's continent, but can't reach it. Shaka makes nice and then attacks without warning. Not that i was surprised. I took most of his cities -- all that were on the main continent -- and then let him vassal himself plus booty. He turned friendly within a few turns ...
I've never been attacked by a stack like that, but have seen them hoard units. It's disheartnening to bring an army against them, with spies in enough cities so that i know what they have, and then find their army doubling from one turn to the next. By the time i capture most of their cities, the pop is so low i don't have to starve them ...

 

[KMadCandy]

A.) I have a pair of "Friends" in this game. They fear I'm becoming too powerful too. Don't believe me? I'll get you a screenshot.

you may already know this. i'm not saying it's the best way to implement the system or that it makes the game more fun. but if a big part of the frustration is because you don't know why that's happening, here's my guess, since you can see Charlemagne's research and he's very slow. is he your vassal?

vassals make a change behind the scenes to the "Friendly" status you see on the screen. when the AI trades it decides whether to do that or not on how they feel about your team, which (for trading purposes) is defined as (you + vassals + PA mates + teammates set up in custom game screen). so if someone is Friendly with you but only Cautious with your vassal Charlemagne for example, that averages out to Pleased and you don't get the "Friendly = get out of WFYABTA" advantage for tech trading. more details about that can be found in this article about WFYABTA.

someone can be Pleased or Friendly with you and also consider "you" his Worst Enemy if you have the right, errrrr, wrong vassals. "you" there = your team, but it's the same difference for trading purposes. yes, i know we needed a whole new can'o'worms in this discussion

 

[Elite]

I'm actually quite good at diplomacy(though there are those few civs I REFUSE to trade with because they only demand, never give, plus they wanna rip me off)

I'm very isolated right now and I think I'm going to stick to isolationist policies.

Just you gotta know when to cave in, and when to stand strong, I'm always standing strong(though that useally plummets me into a lot of wars, I can useally handle these wars and take a enemy city or 2)

Just, go with what makes you feel right, all I can really say.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

hi everyone, this is a really interesting topic as i want to try to improve when it comes to diplomacy in my games. not to derail the thread but i posted a new topic related in the mods forum: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6181314#post6181314

basically i was wondering if there was a mod that allowed you to get a tooltip of current trades by hovering over the scoreboard when a civ pops up to demand you cancel a deal with someone (so you can see if its worth your while). since as far as i can tell you get locked in the dialogue and cant check the advisor screens till you give them your answer....

can any body help?

 

[KMadCandy]

i can check the powergraph, trade screen, tech screen, etc during demands but at first i didn't realize it. usually i access that stuff by hitting F4 etc. on my system, i have to actually mouse-click the button in the top right of the screen to open it during demands, but it does work.

some people can't get it to work. i think it depends on your resolution, some folks the dialogue fills too much of the screen. be careful, if you do open those screens make sure you exit by clicking on "exit". if you just hit escape, that ends up with you saying no to the demand automatically.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

thanks so much! i didnt realise you could access that information during diplomacy, thought you got locked into the dialogue. very useful.

ps. thanks for the esc tip too

 

[ChickenSalad]

I'm very isolated right now and I think I'm going to stick to isolationist policies.

I've just finished a rather interesting game where I was in complete isolation for a very long time (irrc till around 1500 AD or so). Was playing as Ethiopians on hemispheres, 2 normal continents, tiny islands, huge map, 13 players, marathon at Prince level.
Was lucky enough to start on an Australia-like island-continent all by myself, thus didn't bother setting sails but focused on sustainable development of my island - which turned out to be one of the largest landmasses. I had loads of ressources and only very minor trouble with barbarians.
Since I dind't have any contact to the rest of the world I didn't have any diplo issues but also didn't get any religion and couldn't engage in tech trading. However, the lacking techs I could quickly buy once I got contact and since I went from no to free religion soon after that, I managed to get along without religious conflicts. I only converted to a religion in the very late game in order to raise a well experienced army for some conquest fun while waiting for the space race victory.
The only wars I had was a 10 turn sea conflict against my ever-present archenemy Isabella, where she lost 10 ships and I lost 5 after that we went our ways, and twice against some Dutch dude who was the only one to ever settle on my continent. He lost his invading army and the war was over. Both those wars were started by the AI for no apparent reason (ok, I pissed off Isa, but that's just our normal relationship ). Later the Dutch lost his city on my continent due to culture flipping and while waiting for my space ship to arrive at AC, I started a quick and deadly campaign against his underdeveloped little nation during which I lost some 5 tanks, 2 gunships and 2 ships while he lost half his empire - cos my space ship arrived a few turns too early - and became my vassal.

I ranked 10th or so by the time my island got it's first visit from outside and ranked 3rd before winning the space race.

All in all my isolation definitelly helped me more than it slowed my progress, mainly thanks to the fact that - since I couldn't aggravate anyone through (inefficient, early) trade, didn't adopt any religion, never got asked for war support, had no territorial conflicts aso. - I had good and stable relations to pretty much every AI in the mid- and late-game and was not forced to waste any hammers on military production for most of the early game.



Edit: Oh and once again, Civ4 successfully not played as a wargame.

 

[bardolph]

I don't really have a problem with the Diplomacy system. This includes all of the "demands" that the AI makes under the horrible threat of "diplomacy hit." I also don't believe that the diplomacy system is "anti-human" at all. If anything, it's pro- human. Otherwise, how would it be possible to win a Diplomatic victory at all? Honestly, how many human players are willing to vote for an AI-backed Diplomatic Victory attempt?

What's the big deal with taking a "diplo hit"? If you don't want to give into their demands, then don't. Remember, nothing can ever stop you from just declaring war and taking whatever you want anyway.

I can't take these types of complaints about the diplomacy system seriously, since there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER that the computer player can do to "force" the the human player to back them in a diplomatic victory, or to help them in a war, or to keep the peace.

Remember, no matter how "frustrating" it may be to maintain positive relations with the AI personalities, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the AI to maintain positive relations with the human. The human-to-AI relationship is PERMANENTLY fixed at -10 I will do whatever I damn well please, thank you very much. How "fair" is that?

 

[keshik22]

The human-to-AI relationship is PERMANENTLY fixed at -10 I will do whatever I damn well please, thank you very much. How "fair" is that?

I wouldn't say that's really the case. I like to see an AI that seems to want to win (or at least do well) on its own and does whatever is necessary to do so, even if it involves trading with and allying with the human player. However, AIs who are only there to make life difficult for the human seem artificial and primitive and greatly detract from enjoyment of the game. For example I have no problem with Catherine at all, she is easy to trade with and will join your wars easily, as long as you watch your back she is a good AI to have as a neighbour. Tokugawa on the other hand will just sit there and not trade with you for no good reason and make stupid demands from time to time like the useless tool that he is. I appreciate that his AI was created for historical realism, but it's still irritating.
Above all I want to see AIs that seem smart and act in a way which is at least a bit realistic. Getting upset at you for not agreeing to trade Economics for 20 gold is neither realistic nor smart.

 

[bardolph]

I wouldn't say that's really the case. I like to see an AI that seems to want to win (or at least do well) on its own and does whatever is necessary to do so, even if it involves trading with and allying with the human player. However, AIs who are only there to make life difficult for the human seem artificial and primitive and greatly detract from enjoyment of the game. For example I have no problem with Catherine at all, she is easy to trade with and will join your wars easily, as long as you watch your back she is a good AI to have as a neighbour. Tokugawa on the other hand will just sit there and not trade with you for no good reason and make stupid demands from time to time like the useless tool that he is. I appreciate that his AI was created for historical realism, but it's still irritating.

Fair enough. Some of the AIs are programmed with more successful strategies than others, but you still have the advantage of being able to declare war on Tokugawa and "trade" with him using force.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that the AI doesn't always do what the human player wants it to do. They are your rivals, after all!

Above all I want to see AIs that seem smart and act in a way which is at least a bit realistic. Getting upset at you for not agreeing to trade Economics for 20 gold is neither realistic nor smart.

As a human player, I'm perfectly capable of acting the same way: by demanding a technology for free or for a drastically reduced price, then declaring war when the AI refuses. The only difference is that as a human player, I don't bother with a "diplomacy modifier" at all: I just click the "Declare War" button and it's done!

It seems like the biggest "problem" with the Diplomacy system is its transparency. If the human player couldn't see the numbers, then there would be far fewer complaints.

 

[keshik22]

As a human player, I'm perfectly capable of acting the same way: by demanding a technology for free or for a drastically reduced price, then declaring war when the AI refuses. The only difference is that as a human player, I don't bother with a "diplomacy modifier" at all: I just click the "Declare War" button and it's done!

That's the thing though, if Shaka comes at my borders with a SoD three times as big as my entire army and starts demanding stuff, I see it as quite reasonable. I'd make sure it didn't happen in the first place. However, if Gandhi starts asking to exchange my Education (which I've just researched) for his Monotheism as a favour, this is in no way reasonable or sane. Or when another AI which is far less powerful as me asks me to declare on some other AI for free it's not reasonable at all. I don't think that AIs apparently assuming that human player is an idiot is smart or realistic of them.

 

[Mista]

It's never as simple as the numbers indicate. Currently I am Germany and have refused to give tech to all askers, and refused to join their wars. Shaka stays annoyed, but Native America is pleased. Yet, I refused him tech and refused to join his war against Shaka. But I have a big plus for good trade relations -- which is a few turns of open borders. I could have agreed to join his war, but since no one has researched Astronomy yet, it would have been pointless. Seems like they could have added a few checks in, like 'don't bother to ask for help if no one has ships' let them ask for high tech free, but don't be dismayed if it is not given. Would be nice to have an option to negotiate something else when they ask, also.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

It is annoying, I agree. I'm playing the 30 Civ Earth map right now. Now THAT is obnoxious. For awhile every turn I'd have like 5 civs asking me to join a war. Oh sure, it's easy for China to go attack the nasty Zulu in 5 AD...
Usually, I'd just pick the AI that was getting gangbanged by the most AIs and declare on them for the diplo bonuses. I've pretty much failed in diplomacy this game, besides the auto-Friendly I've gotten from the 3 Civs that have offered themselves as vassals, I have like two friends. That's fine though, I own all of Asia and have a huge power and tech lead.

 

[Merkinball]

I don't really have a problem with the Diplomacy system. This includes all of the "demands" that the AI makes under the horrible threat of "diplomacy hit." I also don't believe that the diplomacy system is "anti-human" at all. If anything, it's pro- human. Otherwise, how would it be possible to win a Diplomatic victory at all? Honestly, how many human players are willing to vote for an AI-backed Diplomatic Victory attempt?

What's the big deal with taking a "diplo hit"? If you don't want to give into their demands, then don't. Remember, nothing can ever stop you from just declaring war and taking whatever you want anyway.

I can't take these types of complaints about the diplomacy system seriously, since there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER that the computer player can do to "force" the the human player to back them in a diplomatic victory, or to help them in a war, or to keep the peace.

Remember, no matter how "frustrating" it may be to maintain positive relations with the AI personalities, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the AI to maintain positive relations with the human. The human-to-AI relationship is PERMANENTLY fixed at -10 I will do whatever I damn well please, thank you very much. How "fair" is that?

So your argument is that "Diplomacy is fine because you can win a diplomatic victory!" Man, that's a real thick argument there...

There's a second, and even a third dimension to diplomacy aside from the Diplomatic victory aspect of it.

 

[bardolph]

So your argument is that "Diplomacy is fine because you can win a diplomatic victory!" Man, that's a real thick argument there...

No. My argument is that any complaint that diplomacy is flawed because the AI doesn't do what the human player wants it to do is a weak complaint.

My mention of Diplomatic Victory was a direct rebuttal to any claim that the AI is somehow "anti-human." If the AI was "anti-human," then Diplomatic Victory would be impossible.

Most of the arguments I see in this thread amount to "I don't want to get a -1 diplomacy modifier." Why not? The AI should be able to assign modifiers arbitrarily for no reason whatsoever if it wants to. Likewise, any AI should be able to make any demand it wants to, and respond any way it likes to the human player's actions. After all, that's how human players behave.

There's a second, and even a third dimension to diplomacy aside from the Diplomatic victory aspect of it.

That sounds like an endorsement of the diplomacy system to me.

As it stands, the Diplomacy system allows the human player to manipulate the AI far more easily than that same human player can manipulate any human opponent. The complaints I'm seeing in this thread mostly revolve around players who want more control over their AI opponents than they already have.

And to that I ask, "Why?" They're your opponents, after all!

 

[bardolph]

That's the thing though, if Shaka comes at my borders with a SoD three times as big as my entire army and starts demanding stuff, I see it as quite reasonable. I'd make sure it didn't happen in the first place. However, if Gandhi starts asking to exchange my Education (which I've just researched) for his Monotheism as a favour, this is in no way reasonable or sane. Or when another AI which is far less powerful as me asks me to declare on some other AI for free it's not reasonable at all. I don't think that AIs apparently assuming that human player is an idiot is smart or realistic of them.

First of all, why must a demand be "reasonable"?

Second, there are plenty of reasons why such requests may be considered "reasonable" given the circumstances. Perhaps having a powerful, friendly neighbor would be beneficial to both of you. Perhaps you want access to better resource trading. Perhaps by helping your rival gain tech parity with you, you will be able to make more effective tech trades in the future.

If you don't agree with their demands, just say "No." What I don't understand is why taking a -1 diplomacy hit is such a big deal.

 

[Wodan]

If you don't agree with their demands, just say "No." What I don't understand is why taking a -1 diplomacy hit is such a big deal.

First off, I agree with both your points.

Secondly, it's not a big deal in isolation. It's a big deal when each AI repeatedly subjects you (the player) to such "unreasonable" demands. Thus, by saying "no" you end up with -5 to -10 or more from each and every AI.

One solution is to only allow the AIs to make "reasonable" demand (which must be defined). There are other solutions, of course. Regardless, I think the end result as it stands currently is certainly a big deal and could stand considerable improvement.

Wodan

 

[bardolph]

First off, I agree with both your points.

Secondly, it's not a big deal in isolation. It's a big deal when each AI repeatedly subjects you (the player) to such "unreasonable" demands. Thus, by saying "no" you end up with -5 to -10 or more from each and every AI.

One solution is to only allow the AIs to make "reasonable" demand (which must be defined). There are other solutions, of course. Regardless, I think the end result as it stands currently is certainly a big deal and could stand considerable improvement.

Wodan

I agree that it can be annoying, but I believe that rivals have a right to be annoying. Besides, they can always be shut up by declaring war on them.

One solution would be for "important" requests (declaring war, for example) to carry a bigger penalty for non-compliance, and to have them ask less often.

However, it's also true that every turn represents a new global situation, and even though you said "no" the last time, you just might change your mind and say "yes" this time around.

I do think it's "reasonable" for an AI to get upset with a human player that refuses to help them in a time of war, especially if they're losing! Remember, what seems "reasonable" to them might not seem "reasonable" to you. It's all a matter of perspective.

I think it should be possible to "red out" certain trade options, just to reduce the annoyance factor of being pestered with trades that you wouldn't make any way. However, if this option is implemented, the AI should also be able to assign a -1 diplomacy modifier every time they decide they want the "redded out" item. This would be every bit as fair as a human player deciding to go to war with Tokugawa because he won't trade his fish, right?

 

[Wodan]

Again, I can't disagree with anything you're saying bardolph. Except, the perspective you're presenting should also be accompanied by a much more rapid forgetting of old negatives. Currently, the AI "remembers" you saying "no" to them thousands of years ago. If truly "every turn represents a new global situation," then they shouldn't have such a big bug up their butt about stuff that happened thousands of years ago.

Wodan