new one (5/10/12) on gamespot

[apocalypse105]

Am I the only one who noticed that notre dam and porcelain tower has been moved from education? Or am i seeing things that aren't true I thinx its a good idea

 

[The QC]

Well, I settled a new city, which ticked everyone else right off--including my new neighbor to the west: Maria Theresa of Austria. Apparently, everyone had their eye on this one patch of land next to the world's only lake.

Well, there goes my hope that diplomacy has been overhauled.

 

[apocalypse105]

Well, there goes my hope that diplomacy has been overhauled.

This will go away in time settling disputes are only early denis said that negatif modifiers will fade way over time


And if you read he actualy made good relation with austria because he send his misionary to her and got her to the same religion.

 

[Buccaneer]

Well, there goes my hope that diplomacy has been overhauled.

Turn the tables, do you not get upset that an AI settled a choice spot just before you? It's their way of counteracting human reloads.

I'm still saddened to see so many against the idea of negative modifiers and consequences. There should be more, thus making us work harder on overcoming those, esp. given the additional tools (faith) we now have available. apocalypse's example of what was done to overcome such negatives is a good one.

 

[The QC]

Turn the tables, do you not get upset that an AI settled a choice spot just before you? It's their way of counteracting human reloads.

Maybe I'm atypical, but I'm not upset when someone settles a place that I wanted, or builds a wonder I wanted etc. Well, I'm upset, but I'm upset that I failed in my goal, I'm not upset AT them. They're just playing the game.

It feels stupid, to me, to be punished for playing the game in the way it's meant to be played. Expanding, building wonders are core features of the game. But you get diplomatic penalties for doing them. It feels wrong and unfair and, especially, it feels unavoidable (I absolutely need to expand and build stuff, otherwise what am I to do?).

I agree with you that we need negative modifiers and that it shouldn't be easy to keep good relations with everyone. I just feel that these aren't the right negative modifiers.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Are you a complete pacifist or do you occasionally declare war? If you declare war, is the fact that a city is in a location you wanted a reason to choose that civ to attack? You aren't being punished, it's just part of the strategic considerations in the game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Exactly, histroically speaking, Hitler only invaded Poland and later on Russia because HE WANTED those lands, he didn't say "Oh Russia got there first oh well, watchu gonna do" I believe the "land" is more realistic, the 'wonder' one I can live without, but the land makes sense, I often see a Natural Wonder nearby which I could settle and if Catherine would've gotten there first I'd probably start planning an attack to take over that city.

 

[The QC]

Are you a complete pacifist or do you occasionally declare war? If you declare war, is the fact that a city is in a location you wanted a reason to choose that civ to attack? You aren't being punished, it's just part of the strategic considerations in the game.

Sure, I do fight. And sure, sometimes it is caused by me needing something that another civ occupied. E.g. I'm Genghis and the only hex with horses anywhere near me was settled by the Polynesians. War!

But the AI gets upset every time when you build any city that is anywhere near them. All of them do, without exception and without having lost something that they really needed (and, as we all know, they even become upset if they are the ones that settle near you).

The concept has value, but it would need a better implementation to work for me. For instance, a player / AI civ could have the option to claim certain city sites before they are able to build them. And, if anyone ignores that claim, then a diplomatic penalty would make sense. To go back to my example, as Genghis it would be cool if I could say "everyone, leave those horse alone, or else!". And it would be cool if AI Genghis could do this, prompting me to decide if I want to go to war with him for it, or I let him have it.

The wholesale hatred that the AIs have for when you play well is irritating, though. In the end, what happens is that my diplomatic options slowly go away, as everyone hates me for expanding, for conquering others, for building wonders, for being in first place and so on. And it's true that G&K adds some options that will give the player a better chance at manipulating diplomacy, so I'm not entirely pessimistic. But, when they said that they dropped the "trying to win the same way as you" penalty (which makes me really glad!) I started to hope that it's not the only one that got dropped.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The "cover your lands" makes 100% sense to me, the Wonder... not really.

HOWEVER

In Civ 4, if you settled near another civ you began recieving the "Our close borders spark tnesion" so we just have "We covet your lands".

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The "cover your lands" makes 100% sense to me, the Wonder... not really.

HOWEVER

In Civ 4, if you settled near another civ you began recieving the "Our close borders spark tnesion" so we just have "We covet your lands".

Eh, the "Wonders" makes sense to me too . . . maybe should be implemented better, but it makes sense.

Have human players never taken over an AI's city just because there was a wonder they wanted?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Sure, I do fight. And sure, sometimes it is caused by me needing something that another civ occupied. E.g. I'm Genghis and the only hex with horses anywhere near me was settled by the Polynesians. War!

But the AI gets upset every time when you build any city that is anywhere near them. All of them do, without exception and without having lost something that they really needed (and, as we all know, they even become upset if they are the ones that settle near you).

I think you're taking "angry" too seriously. The AI sees less value in trading with you because there could be a possible war in the future (either they'll take the city or you'll take their cities). All they're doing is telegraphing this consideration in their "diplomacy" status. People already think the AI is very random. If they didn't give this heads up, it would be even worse.

The concept has value, but it would need a better implementation to work for me. For instance, a player / AI civ could have the option to claim certain city sites before they are able to build them. And, if anyone ignores that claim, then a diplomatic penalty would make sense. To go back to my example, as Genghis it would be cool if I could say "everyone, leave those horse alone, or else!". And it would be cool if AI Genghis could do this, prompting me to decide if I want to go to war with him for it, or I let him have it.

I'm not opposed to this idea. It would also avoid needless war. I fought three wars with America once because they would ignore my request to stop settling cities near me. I didn't want a city there, but I had to keep capturing their settlers to prevent them from having one.

But the difference is I'm not taking "dislikes" personally. I actually think there's a very good value in discouraging the player from engaging in strategic settling (settle really close to the AI to pen them in and then backfill). I just think expanding strategic options would be a good idea too.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Eh, the "Wonders" makes sense to me too . . . maybe should be implemented better, but it makes sense.

Have human players never taken over an AI's city just because there was a wonder they wanted?

I was actually speaking more "historically" than game-wise. I don't believe the AI should play like the player, it kinda ruins the charm of Civilization.

 

[apocalypse105]

The "cover your lands" makes 100% sense to me, the Wonder... not really.

HOWEVER

In Civ 4, if you settled near another civ you began recieving the "Our close borders spark tnesion" so we just have "We covet your lands".

The covet you're land is way to sensetive sometimes the AI covet you're land while he is on the other side of the continent with plenty of room between you two to settle If you are close it make sence but far away really?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I always figured that it wasn't the land that they covetted, it's resources. I usually see that modifier as I begin to monopolize a single resource type in my area early on.