Not enough benefits to having good relations with the AI

Rohili

King
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
727
It seems that there are just too few reasons to have good relations with the AI in this game.

In order to be on good terms with the AI, you must not:
- Spread your religion in their lands (if they have founded a religion of their own, which 80% of the civs will have)
- Go to war with ANY other AI, and especially not capture any cities
- Table or vote for any resolutions that are against their interests
- Vie with them for influence with a CS that they are interested in
- Break any promises you make to any AI
- Build any wonders that they want

In other words, your options to further your game are severely limited if you want to keep the AI happy. The inability to go to war and conquer cities without offending other civs is particularly crippling. In return, what do you get?
- Ability to trade resources at a fair price
- Open borders
- Research agreements
- Greater willingness to stop spying on you/spreading their religion in your lands when asked

That's about it. None of these items are particularly necessary to one's game. Take resources for example - my allied city-states tend to give me so many resources that few of the other civs have resources that I don't have.

IMO, there needs to be more benefits to maintaining good relations with other civs. Otherwise, it just isn't worth the trouble. For example, perhaps the gold return from trade routes to other civs could be modified by their attitudes towards you- a "friendly" civ will yield 50% more gold, while a "denouncing", "guarded" or "hostile" civ will yield 50% less. Individual civs should also be able to issue a trade embargo against your civ if they hate you enough (instead of this simply being a WC resolution). IMO, this would make it more worthwhile to keep other civs happy.
 
I was about to say "Hey, what about fairer trades and RAs?" But, once you got to that, I realized I've been conditioned by the AI to be happy with this in return for rolling out the red carpet for them. The sad thing is I'm happy when we're good enough friends to make an even trade. I'm like "Wow, Hiawatha's a good dude!" I shouldn't be metaphorically high-fiving a trade that I had to tip-toe around just to get it to even status. You know what's sadder? I'll post this and go right back to the same song and dance. I suppose the good thing is I make the most out of it. Every game will have its drawbacks, so I learn to deal with them. But I agree with you that there should be a greater payoff to being the model ambassador.

So, I don't yet have BNW. Does it not address diplo issues AT ALL?
 
Eh, I dunno, for me I actually like it better when the AI players get angry at everyone (especially you). I guess it's because I see the AI as other players; they know I want research agreements so they are going to make me lick their boots to get them. :lol:

Zaldrizes said:
So, I don't yet have BNW. Does it not address diplo issues AT ALL?
It did, sort of. The AI is more inclined to build now than it once did; early wars are unlikely unless that specific civ values early wars a great deal (IE Assyria or someone else with an early god mode UU).

The trade off is that the ideology system tends to make old friendships die HARD. And those friendships collapsing can make things much tougher for the human player because the AI is much stronger in the late game now than they were in Gods and Kings due to the previously mentioned empire building.
 
Rohili:

Play with the diplo system more. What you've posted regarding the diplomacy game is incorrect.
 
Rohili, you should try playing a real prick in one game. Then you will realize what you get for maintaining good relations:

- get attacked less even if you're practically defenseless
- don't get embargoed
- don't get targeted by an international coalition seeking to get rid of you

Apart from that, I don't think the game needs a rigid "AI relationship" system. The game doesn't force the player to reveal their "modifiers" to the AI, doing so in the other way around is bad for balance. The AI isn't meant to be transparent.
 
Rohili:

Play with the diplo system more. What you've posted regarding the diplomacy game is incorrect.
You've basically said nothing. You could have at least explained what is incorrect about my post.

Rohili, you should try playing a real prick in one game. Then you will realize what you get for maintaining good relations:

- get attacked less even if you're practically defenseless
- don't get embargoed
- don't get targeted by an international coalition seeking to get rid of you

Apart from that, I don't think the game needs a rigid "AI relationship" system. The game doesn't force the player to reveal their "modifiers" to the AI, doing so in the other way around is bad for balance. The AI isn't meant to be transparent.
Actually, I always play a prick in my games. But the benefits I get from being a prick far outweigh anything that the AI can do to punish me for it:
- I spread my religion aggressively and therefore get tons of gold from tithes (my go-to founder belief).
- I ally/pledge to protect all the city-states and refuse to back down when another civ tells me to. Consequently, I control WC so completely that I can split my votes in half for the two resolutions and still be in the majority for both. The CSes also supply me with most of the luxuries and strategic resources in existence.
- I aggressively invade civs that occupy land that I need or built wonders that I want. I gain an upper hand in these wars by putting all my units into optimal position before I declare war (I lie to the AI and say my units are just passing through).

To be fair, however, I only turn into a prick in the mid-game. Usually I spend the first 150 turns or so in peace and friendship with everybody. Then, once I have built up my core cities nicely and made enough city-state allies, I start revealing my true colours.
 
But I agree with you that there should be a greater payoff to being the model ambassador.

So, I don't yet have BNW. Does it not address diplo issues AT ALL?
The thing that sucks the most is that a diplomatic victory doesn't depend on your relations with other civs at all, so not only do you not get a payoff in terms of in-game benefits, but it is also - ironically - completely irrelevant to your ability to win a diplomatic victory.
 
Diplomatic victory is a technology/culture victory because the main benefits come from ideologies and globalization. However, I still like it more than adding more inbalance between the AI and human.
 
I was about to say "Hey, what about fairer trades and RAs?" But, once you got to that, I realized I've been conditioned by the AI to be happy with this in return for rolling out the red carpet for them. The sad thing is I'm happy when we're good enough friends to make an even trade. I'm like "Wow, Hiawatha's a good dude!" I shouldn't be metaphorically high-fiving a trade that I had to tip-toe around just to get it to even status. You know what's sadder? I'll post this and go right back to the same song and dance. I suppose the good thing is I make the most out of it. Every game will have its drawbacks, so I learn to deal with them. But I agree with you that there should be a greater payoff to being the model ambassador.

So, I don't yet have BNW. Does it not address diplo issues AT ALL?

Alternatively you could look at it as when you first meet a new civ they are happy to give you an excellent trade for something they have little use of . If you continue to be nice to them they will give you a lot of money for crap they don't need .
Your assumption of the even point is that them giving you the maximum they are willing to pay is an even trade . They just start upon meeting on giving a lot for very little (has changed a bit in BNW , they now only offer a mediocre deal until you have developed a friendship) and as the game progress if you are not respectful then they withdraw this privilege .

You dont have to obey all their rules and they will still stay reasonably friendly as long as you dont really push all their buttons .
 
To be fair, however, I only turn into a prick in the mid-game. Usually I spend the first 150 turns or so in peace and friendship with everybody. Then, once I have built up my core cities nicely and made enough city-state allies, I start revealing my true colours.

...sounds like me! I agree with you, probably because it suits my playing style. I don't have BNW yet so my comments are G&K, but I prefer Dom victories if feasible and SV if not (I decide in mid-game unless I'm playing an out-and-out aggressor Civ). I have completed some cultural and diplomatic victories to gain experience, but frankly I didn't enjoy them. Either way you need Science and Conquest :)
 
You dont have to obey all their rules and they will still stay reasonably friendly as long as you dont really push all their buttons .
In my experience, the warmonger button eclipses everything else. If you want to play a military game, you can forget about having good relations with any civilization (apart from warmonger lovers like Japan), even if they are on the other side of the world and are under no threat from you.
 
I think one thing dilating the effects of AI "affection" towards the player is the fact that those good relations are very easy to maintain as long as you aren't a "warmonger" (that is, you must never conquer a thing and you're fine). For example, in one game I got half of Nobunaga's lands through city flipping and he remained friendly as ever towards me the whole time. In another, I stole everyone's City-State allies and the worst thing I got was a minor scolding from their former allies. Those dumb suckers should realize when they're getting whipped, even when said whipping doesn't involve tanks and nukes.
 
I agree that city-state competition makes a negligible hit on your relations, which is completely senseless because city-states are so important in Civ V. The bonuses they give you are worth going to war for.

Instead the AI seems to get more offended by religious conversions, which is comparatively trivial. I have been denounced before by a civ who was formerly "friendly" simply because I refused to stop converting their cities.
 
Yeah, the AI has a poor sense on what actually matters and what doesn't. Still better than in earlier establishments but needs a lot of refinement.
 
In my experience, the warmonger button eclipses everything else. If you want to play a military game, you can forget about having good relations with any civilization (apart from warmonger lovers like Japan), even if they are on the other side of the world and are under no threat from you.

Try making friends with others first , then denouncing the victim before invading , your friends will often turn a blind eye to you attacking someone they have denounced themselves .
Once you have taken out a few civilizations though everyone will rightly start getting upset with you .
It used to be silly because you would wipe out one civ and everyone would still be your buddy , then you'd wipe out another "but hey , its not me hes killing" so all the civs would be fine . Then you wipe out the next civ and the other civs where all like "few hes not getting me , so thats good" Then you would wipe out the next civ and they be like " ah well , hes a bit naughty , but its not hurting me so thats ok"

Now it seems far more realistic , if you are aggressive it sticks and people want very little to do with you .
 
I agree that it is more realistic this way, which is why I didn't propose making it easier to maintain good relations with the AI. Rather, given the things you have to give up to keep them happy, I think there should be more benefits than there are currently.
 
At least the player should have the option to successfully whine for stuff from their pals, something which the AI does all the time. In fact, this might be in - but the AI has never yielded to my demands unless they were afraid.
 
I think you under estimate the following bonus in how useful they are ,

Well Open Borders - nearly essential for a cultural victory .
Good Price for Luxury- Strategics - very useful for all victory types. Particularly diplo where your resources can be sold at full whack and then used to purchase city states .
Research Agreements - nearly essential for science victorys.

Not constantly at war - trade routes are safer , less requirement to waste development time on military .

More willing to go to war on your behalf - The price they want for going to war with someone else is reduced .

More willing to vote for you in world congress - The price to buy their votes is reduced .

The only victory type that will not benefit from good relationships is a conquest one . Even this you can offset your warmongering ways by jumping through a few diplomatic hoops .

Its also worth noting that the diplo penalties are designed to mimic realism rather than to aid the AI in winning the game .

Spreading religion in another territory causes major diplo issues ( religious people really get annoyed if you mess with that )
Killing allies ( really annoying for some folk)
compared to getting friendly with my allied city states (meh , illl tell you off but not too bothered )
 
Even conquest benefits from diplomatic relations, typically with another warmonger. There's usually a reciprocal relationship where two warmongers share resources to keep their empires happy in my warmonger games.
 
Rohili:

Alright. What I said is that you should play the game a bit more and differently. I find it worthwhile to befriend AIs because this is basically untrue:

In order to be on good terms with the AI, you must not:
- Spread your religion in their lands (if they have founded a religion of their own, which 80% of the civs will have)
- Go to war with ANY other AI, and especially not capture any cities
- Table or vote for any resolutions that are against their interests
- Vie with them for influence with a CS that they are interested in
- Break any promises you make to any AI
- Build any wonders that they want

You can do any of those things or even all of those things and maintain friendly relations. You just have to manage the diplomacy right. In one game, I dominated my own continent through conquest, and then invaded India's continent and took out Poland's capital - the strongest Civ on that land.

Ghandhi loved me.
 
Top Bottom