Observations from a new Civ 5 player

[UGABulldawg98]

I bought this game about 3 weeks ago and I like it. I like it because I'm a huge fan of strategy games, not because of the features of the game.

Before I purchased the game I was excited about the 'enhanced diplomacy' of Civ 5. Sadly, this game only provides the illusion of diplomacy. The only 'diplomacy' (which isn't even dipolmacy, its just bartar) that I can find in this game is... I have this luxury resource, how much money will you give me for it? But what about declaring friendship you say. Well its not really friendship if your 'friend', the AI, will declare war on you if you do anything that will irritate them.

Will developers ever find a way to balance the AI in games? As we stand now, the progression for any game from 'easy to hard' basically has the AI just spam out more units and declare war on your quicker. If I wanted to go to war quick. I'd just go play online (well thats my assumption since I haven't played this game online).

Also, does the AI automatically feel the need to go to war with you if you are close to them? That has happened to me in every game so far.

I also like the introduction of city states. Maybe the 'friendship' with other AI civs should act like it does with city states?

Overall I like the game. Its just really unfortunate that developers have failed once again on the AI.

 

[shihuacao]

Diplomacy in Civ 5 is done not through Diplomacy Screen, but through every actions you took through out the game. You can no longer control AI behavior by collecting bonus modifers, which I think is a good thing.

 

[Bezurn]

Having a true manner of diplomacy in the CIV series has never come to fruition in my opinion. I swear somewhere in the lead up to the launch of Civ 5 there was mention that the ai and you could trade land without having to lose cities or go to war. Maybe I misread it though *shrug*

In any event I think it will be a long time if ever that Civ focuses on creating a rich immersive diplomacy system. Civ 4 was much better, but it was prone to exploiting the behavior once people had figured out how the system worked (and when they released the SDK people could look up the code to game the system even more). Diplomacy I fear will always be about dealing with your neighbors long enough to gain an advantage and press that for your chosen victory condition.

Now if diplomatic victory did not rely almost solely on city states but rather having other civs like you enough to be willing to vote for you rather than themselvs, then I could see it having a slightly more fun impact on the game. But given the choice to liberate a fallen civs capital or puppet it, I choose puppet 95% of the time as having a one city, hardly any infrastructure and feeble population, civ around is of little help to anyone other than the token vote to the UN it provides.

Also, does the AI automatically feel the need to go to war with you if you are close to them? That has happened to me in every game so far.

I also like the introduction of city states. Maybe the 'friendship' with other AI civs should act like it does with city states?

Overall I like the game. Its just really unfortunate that developers have failed once again on the AI.

It is rare, but if you sign some DoF's with a future neighbor before you get the message about building cities too close to them you can keep them from going to war as long as the DoF's keep rolling in. You need not disturb their desired victory plans and give in to every request they may make. Often it is not worth the trouble, unless they are a run away civ and you are a small civ going for culture. Eventually the run away will turn to you once it has conquered all of its other objectives.

There needs to be some reward for signing DoF's as most people avoid them so as to not pick sides in alliance triagles and such that often lead to you on the short end of the stick.

 

[qemist]

Diplomacy I fear will always be about dealing with your neighbors long enough to gain an advantage and press that for your chosen victory condition.

This is (was?) realpolitik. Someone famous once said something like diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" while you look for a rock.

Now if diplomatic victory did not rely almost solely on city states but rather having other civs like you enough to be willing to vote for you rather than themselvs,

Why would they suicide? there is no second prize in C5. Would humans in mp vote for someone else? only if they were colluding.

But given the choice to liberate a fallen civs capital or puppet it, I choose puppet 95% of the time as having a one city, hardly any infrastructure and feeble population, civ around is of little help to anyone other than the token vote to the UN it provides.

You could give it money then do an RA with it. I don't liberate because it seems so unreal. In reality liberation implies an ongoing separate identity which implies resistance. This cannot be true when thousand plus years have passed. Could the rebels who took Tripoli have restored Carthage? I don't think so.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Diplomacy in Civ 5 is done not through Diplomacy Screen, but through every actions you took through out the game. You can no longer control AI behavior by collecting bonus modifers, which I think is a good thing.

Riiight.

.
There's just no point in cultivating good relations in Civ5.
That's not a good thing.

This is (was?) realpolitik. Someone famous once said something like diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" while you look for a rock.

That's not realpolitik, that's either poor game edsign or bad coding.
And lot of witty quotes are just wrong anyway. Real diplomacy is trying to make the other guy do what you want, preferably without force of arms. I've never seen the AI in Civ5 try to bribe me and the only proxy wars i've ever seen were between city state. All they do is complain, demand and insult.
See how Ramkhamhaeng in the above picture says the odds are clearly against him? He knows he's weaker, but 80 turns or so ago he decided we'll be eternal enemies although I have never taken any action against him.

I know the reason why he attacked me by the way and it's stupid.

 

[Roxlimn]

I think that by reason of being the player you're supposed to influence the AI, not the other way around. Most of the so-called "complaints, demands, and insults," are really ways for the player to influence the AI, or feedback from the AI to alert you to how they're behaving.

Being pieces of simple code, I don't think it's possible for AI to convince a real life person against his better judgment or will. You'd really have to be some kind of a weak sock to fall prey to code.

 

[TM Moot]

Diplomacy is pointless in civ5 (as the above screenie ably demonstrates).

I now don't even bother reading the warnings, threats, declarations etc.. which constantly show up, what's the point.

Hopefully it'll be patched at some point, but i kinda doubt it.

 

[headcase]

I've had fun with the diplo, but that Siam pic is just ridiculous. What was the reason Good Samaritan? Are there still no red points after the next turn? (I think sometimes red points are hidden when cpu is deceptive, but they should reappear after declaration).

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think that by reason of being the player you're supposed to influence the AI, not the other way around. Most of the so-called "complaints, demands, and insults," are really ways for the player to influence the AI, or feedback from the AI to alert you to how they're behaving.

Being pieces of simple code, I don't think it's possible for AI to convince a real life person against his better judgment or will. You'd really have to be some kind of a weak sock to fall prey to code.

They could try. It feels to much like "Me versus them". There's no power blocks, no alliances, no vassals. It's everyone for himself. There are defense agreements in the diplo screen but I've never been offered one and I've never seen one between AI civs.
In a better strategy game a weaker but rich neighbor might try to bribe me into war against their enemy or pay to form a defense pact, or a rich but technologically backward Arabia could offer research areements where they carry the bigger portion of the cost. In Civ5 every deal is either completely equal or skewed against the human. The AI will never agree to something that seems to benefit another party more but is in their long term strategic interest.
But even if they tried : what do they have to offer except money and luxuries ? Strategic resources that I won't use because once the deal is over half my army will get a 50% combat penalty ? A badly placed city that will only increase my unhappines and interrupt my national wonder production while I raze it.

There are so many potential possibilities: renegotiate borders, ransfer control
of tiles, gifting units (maybe great people or UU), TECH TRADING, transfer influence over city states (like negotiating on behalf of a third party), trade embargoes against others, political advisors (a way to transfer culture towards policies between players).

It took me ten minutes to come up with all of this and many things were already incorporated in previous civ games. I had hoped city states would enrich and complicate diplomacy between major civs, instead they have completely replaced it.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I've had fun with the diplo, but that Siam pic is just ridiculous. What was the reason Good Samaritan? Are there still no red points after the next turn? (I think sometimes red points are hidden when cpu is deceptive, but they should reappear after declaration).

The reason is that I had eliminated two other civs and was a warmonger. Never mind that I never declared war on anyone. First the americans tried to warrior rush me, and when I counter-rushed with chariots and warriors I took Washington. their only city at the time. Later the Mongols backstabbed me. I razed two cities and they made peace. Ten turns later they attacked again. See, the AI sometimes falls into an obsessive compulsion to attack the same guy again and again even if the target is stronger. They'll make peace (sometimes paying gold for the peace treaty) and attack again as soon as the peace agreement expires. You'll always be at war with them, except for ten turn periods during which they'll usually be "friendly".
During the fourth war I had enough and wiped the Mongols out, and after you destroy two civs you are a warmonger regardless of the circumstance. The lesson should have been "don't screw with me, I never declare war but I destroy my enemies if they force me to".
I've brought that up in another thread and people were rationalising that I am a warmonger if I completely conquer civs, but screw that. If you never start a war and destroy someone who attacked you four times you shouldn't get the warmonger label. Context should aways matter.
It's the same with defending city states. When the Mongols or Ottomans go on to conquer CS left and right and you attack them to save or liberate the CS you're always the aggressor. Declare too many wars and you're a warmonger.

Edit: You see the "we fought together against a common foe" ? That was the Mongols who attacked Siam during one of their 10 turn peaces with me.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ V has one undeniable and crushing flaw: You do nothing while playing it.

For over two hours per game. Probably much more than that.

Is doing nothing fun for you? Who on this thread wants to come out and say that doing nothing is fun?

If your average turn time across a game is 30 seconds in between turns, you are losing over 2 hours to doing nothing most games. Watch paint dry. Watch a movie, etc. That's how long you lose every time you run a civ V game instead of a different game.

 

[Roxlimn]

Weird. My average turn time between turns is nothing like that long. It's maybe 10 seconds or so if I don't have sight, or longer when I do, but which I spend watching what the AI is doing.

 

[whirl]

They could try. It feels to much like "Me versus them". There's no power blocks, no alliances, no vassals. It's everyone for himself. There are defense agreements in the diplo screen but I've never been offered one and I've never seen one between AI civs.
In a better strategy game a weaker but rich neighbor might try to bribe me into war against their enemy or pay to form a defense pact, or a rich but technologically backward Arabia could offer research areements where they carry the bigger portion of the cost. In Civ5 every deal is either completely equal or skewed against the human. The AI will never agree to something that seems to benefit another party more but is in their long term strategic interest.
But even if they tried : what do they have to offer except money and luxuries ? Strategic resources that I won't use because once the deal is over half my army will get a 50% combat penalty ? A badly placed city that will only increase my unhappines and interrupt my national wonder production while I raze it.

There are so many potential possibilities: renegotiate borders, ransfer control
of tiles, gifting units (maybe great people or UU), TECH TRADING, transfer influence over city states (like negotiating on behalf of a third party), trade embargoes against others, political advisors (a way to transfer culture towards policies between players).

It took me ten minutes to come up with all of this and many things were already incorporated in previous civ games. I had hoped city states would enrich and complicate diplomacy between major civs, instead they have completely replaced it.

Some good ideas there.

Another reason for the poor IA imo is the way they've changed the AI to "play to win". This has made meaningful ties between you and other empires almost impossible, because everyone is chasing these artificial win conditions = everyone for him/herself.

Possibly by giving some options to win as a team could change this. One could also imagine a scenario where AIs consider that coming 2nd is better than coming last because you tried to fulfill an impossible win condition. IE know when you're beaten and "join" the winning side to get a ride to as good a score/position as possible.

Just some random thoughts, but something definitely needs to be done to make the game feel more immersive and the diplomacy meaningful.

 

[Aristos]

Civ V has one undeniable and crushing flaw: You do nothing while playing it.

For over two hours per game. Probably much more than that.

Is doing nothing fun for you? Who on this thread wants to come out and say that doing nothing is fun?

If your average turn time across a game is 30 seconds in between turns, you are losing over 2 hours to doing nothing most games. Watch paint dry. Watch a movie, etc. That's how long you lose every time you run a civ V game instead of a different game.

It's the "doing nothing" in between turns that worries you? The "doing nothing" IN the turn is what kills me...

 

[lschnarch]

It's the "doing nothing" in between turns that worries you? The "doing nothing" IN the turn is what kills me...

Funny enough, I immediately got this feeling again - I'm getting tired by sitting in front of the screen.
Although in my new game I am constantly at war, I am doing almost nothing. Each turn I have to move like 2 units. Every fifth or tenth turn I give build order.
Every 20th turn I deny a "peace offer", where AI ask for all of my "empire" because they've lost 20 units and I've lost none. They have lost cities, and I've gained them.
But they are asking me to fall to my knees.

 

[headcase]

If your average turn time across a game is 30 seconds in between turns, you are losing over 2 hours to doing nothing most games. Watch paint dry. Watch a movie, etc. That's how long you lose every time you run a civ V game instead of a different game.

You mean like you get a 30 second load between turns? I don't get that much and my PC, while good in the day, is getting on in years. I run music in the background too.

 

[headcase]

The reason is that I had eliminated two other civs and was a warmonger.

Ah, that explains it. Yeah, if you take enough cities (or just fight enough), you will get that and there's nothing you can do about it.

They don't really factor who starts wars enough; I find that whether or not I declare makes hardly any difference as to whether I'm a warmonger. Your case highlights this problem very well. Siam's train of thought was:
1. He never decs
2. He kicks ass in every war anyone starts with him
3. He could easily beat my army
4. Therefore: it's only a matter of time before he decs (ignoring #1)! Better surprise attack to have any hope!

Though to Firaxis they are probably seeing more as:
- There's no way I can win this game before he does, I should dec just to spite him.

The issue with ties between civs is that any human can break those ties, so why not AI? Well, I like role-playing too so I know. More advanced City State relationships may be the answer, given the overall design of Civ5 and its AI.

If they do want to let civs make ties with each other, they need to have an actual game mechanic for it, not just a nice AI. A game mechanic like civs collecting a growing amount of free gold as they keep close ties (e.g. open borders). when the amount gets high enough, the civs become increasingly dependent on each other and don't want to break ties. And it should be more gold for closer civs, because 1) more trade and 2) a friendship with a faraway civ is easier; no land disputes.

 

[Bezurn]

Yea, I like the idea of forming alliances that are meaningful and can actually have advantages for both sides instead of the AI demanding 'gift's (tribute) because they are too dumb to play the game. The open borders idea sounds good, but I think it should scale by number of cities (or just puppets). The more cities (or puppets) you have the less reward you get than the other civ. So a big civ allying with a small one wouldn't get as big of reward so as to not give big civs even more advantages.

Each era or something each civ would have to contribute an amount of money to maintain or increase their partnership to a new level. At the highest level (maybe 4 levels total) each civ would share in any peaceful victory condition. I would probably add the alliance diplomatic mechanic at the currency tech.

 

[dexters]

The diplomcy in 5 post the series of patches this year is very easy to understand and much more rational.

There's no longer the RNG element that was used to stand in for real diplomacy in previous Civs. Most Civs will start out neutral and then turn to friendly. It will be things you do in the game that determines the course of their actions.

Granted, there are other factors as well. Going for the same victory condition will aggrevate a good relationship.

The most common reason AI goes to war in the early game is over land.
The most common reason AI goes to war in the late game is over threats.

As with most other Civ games, no shared borders has an implied relationship bonus because there are fewer things to create conflicts. But I have no problems keeping good relations with most Civs when I want to. Uusually, it's my bad habit of wanting to be friends with everyone that causes problems for me.

I've never had trouble keeping good re

 

[Roxlimn]

Bezurn:

The AI doesn't really usually "need" what it asks for, it doesn't use it well once it receives the favor, and it's not coded to generally ask for things that support its overall strategy. In other words, it's not a human. It never was, it never will be. It's an AI code.

A Friendly AI asking you for stuff is an opportunity for YOU, the player, to influence its actions positively in your direction for a one-time cost. It worked identically in Civ 4.