Opinions about Diplomacy (mod research)

[Infixo]

Lots of very insightful comments and observations! Diplomacy is a pretty big topic and certainly quite complex due to a huge number of factors in game, agendas being certainly sold as one "CivVI grand new ideas" by Firaxis. I like very much the concept but as it happens very often - implementation is much more difficult.
Conceptually agendas are supposed to be an emanation of a leader's individuality and/or character. They may be related to the type of game (victory type) a leader is playing but I am convinced that they must be. Lots comments point out that e.g. X goes for culture usually, and the agenda is "likes high culture" and it should be the opposite. Well, it certainly it could be but why should? It is well known psychological fact that we like people that are similar to us, have similar hobbies, interests, etc. There is no imperative for me to dislike others who have high culture output if I am going for culture victory.
Heck, I could also imagine that there could be leaders with opposite agendas (there in fact are, just not in the culture case), i.e. some may like you for doing stuff, and other may hate you for doing exactly the same thing. That is I suppose the true goal of agendas, especially if you add random agendas to the mix. Increase playability, so not every game is the same, etc.
But like I said, implementation is a different topic. I am reviewing various components of the diplo system and e.g. random agendas are a mess. Lots of bugs and/or really weird design decisions. But there are also tons of opportunities to make it much better, that is for sure.

 

[Infixo]

A minor topic in a separate post. Agendas activate usually 10 or 30 turns after meeting a civ. Ofc, there are few exceptions when they are active immediately, but most historical agendas activate after 10 turns, and most random agendas after 30 turns.
What could be possible reasoning for such a distinction? I mean, I can imagine 10 turns as sort of "adjustment" period. You have some time to react, i.e. if you want to satisfy the agenda, or not, etc. But why wait 30 turns? It is pretty long, especially when the agenda is "late game" one.
My idea would be rather to try and make the agendas more dynamic, meaning the bigger the transgression, the bigger the hit, or increasing/decreasing slowly, thus giving you time to react. Also it is probably more realistic? Let's say you issue a warning or kudo, and then the next one, etc. and all the time you see if your diplo goes up or down.
What do you think?

 

[Infixo]

Also, how come they get an agenda or two and I don't?

You, as a human, have all the agendas at once Hell, you can even change your opinion every second turn if you want

 

[Aurelesk]

Lots of very insightful comments and observations! Diplomacy is a pretty big topic and certainly quite complex due to a huge number of factors in game, agendas being certainly sold as one "CivVI grand new ideas" by Firaxis. I like very much the concept but as it happens very often - implementation is much more difficult.
Conceptually agendas are supposed to be an emanation of a leader's individuality and/or character. They may be related to the type of game (victory type) a leader is playing but I am convinced that they must be. Lots comments point out that e.g. X goes for culture usually, and the agenda is "likes high culture" and it should be the opposite. Well, it certainly it could be but why should? It is well known psychological fact that we like people that are similar to us, have similar hobbies, interests, etc. There is no imperative for me to dislike others who have high culture output if I am going for culture victory.
Heck, I could also imagine that there could be leaders with opposite agendas (there in fact are, just not in the culture case), i.e. some may like you for doing stuff, and other may hate you for doing exactly the same thing. That is I suppose the true goal of agendas, especially if you add random agendas to the mix. Increase playability, so not every game is the same, etc.
But like I said, implementation is a different topic. I am reviewing various components of the diplo system and e.g. random agendas are a mess. Lots of bugs and/or really weird design decisions. But there are also tons of opportunities to make it much better, that is for sure.

I don't really mind flavorful Agendas as they give a leader an interesting side to them. Well, except some leaders are going to perform better because they have Agenda fitting their gameplan more than other. But this is just an aside from me, not really important in a game against AI.

Even if Agenda are supposed to be flavorful, I want to say they are not very immersive. As the diplomatic value are not gradual, it is a on/off switch on either we are on good or bad term. For example, even if Qin is the Wonder obsess leader, if he has 17 and me 16 shouldn't lead him to like me. Meanwhile: France's gameplay is all about owning Wonders. It gains additional Tourism and its Châteaux have additional Culture from it. Any leaders of France should value cities with Wonders a lot, and should be prone to conquer those cities.

So...for the first part, is it possible to have those modifiers being more gradual? Instead of being a -10/+10 switch, could it be possible to be from -20 to +20 and get updated each turn? In a sense that when at equilibrium, it is at 0, when leaning toward one side of another, it could be -2/+2 or -5/+5. It could still trigger the negative/positive agenda cutscene when reaching -10/+10, and the further you go for/against their Agenda, the bigger the diplomatic value modifier it gets.

For the second part, how is implement the AI's behavior? Is it linked per Leader, per Civilization, or per "entry" (like English Eleanor and French Eleanor has two different behavior). Could it be possible to have a "Civilization" behavior, a "Leader" behavior and both are mashed together to fit both gameplay? For example, France is about owning Wonders and put Château around them while England is about maritime and industrial powerhouse. Eleanor is about owning Great Works and Theater Square. Then French Eleanor and English Eleanor would have a different playstyle due to the Civilization she can lead.
If so, if a "Civilizations & Leaders Switcheroo" mods shows up, it could helps to have a more cohesive behavior.

You, as a human, have all the agendas at once Hell, you can even change your opinion every second turn if you want

For that part, is it possible to have the AI switch from a "flavorful" behavior to a "competitive" behavior depending of the difficulty chosen?

 

[Infixo]

My main complaint is that once you get friendships/alliances it’s very hard to lose them, no matter how evil you are to everyone else.

It is possible to tune this effect so it would be a bit more demanding. Right now it works like this because of 2 things:
A) The Ally and Friendship modifiers decay very slowly, i.e. -1 point per 10 turns; so Ally, which is +18, decays for 180 turns (!) this is imho too long; Friend is +9, so it decays 90 turns. Making them decay faster is very easy.
B) The ranges of diplo points that allow and/or forbid specific states and transitions between them are pretty wide; it means that once to enter a specific state, it is much harder to go back (to a more neutral state); this needs probably some trial & error runs to find optimal spots.

 

[Infixo]

For that part, is it possible to have the AI switch from a "flavorful" behavior to a "competitive" behavior depending of the difficulty chosen?

Technically it is possible, at least for some Leaders. Not all agendas are "flexible" enough, but many are.

 

[Infixo]

I don't really mind flavorful Agendas as they give a leader an interesting side to them. Well, except some leaders are going to perform better because they have Agenda fitting their gameplan more than other.

How so exactly? I mean, not in a remote indirect way like "well, if we help others that it harms us"... I am talking about a direct way. How flavor agendas might help some and obstruct others? Agendas don't actually give any bonuses. They sometimes modify AI preferences but not in a way that would harm their pursuit of a specific victory type. They just are a way to shape relations with others.

 

[Infixo]

Even if Agenda are supposed to be flavorful, I want to say they are not very immersive. As the diplomatic value are not gradual, it is a on/off switch on either we are on good or bad term. For example, even if Qin is the Wonder obsess leader, if he has 17 and me 16 shouldn't lead him to like me. Meanwhile: France's gameplay is all about owning Wonders. It gains additional Tourism and its Châteaux have additional Culture from it. Any leaders of France should value cities with Wonders a lot, and should be prone to conquer those cities.

So...for the first part, is it possible to have those modifiers being more gradual? Instead of being a -10/+10 switch, could it be possible to be from -20 to +20 and get updated each turn? In a sense that when at equilibrium, it is at 0, when leaning toward one side of another, it could be -2/+2 or -5/+5. It could still trigger the negative/positive agenda cutscene when reaching -10/+10, and the further you go for/against their Agenda, the bigger the diplomatic value modifier it gets.

Yup, it is possible in many cases but not all. This is something that was bothering me from the very beginning, that there is no "various strength" to those effects, that they are binary. Ofc in some cases where it would make sense. But yeah, this is something entirely possible, yet requires a lot parameterization. You basically need to multiply agenda modifiers, like there usually are 2 (for positive and negative situation), now there would be like 4 or 6, etc. depending how many grades you would like to implement.

 

[Infixo]

For the second part, how is implement the AI's behavior? Is it linked per Leader, per Civilization, or per "entry" (like English Eleanor and French Eleanor has two different behavior). Could it be possible to have a "Civilization" behavior, a "Leader" behavior and both are mashed together to fit both gameplay? For example, France is about owning Wonders and put Château around them while England is about maritime and industrial powerhouse. Eleanor is about owning Great Works and Theater Square. Then French Eleanor and English Eleanor would have a different playstyle due to the Civilization she can lead.
If so, if a "Civilizations & Leaders Switcheroo" mods shows up, it could helps to have a more cohesive behavior.

"AI behavior" is a very broad term. I assume you ask about diplomacy.
There are diplomatic states aka relationship level between players during the game. When in a specific state, there are allowed actions to do and possible transitions between states that depend on current diplo score. Diplo score is the sum of modifiers, essentialy they are the cornerstone of AI behavior.
They come from 2 sources: agendas and standard ones. Agendas are linked to Leaders only, personas are treated as separate leaders (well, technically, they are separate leaders). Standard diplomatic modifiers are linked to all Majors by default, and they are all the same.
I don't think there are any diplo mechanics that would be related to Civilizations, imho. But I am not gonna bet.

Your example of 2 personas leading different Civs - just don't think about those Eleanors as having anything in common. Each alternate leader is in fact a separate leader in the game. So, you can give them completely opposite playstyles, agendas, etc. The only thing they would have in common would be Uniques from Civilization, i.e. UA, UU and UB/UI/UD. Sometimes Civs have some AI preferences also attached to them, but it is just very rare.

What is this Switcheroo mod?

 

[Aurelesk]

What is this Switcheroo mod?

A short answer for this part. This is a daydream of having the ability to put any Leader with any Civilization. It doesn't exist (yet), but it is something highly requested and probably highly unbalanced.

 

[newtociv6]

- How easy or hard should be to befriend or ally a civ?
- If diplomacy and diplo modifiers should be symmetric or rather asymmetric (negative influence not equals positive)? [Edit. Usually agendas are constructed like positive and negative situation, and positive one gives +X and negative one gives -X; this is symmetric; it is possible that e.g. positives would give more or less diplo points than negatives - this is what I call asymmetric]

This, is why I consider it completely wrong and unrealistic in Civ. While it does match the attitudes of more religious, simple-minded leaders, it is not how many of ancient empires worked.

Diplomacy, in short, is a mechanism to gain more by less without resorting to violence, and often as a form of deception. There was no friendship. There was no true ally or friend in most situations, save a few examples such as 3 Christian kingdoms in Syria after first Crusade. Do you know the kings and lords were personal friends to Saracens? and signed peace treaties? all while both sides still were plotting against each other in the back to expand territory? And they were the more civilized / rule-following ones.

What would your ally do when you're attacked and in dire need? Take your land before it's too late! And what consequences? nobody cares. Even Mongols had a lot of "friends" and "allies" who would join the murderous horde they despise, if they have anything to gain from it.

 

[vorlon_mi]

A short answer for this part. This is a daydream of having the ability to put any Leader with any Civilization. It doesn't exist (yet), but it is something highly requested and probably highly unbalanced.

IIRC, Civ 4 had this as "Unrestricted Leaders", but those leaders had fewer attributes to switch around. I don't know if the Civ4 community finds it unbalanced or not.

 

[UWHabs]

I've seen it mentioned around, but Civ Blitz I think can let you create your own civ as a mod (https://civ6blitz.app/). I haven't run it myself, but you can mix and match and create your custom leaders, if you want to play around.

 

[Aurelesk]

How so exactly? I mean, not in a remote indirect way like "well, if we help others that it harms us"... I am talking about a direct way. How flavor agendas might help some and obstruct others? Agendas don't actually give any bonuses. They sometimes modify AI preferences but not in a way that would harm their pursuit of a specific victory type. They just are a way to shape relations with others.

I may believe something wrong, so sorry in advance. But... does diplomacy have an effect on their behavior*? For example, if a Civilization dislike another because of an Agenda, would be more prone to wage war?

Let's take Jadwiga and her high Faith Agenda. She would be hostile to civilizations with low Faith, either the one not going for a religious victory or less likely to win that one, but also being friendly to civilizations with high Faith, the most likely to convert them.

* : Agenda also says something like "Tend to do X, and like Civilizations that also do X". Do Agenda also change the AI behavior? I would believe yes, as second and third Agendas imply this. But does it work to for the first Agenda too?

 

[Infixo]

I may believe something wrong, so sorry in advance. But... does diplomacy have an effect on their behavior*? For example, if a Civilization dislike another because of an Agenda, would be more prone to wage war?

Let's take Jadwiga and her high Faith Agenda. She would be hostile to civilizations with low Faith, either the one not going for a religious victory or less likely to win that one, but also being friendly to civilizations with high Faith, the most likely to convert them.

* : Agenda also says something like "Tend to do X, and like Civilizations that also do X". Do Agenda also change the AI behavior? I would believe yes, as second and third Agendas imply this. But does it work to for the first Agenda too?

Yes, diplomacy is certainly a factor when deciding about a war. But we don't know how exactly this works. Diplo relationship also tells which actions, including wars, are allowed. E.g. Surprise war is allowed in Friendly state but not in Allied, Ideological war requires denouncement, and most common Formal War is only allowed in Denounced state. And for a Civ to get into Denounced state, you need to have negative modifiers, at least -5.

Often Agendas have also params that modify AI behavior. Typical AiFavoredItems. Imho., a well designed and implemented Agenda should modify AI behavior, not only Diplo relation.

 

[Das Capitolin]

Reviving this long-lost thread to ask if you have decoded the cost/worth values for DiplomaticStateActions, which I presume is central to your mod idea?

 

[Infixo]

Reviving this long-lost thread to ask if you have decoded the cost/worth values for DiplomaticStateActions, which I presume is central to your mod idea?

I did a lot of reasearch and analysis but mainly focused on how modifiers work and how they influence agendas, traits, etc. So fields like InitialValue, ReductionTurns, ReductionValue, IncrementValue, IncrementTurns, MaxValue. Plus the underlying modifiers that compare civs with other civs, so the core of agenda system, how to reuse them and how flexible they are.
I have not discovered the true meaning of cost and worth.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I think negative modifiers should be larger than positive modifiers (in general, so asymmetry), such that it becomes hard to 'play' the AI. They should ideally remember the bad things you did more than the good things you did, because that's how humans tend to work.

 

[Infixo]

I think negative modifiers should be larger than positive modifiers (in general, so asymmetry), such that it becomes hard to 'play' the AI. They should ideally remember the bad things you did more than the good things you did, because that's how humans tend to work.

This can be achieved easily. Th problem is that there are hundreds of them, it is a monumental work.