Patch was supposed to decrease backstabbing?
- Thread starter GfxJG
- Start date
Superluminal
Warlord
'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer' - Sun-tzu
The AI knows this. Now your civilization shall burn to ashes! Hahahaha
The AI knows this. Now your civilization shall burn to ashes! Hahahaha
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Answer is simple: Civ 5 is largely a war game. Diplomacy is virtually nonexistent. Your armies were smaller than the AI's (in their calculations), so they declared war on you.
It sucks, but what is Firaxis going to do to *really* fix the lacking diplomacy issue? No idea. I wouldn't expect anything revolutionary though, I mean look at the minor changes they've made to multiplayer over the past few months.
It sucks, but what is Firaxis going to do to *really* fix the lacking diplomacy issue? No idea. I wouldn't expect anything revolutionary though, I mean look at the minor changes they've made to multiplayer over the past few months.
Optional
Deity
I just posted in thread about the patch notes what I found, I might just copy-paste that whole post here as well:
I had a look at the XML files, and what I noticed is that several civs have had their 'Deceptiveness' toned down a bit:
Alexander 4 > 4
Askia 4 > 3
Augustus 7 > 6
Bismarck 7 > 7
Catherine 7 > 7
Darius 5 > 5
Elizabeth 6 > 6
Gandhi 3 > 3
G Kahn 3 > 3
H Rashid 7 > 6
Hiawatha 7 > 5
Isabella 6 > 5
Kameham 4 > 4
Montezu 7 > 7
Napoleon 7 > 7
Oda 7 > 6
Pachacuti 7 > 6
Ramesses 6 > 6
Ramkham 7 > 6
Sejong 4
Suleiman 7 > 7
G Wash 7 > 5
Wu 7 > 7
From what I understand, this 'Deceptiveness' would play a role in how likely it is they declare on you while being friendly to you.
You see the numbers have gone down slightly, 2K Greg was talking about a slightly lesser chance of backstab, and I think it's these numbers they've adjusted to establish this effect. Consider this an amateur's guess, though, because I'm no expert on what's under the hood in this game.
And err... Babylon is missing because I haven't got that DLC.
That's what I posted, and yes, you won't see much change from such slight adjustments, although, paradoxically enough, you're mentioning Washington and Hiawatha, and that's just the two that have been toned down most. But even then, going from a 7 to a 5 on a scale of 10 isn't huge, and also you need to keep in mind that the actual figure used in any game can end up two higher or lower, depending on a dice roll.
I had a look at the XML files, and what I noticed is that several civs have had their 'Deceptiveness' toned down a bit:
Alexander 4 > 4
Askia 4 > 3
Augustus 7 > 6
Bismarck 7 > 7
Catherine 7 > 7
Darius 5 > 5
Elizabeth 6 > 6
Gandhi 3 > 3
G Kahn 3 > 3
H Rashid 7 > 6
Hiawatha 7 > 5
Isabella 6 > 5
Kameham 4 > 4
Montezu 7 > 7
Napoleon 7 > 7
Oda 7 > 6
Pachacuti 7 > 6
Ramesses 6 > 6
Ramkham 7 > 6
Sejong 4
Suleiman 7 > 7
G Wash 7 > 5
Wu 7 > 7
From what I understand, this 'Deceptiveness' would play a role in how likely it is they declare on you while being friendly to you.
You see the numbers have gone down slightly, 2K Greg was talking about a slightly lesser chance of backstab, and I think it's these numbers they've adjusted to establish this effect. Consider this an amateur's guess, though, because I'm no expert on what's under the hood in this game.
And err... Babylon is missing because I haven't got that DLC.
That's what I posted, and yes, you won't see much change from such slight adjustments, although, paradoxically enough, you're mentioning Washington and Hiawatha, and that's just the two that have been toned down most. But even then, going from a 7 to a 5 on a scale of 10 isn't huge, and also you need to keep in mind that the actual figure used in any game can end up two higher or lower, depending on a dice roll.
When the first released the game it was Firaxis' ever intention to make the AI do things for no apparent reason. If they see you are weaker than them, they are still inclined to attack regardless of how close you think the two of you are. I don't think Firaxis intends to do anything substantial about this problem.
I just wish they could have found a good balance between the AI in cIV (where it was probably too easy to make friends) and ciV (where they attack you for no reason and are completely irrational).
I just wish they could have found a good balance between the AI in cIV (where it was probably too easy to make friends) and ciV (where they attack you for no reason and are completely irrational).
Sorry, but I played Civ4 as much as many others at this forum and this:
was an invitation for war in Civ4, too.
So this:
is at least questionable in this regard. Hey guys, what do you *expect*, when ignoring your defence?
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
I don't play the game as much as you guys, but it sounds like me like the developers have really gone for the quoted approach.
I don't play the game as much as you guys, but it sounds like me like the developers have really gone for the quoted approach.
ShahJahanII
Homesick Alien
That is about right.
I have found that the situation is always the same, you get DoW'd if you don't have the most powerful army on your continent. This usually means you are 3rd in world army size. This is on standard map size, BTW.
On another continent, there are probably 2 large civs that have the 1st and 2nd largest armies. They will be at a cold war for the whole game. Sometimes one of them gets the upper hand and takes out the other, but almost never. They are no threat to you whatsoever as long as you have 2 naval units. Really. 2 naval units will guard your coastline for the whole game. Just keep these upgraded. You may have to have a few more if you are facing England, Denmark, or Songhai. But other than that, you don't have to have much good strategy.
Have to agree with the original poster -- in my first game since the patch I've been backstabbed at least six or seven times. If they were trying to reduce this behavior (as indicated in the patch notes), I don't think they were successful.
I take it that you think it is perfectly logical that AI act like players rather than leaders of a country?
Do you actually think it is reasonable for the AI to attack you just because they can?
I hope you're not trying to posit that this is a good thing.
I don't mind the odd surprise attack from a supposedly friendly leader, but it happens so frequently now that it's hardly a surprise. To have a friendly nation attack you, then go back to being friends when you repel the invasion -- and do it again, and again, and again... it's just stupid.
It's probably a bug then.
Kerosene31
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2001
- Messages
- 409
Hiawatha hates you from the moment he knows you exist in the world (maybe even a few turns sooner).
+1 win-ness.
Um... you've got that front to back.
Yeah. If the AI does it once out of 10 games, it would be a nice surprise and people will actually praise the AI for backstabbing in critical moments. Rather what I feel is the AI should start to cancel DoFs, and a few turns later make some comment, and then declare war.
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Wat firaxis should do is change the typ AI(good AI)... As long as they use this typ of AI diplomacy is non existing... Do you hear me firaxis READ THIS ...
They can add thousand of futures or reduce the flavor of backstabbing and bumb the loyalty. The AI will still backstab you because it wants to win....
AI can't handle diplomacy options and flavors in this game because they choose the wrong typ AI it makes it decissions based on numbers how much gold,soldiers has the human player
.I actually accept it know that its a wargame its just like advance wars but traveling through time... Pretty cool..
The main reason why I am so mad and complain about this.
Is because it isnt presented as a wargame but as a game with diplomacy options and building you're empire like you want it..
Even gamespot IGN lied about their review I only saw a few reviews where they actually said that this was a problem or a major change from civilization 4 which certain gamers wouldn't like...
Vladesch
Warlord
It wouldn't be so bad if the AI backstabbed you because it wants to win, but in 90% of cases the AI backstabs me because it wants to lose. Or so it appears.
It's just too easy to take cities after the AI has burned up most of it's army on a failed attack.
I may only have half the army of the AI, but if I have ranged units strategically placed, it will lose. (and lose badly)
In summary, the AI needs to be surer of it's chances before it attacks.
It's just too easy to take cities after the AI has burned up most of it's army on a failed attack.
I may only have half the army of the AI, but if I have ranged units strategically placed, it will lose. (and lose badly)
In summary, the AI needs to be surer of it's chances before it attacks.
