Patch was supposed to decrease backstabbing?

[Drawmeus]

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.

Answer is even simpler, really.

They're dealing with probabilities. Decreasing the chance that you'll be backstabbed doesn't mean you won't be backstabbed; it means that over a large sample size you'll be backstabbed fewer total times.

 

[headcase]

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.

The question Firaxis (and AI modders going for the same human feel) should ask is "does this make the AI more human"?

In this case, if a human attacks another human, then decides the war isn't going well, what do they do?

If they decide to make peace, act friendly, and then backstab after building their army, and then they again start losing the 2nd war, what do they do now?

If I played MP maybe I'd have answers to those questions.

And if I read more history, I could cite examples for when this kind of behaviour was done IRL.

Personally I'd make it so declaring war costs culture or something (ONLY for the declarer).

 

[markusbeutel]

The question Firaxis (and AI modders going for the same human feel) should ask is "does this make the AI more human"?

In this case, if a human attacks another human, then decides the war isn't going well, what do they do?

If they decide to make peace, act friendly, and then backstab after building their army, and then they again start losing the 2nd war, what do they do now?

If I played MP maybe I'd have answers to those questions.

And if I read more history, I could cite examples for when this kind of behaviour was done IRL.

Personally I'd make it so declaring war costs culture or something (ONLY for the declarer).

That's a really interesting idea - possibly a stagnation of culture, or no culture earned at all during a war, (or after a certain amount of turns of being at war - war weariness in a way).

 

[The Pilgrim]

Just wondering... How many games have you guys managed to complete since the last patch to notice 'the tendency'? I could barely squeeze in one. Hopefully tonight will be the second one.
Anyway... I have to agree, the backstabbing policy, and DoWing overall doesn't make a lot of sense. Pre-patch and probably post-patch as well. AI usually DoWs because it wants to lose, as one of the previous posters metioned, which is a bit annoying. I don't like to be bothered by a bunch of outdated suicidal units. Really. The MM necessary for wiping them out is tiresome. While they have no chance in the first place, for me it's just a wasted effort.
Sure, having two spearmen, being completely broke and dragging behind in tech - is invitation for war. But this is never the case, not in my games, at least. If I don't have the tech lead I have a couple of GS that can give me one anytime and enough money to quickly upgrade/buy sufficient army.

Does anyone actually know what are the factors in AI's 'decision making process' whether do DoW or not? Is it solely military might ranking? It really shouldn't be. Literacy and wealth should be taken under consideration, too. In addition to human player tactic superiority handicap which I'm sure doesn't exist in the code and definitely should be there. It even doesn't seem difficult to implement programming wise. Probably just adding a multiplier based on simple mathematical formula to the parameters listed above.

 

[apocalypse105]

That's a really interesting idea - possibly a stagnation of culture, or no culture earned at all during a war, (or after a certain amount of turns of being at war - war weariness in a way).

I rise of nations declaring a war cost wealth So it would be kinda stupid to declare war on everyone because you dont have enough wealth to buy soldiers Note wealth is gathered really slow in this game so the culture cost could be great... Or gold...
Actually good idea costing culture to declare

 

[AriochIV]

And if I read more history, I could cite examples for when this kind of behaviour was done IRL.

If friendly or hostile status doesn't mean anything, then what's the point? It doesn't help that the AI plays by different rules than the player, and this leads to obvious silliness; for example, friendly Catherine who has stabbed me in the back THREE TIMES suddenly starts calling me a bloodthirsty warmonger because I declared war against SOMEBODY ELSE who was hostile to me (and had previously attacked me). And I even took the honorable route of letting this third party attack me first (when he challenged my troops massing on the border). It's nonsense that just reminds you how random and pointless the whole diplomacy system is, how none of your choices have any meaningful impact.

Does anyone actually know what are the factors in AI's 'decision making process' whether do DoW or not? Is it solely military might ranking? It really shouldn't be.

Anecdotally, it seems that even when I have a strong army, if those units are not near the civ in question (especially if they are engaged against a third party), the chances of a backstab appear to increase.

 

[Roxlimn]

AriochIV:

Friendly nations will accept favorable deals whereas Guarded or Hostile nations will not. It's always good, as a player, to have AI on Friendly terms, even when they do you the favor of DoWing on you multiple times.

Also, DoWing on anyone gives you a general diplo hit with all Civs, even when it's because a Civ accosted you for what is obviously a move to attack him. Declaring war when you're prepared and the AI is not isn't honorable - it would hardly have been called that if you were accosted by a human player in a MP game. It doesn't incur any less of a diplo hit than if you'd waited a fair bit outside his borders, DoW'd, and then moved in.

 

[WTBCzero]

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?

This is mostly true, but there were civs in civ 4 who would NEVER backstab you if they were pleased or friendly. Only a few civs would backstab you in these situations. I kinda preferred this, though obviously it could easily be taken advantage of by the player.

 

[digitalcraft]

Just always assume any civilization next to you will attack you. Make sure you have good defenses and they'll just suicide their units and then roll over and hand you all their resources and some cities. Since you expect it, just have your ranged units ready and you can pratically ignore the other civs until they're ready to hand their cities to you. Despite it being called "Deceptiveness" I find the Civ5 civilizations incredibly predictable and easy to plan for. They will always attack you, the end.

And I have to agree the friendly >DoW> friendly is annoying. So are denounces, I wish they would remove that. All the time I'll have a situation where I'm friendly with some civilizations, and one arbitrarily denounces me. I check why and it's something like building settlements too rapidly even though I haven't made a new city in over 100 turns. Then the other person denounces me because of the denounce hit, and then the first person even hates me more because a friend of mine would denounce me. HEY JERK, THEY DENOUNCED ME BECAUSE YOU DID

 

[The Pilgrim]

Anecdotally, it seems that even when I have a strong army, if those units are not near the civ in question (especially if they are engaged against a third party), the chances of a backstab appear to increase.

Doesn't surprise me. I've been backstabbed by nearly every leader in any given condition. Having strong army, weak army, being actual warmongering menace or the most peaceful culture/science builder, when I'm at war with a third party or even when the backstabber itself at war with a third party (and loosing). Looks totally random. I assume this is not the case but seems like it.

Also, DoWing on anyone gives you a general diplo hit with all Civs, even when it's because a Civ accosted you for what is obviously a move to attack him. Declaring war when you're prepared and the AI is not isn't honorable - it would hardly have been called that if you were accosted by a human player in a MP game. It doesn't incur any less of a diplo hit than if you'd waited a fair bit outside his borders, DoW'd, and then moved in.

And what exactly you're supposed to do to have AI on Friendly terms? Rerolling untill you start on isolated peninsula? Seriously.

Just always assume any civilization next to you will attack you. Make sure you have good defenses and they'll just suicide their units and then roll over and hand you all their resources and some cities. Since you expect it, just have your ranged units ready and you can pratically ignore the other civs until they're ready to hand their cities to you. Despite it being called "Deceptiveness" I find the Civ5 civilizations incredibly predictable and easy to plan for. They will always attack you, the end.

Exactly. I would love to have some level of unpredictability and backstabbing from time to time. Unfortunately it is predicted. With 100% accuracy. And what annoys me AI has no real reason to do this, nor actual goal it's trying to achieve by doing this. Pointless. Pointless suicidal bulling. I find it disruptive more than anything else. It barely affects the game course or my plans, doesn't make the game more challenging, since the fight outcome is also predictable. Just forces me to MM my units. If it happens when I decide to DoW someone or when my objectively stronger neighbor comes after me it's nice, it's called tactics. But when it happens every 40 turns or so just because AI is highly irrational it turns into dirty tedious work. By any mean not fun.

 

[Lay_Lay]

The AI is fatally unware that its invasion can be repelled by 1 archer garrisoned in one city.
That is the real flaw in its decision making. It doesn't know it sucks at war.

 

[Roxlimn]

The Pilgrim:

For one, you have to be resigned to have a diplo hit with every nearby Civ unless you just kill them off early. You don't have to be a world-spanning Empire, and you can just accept strained relations with nearby Civs and take every opportunity to cozy up to them.

Far away Civs can be kept Friendly nearly constantly. It's hardly any effort at all, really. It's possible to keep nearby Civs Friendly so long as you know their personalities and don't do things to piss them off - like have cities near their borders.

 

[The Pilgrim]

It's possible to keep nearby Civs Friendly so long as you know their personalities and don't do things to piss them off - like have cities near their borders.

Like have cities. Period. At a certain point you get the hit for 'expanding too aggressively' from your 'BFF' and then from the rest of the world for 'your friends found a reason to denounce you'. Should I be stuck with 4 cities surrounded by some huge empires with better science and military? I don't think so. I wanna win, you know.
It's funny how I was mostly a diplo-astronaut with all the previous Civs and became a full time warmonger with CIV5. Silly AIs just won't leave you alone and go on and on nagging, sending their little pesky crossbows or whatever. It's just easier to put them out of a misery.

 

[Buccaneer]

Do some of you prefer not have any of the AI opponents bother you and instead, leave you alone so you can play in a sandbox? What would be the point of playing if you don't have to worry about defense or having opponents in a game?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Do some of you prefer not have any of the AI opponents bother you and instead, leave you alone so you can play in a sandbox? What would be the point of playing if you don't have to worry about defense or having opponents in a game?

That would be like asking what's the point of the entire game Sid Meier's Railroads. It's a game played competitively against AI opponents, but you can't go to war with them, e.g. by destroying things they have.

Players differ in their preferred playstyles and I can perfectly understand that some would be frustrated by a game that forces them nearly every game to engage in military conflict.

Who deserves to direct the design of Civilization games I can't say. However I think one or the other group would be served well by a mod that alters the AI behaviours. IMO there's no question that the AIs in civ4 allowed for a more peaceful playstyle if it was chosen by the player.

In short, I'm sure there'd be a way to mod leaders to be a bit less hungry for war.

 

[SomeNewGuy]

Played a game yesterday where montezuma (declared friends several turns before) plopped down a city near my frontier town, declared war, sent 5 jaguar warriors to attack it, and had them either march back and forth or stand around, except for one unit who was stationed on the tile across the river from my town - he attacked every other turn. After my 2 pop building and garrisoned archer took them all out (took a while, of course), montezuma requested peace by demanding that I open my borders and give him all my gold and luxury items.

Not only do they need to greatly reduce the backstabbing and AI aggressiveness, they also need to get rid of these ridiculous peace deals. Unless I reduce the AI to nearly nothing, they want everything I have for 10 turns of "peace". How about "We'll stop bugging you for a few turns for 50 gold" or "We just needed spices... we'll stop the attacks if you give us some" instead?

The fact that the AI declares war if you have a smaller army is stupid. They are so bad at fighting that you don't need to waste resources on a large army to defeat them.

 

[AriochIV]

Do some of you prefer not have any of the AI opponents bother you and instead, leave you alone so you can play in a sandbox? What would be the point of playing if you don't have to worry about defense or having opponents in a game?

We're talking about the diplomacy system. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a game with opponents who are always hostile, but then there's no point in having a diplomacy system.

 

[Kerosene31]

Do some of you prefer not have any of the AI opponents bother you and instead, leave you alone so you can play in a sandbox? What would be the point of playing if you don't have to worry about defense or having opponents in a game?

I don't want the AI going to war with me when there is zero reason for them to do so.

The scenario is the civ next to me which is much smaller and with a pathetic army attacking me by surprise. I can push them back easily enough, but if I leave them alive they just do the same thing in another few hundred turns. If I wipe them out, I'm the warmonger for the rest of the game.

It is a no-win scenario if you are trying to play peacefully. I have no problem with the AI playing to win, but when they are losing they seem to just decide to suicide so they can go home early.

 

[Roxlimn]

Like have cities. Period. At a certain point you get the hit for 'expanding too aggressively' from your 'BFF' and then from the rest of the world for 'your friends found a reason to denounce you'. Should I be stuck with 4 cities surrounded by some huge empires with better science and military? I don't think so. I wanna win, you know.
It's funny how I was mostly a diplo-astronaut with all the previous Civs and became a full time warmonger with CIV5. Silly AIs just won't leave you alone and go on and on nagging, sending their little pesky crossbows or whatever. It's just easier to put them out of a misery.

It's actually plausible to win, and even be in the lead against AI with just 4 cities. Mores than in Civ4, what matters in Civ 5 is population, not territory. The hugest land in the world won't do you any good if you don't have the population or the happiness to fill the tiles.

FWIW, I never sign DoFs with near neighbors because I know they're going to be denouncing me soon for having cities near them. Provided that you bash the heads of your near neighbor in, and stop at natural borders that no sane AI would settle (like vast desert), you can be set for a mostly peaceful game.

For the record, I play on King as well. I didn't play the diplo game in Civ4 because it felt too much like cheating. The AI in Civ4 was even worse in diplomacy than it was at war, and that's saying something.

 

[Roxlimn]

I don't want the AI going to war with me when there is zero reason for them to do so.

The scenario is the civ next to me which is much smaller and with a pathetic army attacking me by surprise. I can push them back easily enough, but if I leave them alive they just do the same thing in another few hundred turns. If I wipe them out, I'm the warmonger for the rest of the game.

It is a no-win scenario if you are trying to play peacefully. I have no problem with the AI playing to win, but when they are losing they seem to just decide to suicide so they can go home early.

Wait for the AI to found some dinky tundra city. Attack him and raze everything except for that one dinky little city. Do not settle the empty space. Without proximity and any other incitements, the AI will be significantly more inclined to peace, especially if you didn't start the war.