Patch was supposed to decrease backstabbing?

[Roxlimn]

The Pilgrim:

Not on immortal. Probably on emperor neither. AI expands quickly and very soon their settlers will jump around your 'natural borders' all frustrated cause they have no space to expand even more. Then you know you're gonna be bugged in the nearest future. They'll find their stupid reason to do so.

Shrug. So don't use the Immortal setting. You use the setting that gives you the game you want, yeah?

Right. However... Less cities = less territory = less happiness resources = less population = less science... Do I need to go on?

Yes, you do. Because that doesn't always follow. Less Cities doesn't mean less territory, necessarily, if those cities have poor culture spread and do not capture key resources. Even when they do, less cities means that you have less happiness issues to contend with at the start, so you can grow to bigger size without needing as much happiness. Moreover, powerful Wonders and Policies exist in Civ 5 that offset the happiness costing significantly.

Even in Civ 4, it's totally plausible to win at the highest diff levels with one city, and dominate the AI while doing so. Civ 5 gives you even more tools to do this. If you doubt, try the OCC setting.

If you start on rich peninsula with a big desert between you and everybody else with at least 5-6 resources of the same type that you can export to the rest (meaning no one else has them), you can make it. Otherwise you cannot. BTW, it happened to me only once, and yet Alex DoWed me. Never saw a single unit of his and he refused to go peace for thousand years until his other 'friends' beat the hell out of him. He was too far from me to bother finish him off first. Please tell me what was the point of this backstabbing.

I can make do with 4, actually, since I'm only playing on King. If that's how you want to play, maybe play on King, too?

IMO, Civ4 AI was not that bad in diplomacy neither at war.

Oh, come on. You can't be serious. Deity level players in Civ 4 routinely abused tech trading and the Religion mechanics to play the AI like puppets. It was not much of a stretch to say that at that point, they were co-opting the control of all those other AIs for their own win and that makes the Deity bonuses total jokes - since they were nearly directly available to the player himself!

As for war, I'll say only this: the AI in Civ 4 was so stupid that it would declare a war, walk over its stack to my city, give me XP, and then walk back. It could be manipulated to walk a stack back and forth between two cities, never attacking, because its target priorities could be manipulated. This means that the AI was never a threat during war, if you knew how to work it.

 

[MkLh]

Oh, come on. You can't be serious. Deity level players in Civ 4 routinely abused tech trading and the Religion mechanics to play the AI like puppets. It was not much of a stretch to say that at that point, they were co-opting the control of all those other AIs for their own win and that makes the Deity bonuses total jokes - since they were nearly directly available to the player himself!

If it was so easy, why every player wasn't on Deity level then?

 

[Becephalus]

The AI does and should act like a player. If you don't want to be attacked but want to neglect your army play on a lower level. It is that simple. If you play on a high level and have 2 spearman you will be attacked.

 

[The Pilgrim]

The Pilgrim:
Shrug. So don't use the Immortal setting. You use the setting that gives you the game you want, yeah?

Shrug indeed. What you're saying basically don't play on high levels because on higher levels AI is more stupid than on lower? It is not as much suicidal on king? Maybe you're right. It doesn't have even the lame units to suicide with. Problem is on lower levels the only aspects that are somewhat challenging like tech pace and expansion rate which force the human player chase AI's and not wise versa, are neutralized and there is nothing left to beat.

Yes, you do. Because that doesn't always follow. Less Cities doesn't mean less territory, necessarily, if those cities have poor culture spread and do not capture key resources. Even when they do, less cities means that you have less happiness issues to contend with at the start, so you can grow to bigger size without needing as much happiness. Moreover, powerful Wonders and Policies exist in Civ 5 that offset the happiness costing significantly.

Of course less cities mean less resources. How many unique luxuries you can have even in a fully developed city? 3? Fantastic case. 2 - Good case. Usually it's just one. And I completely ignore the need to settle on strategic resources. Let's assume they all are in the capital. And you need to grab more and more to grow. Sure policies and buildings help in the mid-late game, much less at early stages, not enough. Wonders... AI build most of them, unless you beeline for respective tech.

Even in Civ 4, it's totally plausible to win at the highest diff levels with one city, and dominate the AI while doing so. Civ 5 gives you even more tools to do this. If you doubt, try the OCC setting.

Sure, in Civ4 AI wasn't such crazy masochist trying to get a beating all the time. When it declared, you had to sweat a little bit at least. If it had nothing to offer military wise it usually sit still and hoped for the best.

I can make do with 4, actually, since I'm only playing on King. If that's how you want to play, maybe play on King, too?

But that's not how I want to play. And I definitely don't want to be restricted to certain strategy or difficulty level because diplomacy system is so hideous it makes almost impossible to enjoy the game.

Oh, come on. You can't be serious. Deity level players in Civ 4 routinely abused tech trading and the Religion mechanics to play the AI like puppets. It was not much of a stretch to say that at that point, they were co-opting the control of all those other AIs for their own win and that makes the Deity bonuses total jokes - since they were nearly directly available to the player himself!

I am. In Civ5 Deity level players (and not only them) routinely abuse resources/borders/cities trading to make a bankroll, quickly move their troops, make a fool of AI and and get many kinds of unfair advantages. Is it worse/better than Civ4 tech trading? Dunno. I liked tech trading but I'm perfectly fine without it.

As for war, I'll say only this: the AI in Civ 4 was so stupid that it would declare a war, walk over its stack to my city, give me XP, and then walk back. It could be manipulated to walk a stack back and forth between two cities, never attacking, because its target priorities could be manipulated. This means that the AI was never a threat during war, if you knew how to work it.

I have to disagree again. 1UPT is cool and everything but since AI is very weak in tactics human player has an overwhelming advantage. Stack system somewhat protected poor AI. You needed bunch of suicidal siege units to 'disarm' mixed stack and even then it still wasn't trivial. To fortify single archer on the hill wasn't enough. Now it's more than enough. Just find your key location and you're good. And if you don't find? Well, then sit in the city and you're also good.

 

[apocalypse105]

The AI does and should act like a player. If you don't want to be attacked but want to neglect your army play on a lower level. It is that simple. If you play on a high level and have 2 spearman you will be attacked.

Disagree You play single player in civilization 5 for the diplomacy..


What is something you will never have in a multiplayer =
decent diplomacy because everyone wants to win...



Thats why people play single player pure to play the game with diplomatic options
Yes some people play single player because they dont find people online or have a bad internet connection but even then you dont want to constantly play a wargame because it isnt..


If you put a good AI typ in single player it removes diplomacy completly as result it give no extra value to play single player over mutliplayer...
Thats why we need diplomacy in a single player civilization game

 

[MkLh]

The AI does and should act like a player.

So how would that differ from multiplaying? Except that opponents are much stupider and feeling of playing with other humans (the only reason to play MP basically) is missing. Singleplaying should be something more than an inferior version of MP.

If you don't want to be attacked but want to neglect your army play on a lower level. It is that simple. If you play on a high level and have 2 spearman you will be attacked.

Lower levels are simply too boring. I'm not seeking for any kind challenge, but on Emperor- AI is so completely pushover there is no point of playing at all.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Disagree You play single player in civilization 5 for the diplomacy..

It's possible to make diplomacy system, which will work in both in SP and MP. Actually the idea of trade-based diplomacy in Civ 5 is good. You don't want to attack someone you're buying resources from and with whom you signed RA, right? Although implementation is not so good yet, it's becoming better and better with each patch.

Just make a difference between diplomacy and controlling opponents like puppets.

So how would that differ from multiplaying? Except that opponents are much stupider and feeling of playing with other humans (the only reason to play MP basically) is missing. Singleplaying should be something more than an inferior version of MP.

They shouldn't be two different games as well. A lot of things in Civ 4 was just pointless in MP, starting from religion.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Religion isn't pointless in MP in civ4, at least not all forms of MP.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Religion isn't pointless in MP in civ4, at least not all forms of MP.

The main function of religion is to make other civs like you. In this area MP fails completely. Plus it makes pointless to send missionaries to other civs (you just help them gain non-diplo bonuses) and related civics. Yes, some non-diplomacy religion bonuses were available, but they were quite small in function.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes, some non-diplomacy religion bonuses were available, but they were quite small in function.

Well small in function is a long way from useless. Certainly there are aspects of religion that don't function at all in MP e.g. influencing attitudes towards you, but things like the AP, holy shrines and monasteries/temples are things that can be worked into a strategy.

Anyway, I guess your point was about diplomacy in the first place, so sorry if I've taken you off on a tangent.

 

[apocalypse105]

It's possible to make diplomacy system, which will work in both in SP and MP. Actually the idea of trade-based diplomacy in Civ 5 is good. You don't want to attack someone you're buying resources from and with whom you signed RA, right? Although implementation is not so good yet, it's becoming better and better with each patch.

Just make a difference between diplomacy and controlling opponents like puppets.
.

Even when you have trades the AI sometimes atacks
Thats why I personally thing they need to change it because trade is so important.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Even when you have trades the AI sometimes atacks
Thats why I personally thing they need to change it because trade is so important.

Human players also sometimes attack in this situation. There shouldn't be absolute defense using diplomacy only.

 

[Kerosene31]

The AI shouldn't act like Civ 4 (too easy to manipulate) but they need to go to war a lot less than they do now.

-If I build a smaller army, I get attacked for being weak (this is fine)
-If I build a bigger army, I get attacked by the "suicide" civs who want to go out in a blaze of glory
-If I build an army around the same size as my neighbors, I get attacked for any other random reason.

It should be a little easier to stay at peace if I have a big defensive army and never, ever declare war on anyone (even city states).

 

[Roxlimn]

ThePilgrim:

Shrug indeed. What you're saying basically don't play on high levels because on higher levels AI is more stupid than on lower? It is not as much suicidal on king? Maybe you're right. It doesn't have even the lame units to suicide with. Problem is on lower levels the only aspects that are somewhat challenging like tech pace and expansion rate which force the human player chase AI's and not wise versa, are neutralized and there is nothing left to beat.

Shrug. Right now, the AI code is being warped by the Deity level bonuses to the extent that they infuriate you. You can either mod the game, wait for Deity AI to be better, or play at more normal settings.

Of course less cities mean less resources. How many unique luxuries you can have even in a fully developed city? 3? Fantastic case. 2 - Good case. Usually it's just one. And I completely ignore the need to settle on strategic resources. Let's assume they all are in the capital. And you need to grab more and more to grow. Sure policies and buildings help in the mid-late game, much less at early stages, not enough. Wonders... AI build most of them, unless you beeline for respective tech.

You can do with 2 cities if they can capture 4 happiness resources. That will give you enough to go on to slingshot using Tradition to the better happiness sources.

On higher levels, you have less of a problem. Sell your resources, settle for multiple resources (maybe 3 cities?) and sell until you can acquire luxury and strategic resources from City States.

Sure, in Civ4 AI wasn't such crazy masochist trying to get a beating all the time. When it declared, you had to sweat a little bit at least. If it had nothing to offer military wise it usually sit still and hoped for the best.

Shrug. Another way to say that is Civ4 AI is too easy to manipulate into giving you what you want. I won't agree that that's better AI.

But that's not how I want to play. And I definitely don't want to be restricted to certain strategy or difficulty level because diplomacy system is so hideous it makes almost impossible to enjoy the game.

It's not the system. It works fine on King. It's the Deity bonuses that make the AI codes go crazy. Its system for comparing army strength is functional when it doesn't have the bonuses to triple your army size. That system goes awry when it does - like when you use the Deity setting.

You could make a case that the Deity setting is bad right now. I won't argue with that. I've always been of the opinion that Deity has always been kind of borked - for all Civ games.

I am. In Civ5 Deity level players (and not only them) routinely abuse resources/borders/cities trading to make a bankroll, quickly move their troops, make a fool of AI and and get many kinds of unfair advantages. Is it worse/better than Civ4 tech trading? Dunno. I liked tech trading but I'm perfectly fine without it.

That was not the worst of it by a long shot. The most egregious use of AI in Civ4 is to use the AI against other AI, while you manipulate the tech to boost yourself to incredible speeds and imbalances.

There is nothing like that in Civ 5, thank god.

I have to disagree again. 1UPT is cool and everything but since AI is very weak in tactics human player has an overwhelming advantage. Stack system somewhat protected poor AI. You needed bunch of suicidal siege units to 'disarm' mixed stack and even then it still wasn't trivial. To fortify single archer on the hill wasn't enough. Now it's more than enough. Just find your key location and you're good. And if you don't find? Well, then sit in the city and you're also good.

I want you to start up a Deity game, fortify your Civ's one and only archer on a hill and survive until the end of the game.

MkLh:

If it was so easy, why every player wasn't on Deity level then?

Not everyone likes the way the game is played on that setting, just like people don't like Continents, Archipelago, Fractal, or Quick Speed. It's both a preference and an expression of familiarity with the game.

Every Deity game in every Civ has AIs with insane bonuses. The only way to counteract those insane bonuses and win is by intentionally exploiting known AI weaknesses. Call me stupid, but I don't feel particular smart when I outsmart stupid AI.

 

[apocalypse105]

The AI shouldn't act like Civ 4 (too easy to manipulate) but they need to go to war a lot less than they do now.

-If I build a smaller army, I get attacked for being weak (this is fine)
-If I build a bigger army, I get attacked by the "suicide" civs who want to go out in a blaze of glory
-If I build an army around the same size as my neighbors, I get attacked for any other random reason.

It should be a little easier to stay at peace if I have a big defensive army and never, ever declare war on anyone (even city states).

The AI shouldn't act like Civ 4 (too easy to manipulate) but they need to go to war a lot less than they do now.

This is the bottom line of this hole toppic...
Something i was trying to say the hole time XD


They should go to war less... Now i see everywhere red options(denounced,war)on global politics...

 

[Roxlimn]

apocalypse105:

They should war less on the higher settings. A lot of players who complain here only have experience on Immortal or Higher, so they don't know the whole story. The AIs' not nearly so warlike on King. Gandhi's positively cuddly on Prince.

 

[MkLh]

Not everyone likes the way the game is played on that setting, just like people don't like Continents, Archipelago, Fractal, or Quick Speed. It's both a preference and an expression of familiarity with the game.

Maybe, but only a very small proportion of players who want to beat Civ4 Diety can do it (excluding Apostolic Palace -win or special settings) even if they read everything about "Deity exploits" from the forum, at least not without serious studying. Those exploits aren't all that easy to use nor as powerful as some seem to think.

Let's look at two notorious Civ4 exploits, tech trading and diplomacy. First of all, both need some serious skills and knowledge, unlike resource trades and RAs of V. And in fact, skilled tech trading can only keep you on a level with the AI. Unlike with Civ5 RA, you can't get a tech lead by tech trading. If you want to win space or get superior early military tech or something like that, you need to do much more than just trade techs.

Diplo can guarantee you nearly safe position for sure, if used skillfully, but it doesn't win you a game. If AIs are faster for culture or space wins, you lose a game even if you have that safe position. You need to do much more to win a Civ4 higher level game than just exploit diplo.

Every Deity game in every Civ has AIs with insane bonuses. The only way to counteract those insane bonuses and win is by intentionally exploiting known AI weaknesses.

This is true. And the fact that Civ5 higher levels are simply a joke compared to corresponding levels in Civ4, tells that there are much more severe exploits available in Civ5.

 

[snarzberry]

Sometimes all I think I hear is...

Civ 4 Diplomacy was sooooo predictable gamebreaking imo
Civ 5 Diplomacy is sooooo unpredictable gamebreaking imo

Neither is true in my view. For everyone that hates the randomness of diplo in civ 5 maybe you should be carrying religions torch for inclusion into Civ 5 in a similar way to it's implementation in 4. At least you'll usually know who hates you and who your friends are and where the attacks are coming from.

 

[The Pilgrim]

They should war less on the higher settings. A lot of players who complain here only have experience on Immortal or Higher, so they don't know the whole story. The AIs' not nearly so warlike on King. Gandhi's positively cuddly on Prince.

Look, long story short - you don't get the main reason for all the ranting although it was expressed multiple times. Nobody (I haven't noticed anyway) complains about AI being bloodthirsty killer wiping out poor Deity players who cannot chill cozily through the whole game. People that play on higher difficulties want AI to be hard to beat. They want to be attacked and backstabbed by competitive force. Which can actually crash them from time to time. Not suicidal. Can you understand the difference? At the current all the random backstabbing and DoWs don't make the game a bit harder! Don't make it more challenging. Don't make it more appropriate to the difficulty level. NADA. They only make it more annoying. And it has nothing to do with difficulty level. Diplomacy parameters like attitude change and DoW probability are the same for all difficulties from Prince and above.
Bottom line, Civ is not a straight forward one strategy game. You're not supposed to play with two cities on duel map on Prince with Gandhi as opponent to enjoy it. You're supposed to enjoy it regardless your preference. You're trying to convince me this is not true. I don't know what else to say. At this point we must agree to disagree.

 

[apocalypse105]

Sometimes all I think I hear is...

Civ 4 Diplomacy was sooooo predictable gamebreaking imo
Civ 5 Diplomacy is sooooo unpredictable gamebreaking imo

Neither is true in my view. For everyone that hates the randomness of diplo in civ 5 maybe you should be carrying religions torch for inclusion into Civ 5 in a similar way to it's implementation in 4. At least you'll usually know who hates you and who your friends are and where the attacks are coming from.

Civ 5 Diplomacy is in no way unpredictable.

Thats what this topic is about the AI backstabs you allways as result it is unpredictable... Thats what the problem is the AI does it to much...

Same with declaring war And denouncing I know i can't have good relationships because everyone denounce eachother and declare war's


In my games the hole global politics screan is red at the time of medieval era . So why should i bodder using diplomacy its so predictable everyone atacks everyone...