Please remove the ability from AI to negotiate peace for players

B

Boombar

Warlord
Joined
Aug 19, 2016
Messages
103
I am winning the war but my war score is negative... I lost bunch of trade routes, scouts, and units that i pretty much sent to death just to block the AI.
He has bigger army that is completely useless and 2 of his 5 cities are about to fall. I have bunch of gold saved up and ready to buy more units to finish him off. Suddenly, another AI jumps in and decides its time for peace. When the peace treaty ends, his cities will heal up, and he will probably reposition his army and the warsocore will actually represent the reality of the situation.
idk if the intention of this feature was to help the players or not, but that peace screwed up my entire strategy. I played smart, not big, but war score doesn't seem to understand that. Having to plan the the war around some scoreboard doesn't make sense to me.
 
Agree. It's a nonsence.
Eventually, if a player A ask player B for peace but failled, someone can use his diplomatic power to encourage player to accept the peace treaty. That is how it works in real life.

In my previous game, I experienced this "diplo feature". Actually, I took advantage of it. But it looked duff to suddenly get peace without even ask.
 
The war score is fairly objective. Can you describe the situation a bit better?
 
He did. He sacrificed some non military units to gain time and has cash for another wave. He was about to capture a city, which would have turned the war score, but he wasn't given the opportunity.

I'm not saying the brokering peace mechanics are wrong but clearly some players prefer to be able to stay in war, even if the AI thinks they are losing. To me the best solution is changing how a brokered peace works. Instead of an immediate 10 turns peace treaty, a brokered peace should force the AI in contest to sit down with the player and negotiate peace. Usually you cannot ask for peace when AI is too annoyed. With a brokered peace, the player should be able to trade a peace treaty then. (Remove the cooldown for an AI peace deal). Even if the AI desire to peace, the player could still negate the deal and keep fighting. A player that is really losing will accept peace anyway. Or not, but that's for the player to say.
 
Or maybe adding a "no third party peace" in the advanced panel. It's easier to make.
 
Funak said:
Lol :D
Click to expand...

It's not that implausible given what goes into war score. In my current game/war, I had taken two cities from Dido and all she had done was pillage a couple trade routes. I had probably killed slightly more units than her. She had a positive war score. Granted, I had zero confidence that I would be able to do much more, but I had taken two cities.

Now, about 2 turns later from that point...

Spoiler :
7cAk8HS.jpg


Uh oh, no way this city survives another turn. Let's see if she wants peace...

Spoiler :
qhC2n4l.jpg


Damn it, she's smarter than I hoped. No way she's backing down from this point of strength. But wait a minute, I think I know an exploit a fair game mechanic...

Spoiler :
5oQuORs.jpg


Haha! I even get some gpt out of it! No exploiting going on here, move along now, nothing to see...
 
Yeah, I'd also be in favor of a "no third party peace" option. In my current game for example, I DoW Germany and took all but 2 cities. Instead of waiting however long it would've taken for Bismarck to agree to peace terms, the Netherlands were willing to give me 172gpt (all of it at the time), his only copy of gold, and 3 horses. Definitely the better deal, and one that I took.

Later, I DoW Kamehameha, was halfway into taking my first city when his army pushed me back into the open field. We were far enough from my borders for me to not be in imminent danger, but I knew that I wouldn't be able to get any of his cities atm, so I asked him for peace. Warscore was +10 or so. He wasn't willing, so I asked the Netherlands again, and got peace, plus 5gpt or something like that.
 
Jdoug312 said:
Yeah, I'd also be in favor of a "no third party peace" option. In my current game for example, I DoW Germany and took all but 2 cities. Instead of waiting however long it would've taken for Bismarck to agree to peace terms, the Netherlands were willing to give me 172gpt (all of it at the time), his only copy of gold, and 3 horses. Definitely the better deal, and one that I took.

Later, I DoW Kamehameha, was halfway into taking my first city when his army pushed me back into the open field. We were far enough from my borders for me to not be in imminent danger, but I knew that I wouldn't be able to get any of his cities atm, so I asked him for peace. Warscore was +10 or so. He wasn't willing, so I asked the Netherlands again, and got peace, plus 5gpt or something like that.
Click to expand...


I agree either "no third party peace" or "ai cannot broker peace". Its a strange argument - but If I'm gonna lose, let me lose.
 
tu_79 said:
Disabling third party peace seems a dirty fix for a feature that isn't working properly or as desired. I think it's better to fix the feature itself.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but I'm thinking in the interest of time. Who knows how much time G will have to work on VP in even the near future.
 
tu_79 said:
A simple solution is that a brokered peace turns into the other AI asking the player for peace.
Click to expand...



I like this suggestion.
In my last game also happened that I didn't want peace but I was forced to die to other deals.
 
Greggy08 said:
I like this suggestion.
In my last game also happened that I didn't want peace but I was forced to die to other deals.
Click to expand...

Just happened to me as well. The AI needs to sue for peace, not have it paid for by a third party. There should also be negative repercussions with the third party if the suing party is unable to attain peace.
 
joosegoose25 said:
It's not that implausible given what goes into war score. In my current game/war, I had taken two cities from Dido and all she had done was pillage a couple trade routes. I had probably killed slightly more units than her. She had a positive war score. Granted, I had zero confidence that I would be able to do much more, but I had taken two cities.
Click to expand...

I know it's not that implausible, but I found it pretty hilarious that the guy decided to make a new thread when an active 10 page thread was already going on. And at that point I found his statement that he was winning despite losing to be humorous.
I think something along the lines of 'I was down on score but could have turned it around' would have been better than 'I was winning but I was losing'.

Anyways didn't the issue of the third party civs being able to bribe civs into peace during your grace period (the first X turn after war is declared when one side is not able to communicate with the other side) get fixed in the latest version anyways? If you're passed that time and you still can't muster some score by pillaging a trade-route or two then you probably deserved to get kicked out of the war.
 
Funak said:
If you're passed that time and you still can't muster some score by pillaging a trade-route or two then you probably deserved to get kicked out of the war.
Click to expand...

While I agree we didn't need a second thread on this, the simple fact is that war score is a metric for the AI, not the player. I simply disagree with it on a regular basis. But it's not just gameplay; there's an immersion breaking aspect here. It's so bizarre to be conquering cities and killing armies and then have a third party "negotiate" you peace because you were "losing".

In addition to what's already been suggested, maybe for these kinds of peace treaties the player should be allowed to immediately declare war again. Is that possible? That would validate the peace brokering if the player needed it, or allow them to re-enter the fray if they didn't.
 
Funak said:
If you're passed that time and you still can't muster some score by pillaging a trade-route or two then you probably deserved to get kicked out of the war.
Click to expand...

Probably the most surrealist statement ever.

I cumulate tens of thousands of turns in ciV. Maybe hundreds.
Twice this only week I've been "kicked out of the war". Never ever before . Because what? I deserve it? I don't muster some score enough?

Are you serious?

Then you are telling us that all is fine. The boring being two threads instead of one.

The boring, the real one is this balance breaking since 8/12 or 8/18. That's what I believe.

And I believe also that if I "can't muster some score by pillaging" whatever I just deserve to lose the war and that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
How to teach AI to not make bad peace offers to some distant Team members?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Recursive
Recursive
C
The forever war problem
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
msw1
M
B
AI will accept peace giving you cities at 100% of an Era score, which is no sense
Replies
0
Views
348
bumpyglint
B
Tekamthi
ancient era war/peace
Replies
4
Views
603
Fluffball
F
B
AI devoting too many units to fight hostile city-states
Replies
9
Views
2K
Bison
B
Back
Top Bottom