1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Please remove the ability from AI to negotiate peace for players

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Boombar, Aug 23, 2016.

  1. Boombar

    Boombar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    78
    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.
     
  2. Funak

    Funak Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    9,127
    Lol :D
     
  3. Asterix Rage

    Asterix Rage Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    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.
     
  4. Asterix Rage

    Asterix Rage Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    Then you Lol ?

    "I am winning the war but my war score is negative..."

    I dont know what "negative score" means but very often I win war dispite i looks the weakest.
     
  5. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,294
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    A simple solution is that a brokered peace turns into the other AI asking the player for peace.
     
  6. Gothic_Empire

    Gothic_Empire AKA, Ramen Empire

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,501
    The war score is fairly objective. Can you describe the situation a bit better?
     
  7. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,294
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    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.
     
  8. merill

    merill Prince

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    436
    Location:
    France
    Or maybe adding a "no third party peace" in the advanced panel. It's easier to make.
     
  9. vyyt

    vyyt Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    I agree, this seems to be the easiest way to implement and it will make everyone happy.
     
  10. joosegoose25

    joosegoose25 King

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    639
    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 :


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

    Spoiler :


    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 :


    Haha! I even get some gpt out of it! No exploiting going on here, move along now, nothing to see...
     
  11. Jdoug312

    Jdoug312 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    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.
     
  12. a1nosweat

    a1nosweat Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    163

    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.
     
  13. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,294
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    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.
     
  14. Jdoug312

    Jdoug312 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    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.
     
  15. Greggy08

    Greggy08 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    242


    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.
     
  16. steemroller

    steemroller Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    76
    Location:
    WA, USA
    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.
     
  17. Funak

    Funak Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    9,127
    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.
     
  18. Basilius

    Basilius Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2015
    Messages:
    62
    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.
     
  19. Asterix Rage

    Asterix Rage Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    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.
     
  20. Jdoug312

    Jdoug312 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    If Funak isn't talking game mechanics or numbers for balance, it's best to ignore his posts. Too much sense of smugness/superiority otherwise.
     

Share This Page