Please remove the ability from AI to negotiate peace for players

Isn't this a dll feature (so not easy to be optional)? and also a lot of people like this :) (count me on that club)

I feel you on a lot of people liking the feature. I assume that to be the default though, so I was just stressing the many who don't. It probably is DLL based, so idk how much work would be needed to make it an optional addition, but imho if firaxis had this feature working in vanilla, a mod or something to make it optional would probably have been one of the first tasks someone in the community tackled. It's that divisive a thing.

I'd like it if it were more fleshed out, but making it optional works just as well for me. As it currently stands, I can take one city, kill a couple of units and sign a 3rd party peace treaty for ~39gpt pretty much right away, then move on to the next civ. Certainly exploitable when the user does it, and simply annoying when the AI does it. Plus, it can be used as a cop out to get peace in a war in which you were sure to be crushed in, if you can just suicide some units in so that you can pillage a trade route or 2, then get peace and enough gpt to build your empire.
 
TL;DR. I suggest to set up a "neutral war score range" to the current system. It represents the possibility of a side turning the tide. In the neutral range, neither both sides are considered winning/losing. So no brokering can be done.

I second this. -2 warscore from a pillaged trade route is hardly "losing" the war
 
TL;DR. I suggest to set up a "neutral war score range" to the current system. It represents the possibility of a side turning the tide. In the neutral range, neither both sides are considered winning/losing. So no brokering can be done.

+1

This only makes sense. Only an absurdly few wars in history were "ready to end" as soon as the first battle is lost (i.e. as soon as Warscore isn't 0). There absolutely should be a buffer that can allow a war to go on perhaps indefinitely, and winning should require someone to tip the scales to a certain degree before being declared such.
 
How about brokered peace deals causing an emergency session of the World Congress in 5 turns. That way, a player would have 5 turns to wrap it up, (if he didn't think he could win the World Congress vote).
 
Perhaps the solution is to keep this feature but make it lot less frequent / likely to happen on the AI side. Like the rare occasion where AI asks you to denounce another AI. I think it goes hand in hand with the over friendly and over peaceful AI that emerged with the recent versions. My hope is that these behaviors are related and once the route cause is fixed and AI goes back to being reasonable and opportunistic, everything will be back to normal..
 
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.
Don't worry he'll declare war on you later on and won't sue to peace or the peace option won't work. :) Happened to me more than once.
 
I tried to pay for a brokered peace after I was sick of a late-game war. Interestingly, no civ could negotiate it. My read is that the broker needs to have the same ideology as the other combatant. In this case, the AI had one fellow Autocrat... and that civ wouldn't give me the embassy I needed in order ot discuss brokering.
 
OK, I have done a complete 180 on this feature. Using the latest version, I have not been able to play out a single war past a few turns without a third party peace negotiation. Last time I had Carthage on the ropes - my only religious rival on the continent - and twice during the same session, the war was ended with my carpet of doom about to sweep their capital. having to wait 30 turns on marathon, with my army sitting massed and upgraded, only to have it end again after 4 turns was pretty infuriating.

Regardless of any early unit or city losses, a war score of -1 should not mean effectively losing the war. Especially when my whole economy is geared towards fighting it out. In an atmosphere of too much peace, this kind of kills the game - and my options.

Been playing the game for years (vanilla, communitas, VP), and never saw this pop up so frequently until now...

- E

PS: Welcome back, Gazebo!
 
Well, it looks like the latest version solves the issue; brokering peace now requires at least +75 warscore.
 
Really like the new parameters; really lets the mechanic make more sense imo. That being said, I think one more small adjustment could be nice...

Spoiler :








I'm dominating Japan and he's being stubborn, seems like a great time to test out brokering on this version. Strangely, all other AIs value peace for Japan (guaranteed for a handful of turns) at the exact same value, which I might add is astronomically high imo. The deal value amounts to the entire GPT of 2 of the 3 civs (and about 67% of The Maya's GPT).

It can't be helpful for a 3rd party AI to pay THAT much for peace, can it? I would expect Japan to perhaps value at that amount, but not another civ. Furthermore, as a player what's the point of waiting for your enemy to come around if you can get a massive windfall from anyone else?
 
Really like the new parameters; really lets the mechanic make more sense imo. That being said, I think one more small adjustment could be nice...

Spoiler :








I'm dominating Japan and he's being stubborn, seems like a great time to test out brokering on this version. Strangely, all other AIs value peace for Japan (guaranteed for a handful of turns) at the exact same value, which I might add is astronomically high imo. The deal value amounts to the entire GPT of 2 of the 3 civs (and about 67% of The Maya's GPT).

It can't be helpful for a 3rd party AI to pay THAT much for peace, can it? I would expect Japan to perhaps value at that amount, but not another civ. Furthermore, as a player what's the point of waiting for your enemy to come around if you can get a massive windfall from anyone else?

Friends and/or people that hate you more than the other player will pay for it. Also, taking a 3rd party bribe means no vassalization, no cities, etc. from the loser (and the loser, if not punished via GPT or gold, can rebound more quickly).

G
 
Friends and/or people that hate you more than the other player will pay for it. Also, taking a 3rd party bribe means no vassalization, no cities, etc. from the loser (and the loser, if not punished via GPT or gold, can rebound more quickly).

G

In my individual experience, Japan is far and away most likely to try brokering peace. At first this seemed odd -- why would a warmonger want peace to reign? Then I considered the VP goal of the AI really wanting to win... and a warmonger like Japan not wanting any other civ from getting a rolling start on a domination victory.

Am I on target regarding Japan's skewed preference for me to make peace?
 
Friends and/or people that hate you more than the other player will pay for it.

I can't know for certain (civs can be deceptive and whatnot), but I'm doubtful this is happening in my case. China actually paid me to go to war in the first place (Japan was at war with both China and Korea. I was opportunistic.). I have DoFs with The Maya and Korea, Japan isn't friends with anybody.

Also, taking a 3rd party bribe means no vassalization, no cities, etc. from the loser (and the loser, if not punished via GPT or gold, can rebound more quickly

True...but after losing a war badly enough to get -75 warscore, the loser typically isn't much of a threat in the game and could likely be dealt with easily. On the other hand, I could take a very large bribe from a runaway civ (The Maya in my case) and use that to destroy their economy while I more than double mine. I could parlay this into an eventual war with the runaway, or even redeclare war on the loser to get the cities/vassalization I wanted anyways plus the haul from the runaway civ.

Put it this way. I was playing and considering taking the Mayan deal for just that reason, but then realized I should probably share it here first because I was worried it felt a little 'exploity'. I struggle to see how it helps an AI to give away their entire economy to a rival civ to make temporary peace with a 3rd civ (especially one they aren't friends with)
 
Put it this way. I was playing and considering taking the Mayan deal for just that reason, but then realized I should probably share it here first because I was worried it felt a little 'exploity'. I struggle to see how it helps an AI to give away their entire economy to a rival civ to make temporary peace with a 3rd civ (especially one they aren't friends with)

Let us know how things work out for you and the Maya.
 
I can't know for certain (civs can be deceptive and whatnot), but I'm doubtful this is happening in my case. China actually paid me to go to war in the first place (Japan was at war with both China and Korea. I was opportunistic.). I have DoFs with The Maya and Korea, Japan isn't friends with anybody.



True...but after losing a war badly enough to get -75 warscore, the loser typically isn't much of a threat in the game and could likely be dealt with easily. On the other hand, I could take a very large bribe from a runaway civ (The Maya in my case) and use that to destroy their economy while I more than double mine. I could parlay this into an eventual war with the runaway, or even redeclare war on the loser to get the cities/vassalization I wanted anyways plus the haul from the runaway civ.

Put it this way. I was playing and considering taking the Mayan deal for just that reason, but then realized I should probably share it here first because I was worried it felt a little 'exploity'. I struggle to see how it helps an AI to give away their entire economy to a rival civ to make temporary peace with a 3rd civ (especially one they aren't friends with)

Deceptive AI (I.e. China) will pay you to go to war and also pay you to make peace. They really just want to distract you and/or make everyone else hate you. That's the goal of the deceptive AI. :)

G
 
Deceptive AI (I.e. China) will pay you to go to war and also pay you to make peace. They really just want to distract you and/or make everyone else hate you. That's the goal of the deceptive AI. :)

G

Yep, that part makes sense to me. It's the deal value that seems suspicious; it's so high and every other civ I've met values peace for the exact same amount.

I don't mean disrespect, but even with a deceptive civ how exactly are they seeing benefit from throwing 163 GPT my way? If distracting me or getting everyone to hate me is the goal, wouldn't it be better for me to stay at war anyways? An AI would normally have to trade for, like, 150 strategic resources to pay that much GPT...
 
Yep, that part makes sense to me. It's the deal value that seems suspicious; it's so high and every other civ I've met values peace for the exact same amount.

I don't mean disrespect, but even with a deceptive civ how exactly are they seeing benefit from throwing 163 GPT my way? If distracting me or getting everyone to hate me is the goal, wouldn't it be better for me to stay at war anyways? An AI would normally have to trade for, like, 150 strategic resources to pay that much GPT...

They don't want the other civ to be wiped out because one less civ in the world = one less buffer between them and you.

G
 
They don't want the other civ to be wiped out because one less civ in the world = one less buffer between them and you.

G

And rubber-banding is real. Someone you take ten turns to stop beating up can legitimately be much more difficult to take out at the end of those ten turns.
 
They don't want the other civ to be wiped out because one less civ in the world = one less buffer between them and you.

G

And rubber-banding is real. Someone you take ten turns to stop beating up can legitimately be much more difficult to take out at the end of those ten turns.

So 163 GPT in the midgame is a reasonable amount to pay? Would it be smart in my strategy to pay a warmonger that much to temporarily stop beating up another civ I'm not friends with? I've never heard of a human player thinking that was a sound strategy...

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I'm seeing it. The fact that every civ in the game viewed the deal with the exact same value still seems a tad too suspicious to me as well. To be clear, my only worry is with the value of the brokering deals. I like AI brokering otherwise in its current state.
 
Well.. I think it is fairly easy to get war score. I've never got over -10 war score even if I'm pretty small and a horde of army was coming. So about minus war score you were getting even if you were winning the war, I think it might be a bug so you might as well reinstall the mod after deleting the cache/modsuserdata.

Anyways, about peace brokering, I think it is really good. I also got mad because of AI peace brokering with my opponent, but most of the time AI tried to peace broker with me, not the opponent. There were many times after crushing my enemy's capital, I wanted to peace deal but enemy didn't want to because he wanted to retake his capital even if he was losing. Then, another AI comes in and brokered peace giving me sums of money!

So.. I got help from AI peace brokering so I love the way it is now. It saved me from unwanted war for many times.
 
Top Bottom