Please remove the ability from AI to negotiate peace for players

[joosegoose25]

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.

Let me paint a more visual picture of what we're talking about here.

Spoiler :

I took this city early in the war. It's safe to say I've solidly secured it by this point.

Spoiler :

My current front in the war. After a lot of back and forth, I've finally taken the city for good I think, even managed to put down a citadel and actually make even more progress I hope. Her capital is next!

Spoiler :

Nope, I'm somehow 'losing' this war. I've definitely killed more units overall and she hasn't done any real damage otherwise, there are no other fronts in the war other than what I showed. I supposed she pillaged 1-3 trade routes over the course of this war, but whatever.

I had peace brokered for me the next turn. You can bet that I will save scum and figure out how to prevent it (IGE if I have to), because that is bogus.

 

[Funak]

I've never been behind in warscore after taking a city, not really sure how you actually succeeded in that.

 

[albie_123]

I've never been behind in warscore after taking a city, not really sure how you actually succeeded in that.

What don't you understand?

Pillaging trade routes = higher war score.

Therefore, at some point, it is perfectly possible for warscore due to pillaged trade routes > warscore due to taken cities, despite the fact that taking cities is a far better indicator of the progression of war, and despite the fact that pillaged trade routes amounts to a slight annoyance most of the time, especially in the lategame.

You seem to be acting deliberately obtuse through this entire thread, as if your experience is the only possible experience to have, and that anyone else who doesn't have that same experience is either doing something wrong or lying.

 

[Stalker0]

I know G has been pretty adamant that he wants this feature to stay in, and that he feels it is fair for the humans to be in the same arena as the AIS.

So I think what we need to look at are a couple of key areas:

1) War Score calculation. Can the war score be made a more accurate calculation of what is going on in the war, so that a human with a low score would actually say "yes I am losing this war".

2) Duration before brokering. I myself have noticed brokering requests occurring much faster than before. Perhaps the time in a low warscore needs to be increased before brokering is possible. Or, maybe the negative warscore needs to be higher before a brokering is allowed.

3) UI notification. Similar to how a player is notified when they have lost the military to maintain CS defense requests, maybe there should be one during war to warn you your war score is low. I think part of the issue is a surprise, a human doesn't know they are losing. And sure there are ways to look, but its a way to help highlight it.

 

[albie_123]

In regards to 1, that's impossible for one simple reason: The time when a player is most likely to think "I'm winning!" is when they've been losing for the majority of the war and have just turned it around. That is the moment that is almost always the most fun in Civ in regards to war - not when you're rolling an AI from the get go, but from when you're coming up from behind and manage to get the upper leg. Seriously, every 'great war' story I've heard from another Civ player has been about getting the upper hand in an otherwise lost war.

As long as warscore is based on a "Do x, get x points" system, you'll always be at a higher risk of forced peace at that point. The game is literally telling the player, "Sorry, you aren't allowed to have fun, you were doing too badly the past few turns".

The feature is bad.

 

[tu_79]

At the risk of repeating myself, I think the better solution is to lower AI reluctance to negotiate peace when a third party sues for peace. When I am losing and I want to stop, sometimes the AI is too stubborn and don't listen. A message saying that India has convinced the Huns to stop hostilities and next turn being able to negotiate peace with the Huns would be all that is needed to end this. If warscore is very negative, then the loser might need to pay a high cost to surrender.

If G is too busy being father, maybe ilteroi can take a look.

 

[Funak]

The feature is bad.

Yeah, I'm the one acting like my experience is the only one that matters....



If you keep losing warscore to pillaged trade-routes, maybe you should stop sending suicidal trade-routes? And maybe you should plunder some of his routes back, alternatively do some pillaging.

I repeat my previous statement, I've been in war hundreds of times since this feature was implemented and I've never been in a situation where I was behind in warscore after taking a city, not even close.

 

[Txurce]

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

I think the minimal fix won't be that big of a deal, because the problem is so recent. I'm still playing 8/12, and it has yet to happen to me. Could be a coincidence, but 8/18 may very well be the culprit.

When Gazebo gets back from his anticipated time off, I'm sure he'll address at least that part of it.

 

[Txurce]

I know G has been pretty adamant that he wants this feature to stay in, and that he feels it is fair for the humans to be in the same arena as the AIS.

So I think what we need to look at are a couple of key areas:

2) Duration before brokering. I myself have noticed brokering requests occurring much faster than before.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think the better solution is to lower AI reluctance to negotiate peace when a third party sues for peace.

This idea is one very simple fix. The GPT issue also needs addressing, but again, I suspect that was unintended, and may even be a bug.

 

[balthazaar]

Yep, totally agree. There has never been a scenario in history where a third party has declared peace on behalf of a nation unwilling for peace. It just makes no sense whatsoever
Maybe if there was some-kind of counter which for example added -10 relations with all civs everytime peace was refused.

 

[Txurce]

Yep, totally agree. There has never been a scenario in history where a third party has declared peace on behalf of a nation unwilling for peace.

Someone less lazy than me could flood you with examples. Basically, it comes down to a big guy saying, "I will no longer support you, and if that's not good enough, I'll escalate from there, until you back off, no matter how much you don't want to."

That's how I choose to look at the properly functioning aspect of this function. I think VP does a good enough job approximating it.

 

[steemroller]

Let me try this more situationally: Spain secretly pays Germany to end the war with England (me). Peace breaks out. Germany offers a 1:1 trade deal as if we're on friendly terms. We're now in the "cooling off" phase where war can't be re-declared.

What should have happened? Germany, having received payment (or threat from Spain), sues for peace with England. That comes with serious concessions to end the fighting: gold, resources, giving of a city, whatever. Most importantly, there's a negotiation as if we, _Germany and England_ were negotiating the peace without a third-parties intervention.

That failing, we remain at war. Germany having failed Spain's expectations should take a hit in their relationship. If its negative enough, Spain may declare war on Germany, allying or not with England. To the contrary, Spain, may be upset that England didn't accept Germany's terms and decides to enter the war, either allied with Germany or not.

Point being there has to (1) be a negotiation between Germany and England, and (2) that has to have a consequence on relations between (certainly) Germany and Spain and (most probably) England and Spain).

 

[Big J Money]

Someone less lazy than me could flood you with examples. Basically, it comes down to a big guy saying, "I will no longer support you, and if that's not good enough, I'll escalate from there, until you back off, no matter how much you don't want to."

That's how I choose to look at the properly functioning aspect of this function. I think VP does a good enough job approximating it.

The problem isn't 3rd party brokering as a concept (well it is for some people, but they just need some examples). The problem is that it targets the player with the higher Warscore, who isn't always the aggressor.

If a country starts a war, and their intent is to, say, reclaim a famous city of historical importance to them. And they have the city surrounded, even if they may be "losing" at some real life factors that are represented by Warscore, that ruler isn't going to suddenly end the war because his enemy was convinced by a 3rd party to sue for peace.

The current implementation assumes the faction with the highest Warscore has the power and authority to single-handedly win the war, and sometimes this results in a nonsensical situation from the player's point of view. When it comes to who has authority over "what is happening in my game of Civ", from an immersion standpoint, it's the player, not some invisible algorithm.

And this isn't even the worst part of the feature; this is just the immersion-breaking aspect of it.

 

[a1nosweat]

just the option is cool. It tends to affect mp hotseat/team games a little unpredictably

 

[albie_123]

If you keep losing warscore to pillaged trade-routes, maybe you should stop sending suicidal trade-routes? And maybe you should plunder some of his routes back, alternatively do some pillaging.

Why? In a war that is about taking cities, why should I waste time pillaging improvements that I will end up using?

And what's more, how does "change your playstyle" fit into a patch that's ostensibly meant to be a 'patch' for vanilla Civ?

Seriously, what the hell is going on with this mod? This isn't even CBO, it's CP. We're now telling players, who are looking for a 'fix' to the problems of Civ, "oh by the way, we've added a new feature, so you have to change the way you play"?

 

[Txurce]

The problem isn't 3rd party brokering as a concept (well it is for some people, but they just need some examples). The problem is that it targets the player with the higher Warscore, who isn't always the aggressor.

If a country starts a war, and their intent is to, say, reclaim a famous city of historical importance to them. And they have the city surrounded, even if they may be "losing" at some real life factors that are represented by Warscore, that ruler isn't going to suddenly end the war because his enemy was convinced by a 3rd party to sue for peace.

The current implementation assumes the faction with the highest Warscore has the power and authority to single-handedly win the war, and sometimes this results in a nonsensical situation from the player's point of view. When it comes to who has authority over "what is happening in my game of Civ", from an immersion standpoint, it's the player, not some invisible algorithm.

And this isn't even the worst part of the feature; this is just the immersion-breaking aspect of it.

Have you played your first game with this mod yet?

 

[albie_123]

Have you played your first game with this mod yet?

I've played plenty, and I agree with him entirely.

"Losing" and "winning" a war is entirely dependent on what the aims of the war are in the first place. If your aim is to take cities no matter the cost, you don't care about how many units you lose or how many trade routes are plundered.

In short: A warscore system works very well as a way to dictate the terms of a possible peace. It does not work at all to determine when peace should happen, because that is entirely dependent on the risk of not achieving objectives, which warscore does not, and cannot, represent.

By the way, you say someone could 'flood us' with examples. I'd like to hear just one example of a peace being forced upon a nation by another party without that nation's consent.

 

[Txurce]

I've played plenty, and I agree with him entirely.

"Losing" and "winning" a war is entirely dependent on what the aims of the war are in the first place. If your aim is to take cities no matter the cost, you don't care about how many units you lose or how many trade routes are plundered.

I don't care how many you've played, since it apparently hasn't affected your ability to grasp why the rule is there. That you don't like it is, for the time being at least, tough luck.

 

[albie_123]

I don't care how many you've played, since it apparently hasn't affected your ability to grasp why the rule is there.

Because G likes it?

 

[Gothic_Empire]

The problem isn't 3rd party brokering as a concept (well it is for some people, but they just need some examples). The problem is that it targets the player with the higher Warscore, who isn't always the aggressor.

If a country starts a war, and their intent is to, say, reclaim a famous city of historical importance to them. And they have the city surrounded, even if they may be "losing" at some real life factors that are represented by Warscore, that ruler isn't going to suddenly end the war because his enemy was convinced by a 3rd party to sue for peace.

The current implementation assumes the faction with the highest Warscore has the power and authority to single-handedly win the war, and sometimes this results in a nonsensical situation from the player's point of view. When it comes to who has authority over "what is happening in my game of Civ", from an immersion standpoint, it's the player, not some invisible algorithm.

And this isn't even the worst part of the feature; this is just the immersion-breaking aspect of it.

This is also the game where a culture will have erected a set of pyramids, all save the last brick and a bit of polish, and then tear them all down because someone they've never met built an identical structure slightly faster.

Sometimes things don't make sense in a game.