politics are inconsistent and unpredictable

[jophmn]

OK yes that is politics but seriously, in my current game, i have not made war on one civilization. And I actively avoid it... Harun al rasheed and like to have a strong economy and culture
I have taken one city state but have not so much as left a unit within two squares of another civ... yet I am denounced as a warmonger 100+ turns later! I am playing prince lvl and am double my rivals score late in game but I am frustrated!!! my army is strong however.
If there was another reason other than warmonger, to denounce me as, i could understand.
Advice? or am i encountering a shortfall of my most loved game of all time?

 

[Rupe]

Check out some of the other threads on the games diplomacy AI. Its a known issue and some have said it is getting fixed in the expansion. But basically the diplomacy factor in the game is weak. Its got a lot of problems that have been discussed in length in other posts.

But no you aren't missing anything, the diplomacy is just garbage.

 

[smallfish]

OK yes that is politics but seriously, in my current game, i have not made war on one civilization. And I actively avoid it... Harun al rasheed and like to have a strong economy and culture
I have taken one city state but have not so much as left a unit within two squares of another civ... yet I am denounced as a warmonger 100+ turns later! I am playing prince lvl and am double my rivals score late in game but I am frustrated!!! my army is strong however.
If there was another reason other than warmonger, to denounce me as, i could understand.
Advice? or am i encountering a shortfall of my most loved game of all time?

Why for the love of all that is good did you do this in the early game? Why didn't you denounce someone else who was everyone's whipping dog? Why didn't you even have a DoF or two signed up every now and then to form "blocs"?

 

[Bandersnatching]

Why for the love of all that is good did you do this in the early game? Why didn't you denounce someone else who was everyone's whipping dog? Why didn't you even have a DoF or two signed up every now and then to form "blocs"?

He said that he's playing on prince, and this is his first post on the forums, so it can be assumed that he doesn't know as much about the game as you. I certainly didn't know that the AI hates it when you take a city-state, and sometimes there are situations where the best option for expansion is to conquer one; not knowing how much of a diplomacy hit you'd take by conquering a city-state is completely understandable.
That said, the AI is notorious for seeming to be insane, which leads to really wierd diplomatic situations where (for example) you, the peacemonger, get DOW'd on by an AI, take his capital, and then twenty turns after making peace your so-called 'friends' denounce you because you are now the most powerful civ in the game.
AI diplomacy is all about how much of a threat you appear to be, and what actions you have taken that they count as negative. Declaring war, eliminating civilizations, building wonders, building too many cities, being close to an AI, being friends with their enemies, and denouncing them or their friends are all counted as negative modifiers in the AI's 'mind'. With enough of them, they start hating you. City-States are counted as full civilizations for the purpose of diplomacy, so declaring war and conquering one gets you two negative modifiers to diplomacy, which can be worth more or less depending on what each AI thinks about City-States. For more information about this, there is a 'diplomacy by numbers' thread in the strategies forum.
Note that having a large army and not using it is actually a positive modifier (I think). This is both strange and understandable; after all, people like being friends with the biggest guy around as long as he isn't bullying them.
Jophmn, I would suggest perusing the civ 5 forums -especially the strategy forum - if you intend to learn more about this game and become better at it. There is much excellent advice here that will definitely improve your understanding and gameplay.

 

[joncnunn]

OK yes that is politics but seriously, in my current game, i have not made war on one civilization. And I actively avoid it... Harun al rasheed and like to have a strong economy and culture
I have taken one city state but have not so much as left a unit within two squares of another civ... yet I am denounced as a warmonger 100+ turns later! I am playing prince lvl and am double my rivals score late in game but I am frustrated!!! my army is strong however.
If there was another reason other than warmonger, to denounce me as, i could understand.
Advice? or am i encountering a shortfall of my most loved game of all time?

Actually the AI is very predictable once you get used to it.

Taken One City State: At least as far as the AI concerned:
That subjects you to the following penalties:

1. The single DOW
2. The eliminating a civ state from the game peaalty.

Doing just one is something most (but NOT all) will forgive you for.
Doing both makes you a blood thirsty monster in the eyes of most (but NOT all).

In Civ V (unlike Civ III), unmet civs do find out about your misdeeds when you meet them. AI remembers sins for thousands of years.

Having units too close is not tied to warmongler.

Sounds like your actually well on your way to winning. Its just that your not going to have as many trade partners as you hoped.

 

[The_Quasar]

Eliminating a civ, any civ, whether they be a normal one, or a City State, plus a DoW, will bring up the warmonger penalty with some civs.

Also, 2 DoW will do the same, as will finishing off 2 civs or CS if you've been attacked.

The trick is not to destroy CS if you can help it (or unless it doesn't matter), and to leave at least one city to a defeated civ (preferably a desert, or a snow one)...

 

[duxup]

I avoid messing with the CSs at all costs. Make the CS's your friends, well the ones who have what you want.

War is always a concern for the AI to varying degrees. Make sure if you do it you get what you need and just that.

The AI is wonky. Diplomacy is a mess in Civ V, even worse is the UI for it. I hope they redo it all eventually.

 

[Atlas627]

The AI has been programmed to think like another human player. In this sense, they are trying to convince each other to view you as a threat to each others existence (a bloodthirsty warmonger) so that they will gang up on you (the most powerful player).

The AIs are not pieces for you to play with on the board, they are opponents. They have their own pawns, and their own objectives. And you often are screwing those up, especially because only 1 player can win.

One of the hallmarks of the Civilization series is getting into "building YOUR civilization". If you become attached to your civilization in that way, it may be hard to view the game from a different player's perspective. Perhaps one of the AIs wanted that CS, or wanted to ally it. Just because they didn't tell you doesn't mean they didn't want it. And if you show aggression towards the CS, perhaps they are next? You are winning by double score, that will cause envy and since you will obviously win at that rate, the AIs need to do something about it!

 

[apocalypse105]

The AI has been programmed to think like another human player. In this sense, they are trying to convince each other to view you as a threat to each others existence (a bloodthirsty warmonger) so that they will gang up on you (the most powerful player).

The AIs are not pieces for you to play with on the board, they are opponents. They have their own pawns, and their own objectives. And you often are screwing those up, especially because only 1 player can win.

One of the hallmarks of the Civilization series is getting into "building YOUR civilization". If you become attached to your civilization in that way, it may be hard to view the game from a different player's perspective. Perhaps one of the AIs wanted that CS, or wanted to ally it. Just because they didn't tell you doesn't mean they didn't want it. And if you show aggression towards the CS, perhaps they are next? You are winning by double score, that will cause envy and since you will obviously win at that rate, the AIs need to do something about it!

like you said "One of the hallmarks of the Civilization series is getting into "building YOUR civilization"

Thats why diplomacy is important it gives you the feeling you are building up you're civilization through time.

But if the AI is going to act like the AI in stracraft that kinda ruins "the civilization feeling" for me.



if the AI in gods and king still act like this and they didn't change their philosophy then I'm just not gonne buy and play it.
I don't thinx I am the only one who thinx this way


ANd as A side note : The warmonger penalty has nothing to do with wining do you really thing at multiplayer if someone declares war 2 times and he fails 2 times to invade someone he is winning?

Its just a penalty against the human player Hope they change how it works.
The AI should become mad if you conquer a lot of cities not just because you declared war a few times. In history leaders don't get opset by wars but by the result or the war or if one of the countries at war is a ally of them .

 

[CivWarGamer]

OK yes that is politics but seriously, in my current game, i have not made war on one civilization. And I actively avoid it... Harun al rasheed and like to have a strong economy and culture
I have taken one city state but have not so much as left a unit within two squares of another civ... yet I am denounced as a warmonger 100+ turns later! I am playing prince lvl and am double my rivals score late in game but I am frustrated!!! my army is strong however.
If there was another reason other than warmonger, to denounce me as, i could understand.
Advice? or am i encountering a shortfall of my most loved game of all time?

Are you sure they're denouncing you because you're a Warmonger? It could actually be for a different yet similar reason. What's the exact message that's given to you?

The AI can denounce you for having a strong economy, strong culture, or even a strong army.

 

[Atlas627]

like you said "One of the hallmarks of the Civilization series is getting into "building YOUR civilization"

Thats why diplomacy is important it gives you the feeling you are building up you're civilization through time.

But if the AI is going to act like the AI in stracraft that kinda ruins "the civilization feeling" for me.



if the AI in gods and king still act like this and they didn't change their philosophy then I'm just not gonne buy and play it.
I don't thinx I am the only one who thinx this way


ANd as A side note : The warmonger penalty has nothing to do with wining do you really thing at multiplayer if someone declares war 2 times and he fails 2 times to invade someone he is winning?

Its just a penalty against the human player Hope they change how it works.
The AI should become mad if you conquer a lot of cities not just because you declared war a few times. In history leaders don't get opset by wars but by the result or the war or if one of the countries at war is a ally of them .

I was intentionally wording it that way to point out the irony. A game about building your civilization (essentially roleplaying) is now a GAME masked with such flavor.

If you want a simulation/roleplay, CiV may not be for you. Perhaps try Civ4.

The warmonger penalty does in fact have something to do with winning. The AI does not reveal its feeling toward you until you have passed the threshold that lets them do something about it. Have you ever played multiplayer? If someone declares war, I am more nervous simply knowing that his strategy involves conquest. If he ALSO succeeds, then I am even more nervous (that's simulated by the penalty from wiping out civs, also from unshown modifiers based on threat level).

Your historical example is not useful. A declaration of war is not the sole decision of the enemy leader. And it is not YOUR nation, as in you control every aspect of it, that is being threatened. Also in the modern era, everything is so globalized anyway that there is no point to declaring war on other nations. But in the past nations really did compete for balance of power (in Europe), and this is what is commonly referred to as 'diplomacy'.

Leaders are not worried in history by declarations of war because it won't happen twice. The declaration is made by the head of government, and that usually changes after the one war (even old times). A nation declaring war does not suggest at all that it would happen again. In CiV though, you know it is the same person leading that civilization, and thus declarations of war are personal and predictable. And worth being upset over.

 

[apocalypse105]

I was intentionally wording it that way to point out the irony. A game about building your civilization (essentially roleplaying) is now a GAME masked with such flavor.

If you want a simulation/roleplay, CiV may not be for you. Perhaps try Civ4.

The warmonger penalty does in fact have something to do with winning. The AI does not reveal its feeling toward you until you have passed the threshold that lets them do something about it. Have you ever played multiplayer? If someone declares war, I am more nervous simply knowing that his strategy involves conquest. If he ALSO succeeds, then I am even more nervous (that's simulated by the penalty from wiping out civs, also from unshown modifiers based on threat level).



Your historical example is not useful. A declaration of war is not the sole decision of the enemy leader. And it is not YOUR nation, as in you control every aspect of it, that is being threatened. Also in the modern era, everything is so globalized anyway that there is no point to declaring war on other nations. But in the past nations really did compete for balance of power (in Europe), and this is what is commonly referred to as 'diplomacy'.

Leaders are not worried in history by declarations of war because it won't happen twice. The declaration is made by the head of government, and that usually changes after the one war (even old times). A nation declaring war does not suggest at all that it would happen again. In CiV though, you know it is the same person leading that civilization, and thus declarations of war are personal and predictable. And worth being upset over.

If you want a simulation/roleplay, CiV may not be for you. Perhaps try Civ4.

First off IF firaxis is making a game where the AI is acting like a human player then just remove diplomacy and make it a turn based strategy game like any other. If they do that I am happy about it...

BUt if they make interactive leader video's and diplomatic options like signing reserach agreements trading luxuries denouncements/ decleration of friendships at vanilla then some people believe that there is diplomacy and you can interact with the AI and when they are playing the game Suddenly the AI is acting agressive and is backstabbing you constantly Yeah I feel a little bit betrayed.
They basicly lie to customers Get my point..

if T there is not a lot diplomacy if the AI acts like a human player and wants to win... so why make all those options?


Get my point why I am mad at civ 5 Its like when you order the game " call of duty" and you get a other game delivered at home...

warmonger hate

My historical point is correct. At the time in europe people compete for land. And if someone declared war and didn't succeeded to conquer any land and made peace The other leaders didn't get angry because he declared war Nooo...
some leaders usaly get mad if some country conquers a lot of territory the only exception is that if the country is a ally of them.
(When napoleon conquered a lot of land ) or when hitler invaded poland)





And the warmonger hate in civ just makes diplomacy bad between the player and the AI and the AI against eachother in general.
Because the Ai is so agressive (even ghandi) He usaly dows more then 2 times in a game as a result:
the Ai starts to hate eachother because of wars---) and start wars because of wars. ---) Ai becomes even more mad because of these wars.

AT the end its olmost impossible to sign a DOF because everyone denounces everyone So you basicly would make more enemies then friends from it..

If they just made the warmonger penalty based upon how much cities you conquer instead of the DOWS themself. YOu could exactly see that some warmongers will be denounced by a lot of people because they conquered a lot of land Just like in my example from europe... Some leaders will make a alliance To prevent the warmonger becomes even stronger or dows them.



It olso opens more diplomatic options like protecting you're citie state if someone dows it and even normal AI will do it like (darius) Its like the game is laughing at you want to protect you're city state well get a penatly for it!!!


No civ 5 diplomacy needs to be reworked if it doesn't then the game is indead not for me

 

[warlordtheft]

Well, I just ignore diplomacy since no matter what I do I end up torquing off all the other civs. CS's on the other hand are easy to please (another 1,000 gold--sure!).
Since I see no way not to annoy my neighbors, I just conquer them to avoid any misunderstandings of land ownership.

 

[Depravo]

Well, I just ignore diplomacy since no matter what I do I end up torquing off all the other civs. CS's on the other hand are easy to please (another 1,000 gold--sure!).
Since I see no way not to annoy my neighbors, I just conquer them to avoid any misunderstandings of land ownership.

Yeah, that's usually how it goes. Forbearance doesn't work with the AI - they declare war, you beat them, you make peace, they keep everything and they will come back at you shortly after the expiration of the truce as surely as if you had taken five or six of their cities.

 

[IcyFrozen]

In my latest game, every single power was at war with England.

I joined the war at the request of the Persians, my trade allies.
Naturally I get the 'mutual enemy' bonus with almost every power, a slap on a back and a 'welcome to the good fight'

About 30 turns later I take the last English city, immediately everyone declares me a Warmonger and within 10 tens, the Persians and the Greeks ally and declare war on me, despite my military being stronger then their combined forces and the Persians being largely dependant on our trade to survive.

Now, I can understand the Greeks, their preset AI is naturally overly aggressive to the point of stupidity and I guess looking at the hard math it makes sense for them to ally against me in hopes of sheer overpowerment. What I really want to see in Civ is a 'Realistic' setting added to the Options menu. I get that Civ5 is ridicously console-ed and therefore relies on using any excuse to provoke 'entertaining' warfare but a more realistic diplomacy based on risk and gain analysis.

Realizing that diplomacy in Civ is just a set of + and - effects, with the total determining the nations reaction with you, it shouldnt be hard to make diplomacy more effective.

First off in Birthright the Gorgon's Alliance you placed a certain value of gold aside per turn to represent your 'Court' which provides a base benefit to diplomacy. In a sense it represents how your court impresses the diplomats of other nations. At the very least it would be a good feature for early games through to the end of the Medival Era, when having a lavish court is less influential.

Next, Trade needs to be more impactful on diplomacy. On the global stage, trade was recognization of the other party as a legitament nation. Not to mention the benefits that trade would actually provide between the two nations. The willingness of nations to denounce and declare war on those on whose trade they depend is idiotic.

Speaking of denouncement. we need an opposite option to give support to allies, giving a potential bonus with other nations. Moo3 had this option which gave a little more potential to establishing alliances. Another interesting effect from Moo3 was giving a 'tone' to your interactions. With a little tweaking this could apply well to Civ, for example if you offer a trade thats more beneficial to you then to the other person perhaps using a threatening tone to exert your superior military to get what you want diplomatically. In Moo3 some nations naturally react better to certain diplomatic tones, for example the Greek would react better to a strong tone then someone being logical or reasoning.

Example Tones; Threatening (outright aggressive), Strong (forciful), Formal (strict proticol), Reason (logical), Polite (diplomatic), Humble (pleading).

Also Alliances play next to no part in Civ5. In all the years I've played this game I have never seen Permanent Alliance come into play, at all. They would be more reasonably replaced with Non-aggression Pacts, which guarantee an enforced 20 turn peace. Alliances might be more interesting if they acted like the Delian League in the Pelponesian war or the Commonwealth, as a seperate entity lead by a specific nation with other nations being able to join or leave.. even at that though I don't necessarily think Civ supports an enviroment that would make such a system usable.. maybe as an option..

All game-refrences should be removed from the diplomacy system. 'They believe you are trying to win the game in a similar way' takes you out of the experience, especially when there are already penalties whenever you get close to completing any of the victory conditions. I would hope with the forthcoming addition of espionage that enemy nations would have to 'discover' that your close to winning the game in a particular way before getting the debuff, I never liked that all the enemies suddenly knew you were close to winning regardless of what they knew or where they are geographically.

 

[Depravo]

Example Tones; Threatening (outright aggressive), Strong (forciful), Formal (strict proticol), Reason (logical), Polite (diplomatic), Humble (pleading).

They would have to be careful with the implementation of a system like that - I remember something similar in CTP2, but the diplomacy in that game was even more braindead than in Civ 5 and like everything else about that game a feature that sounded cool turned out to be so much clutter.

As usual SMAC found the happy medium - you could take a more aggressive line in diplomacy at the risk of alienating the other side altogether, but there wasn't some sort of 'attitude slider' as such.

 

[Storminator]

About 30 turns later I take the last English city, immediately everyone declares me a Warmonger and within 10 tens, the Persians and the Greeks ally and declare war on me, despite my military being stronger then their combined forces and the Persians being largely dependant on our trade to survive.

Yup. That's the trigger.

PS