Poll: Diplomacy and AI

[aatami]

As I, and many more have stated in many topics:

The AI attitude towards players should be more like cIV, so that actual friendships and alliances (et cetera, practically anything out of denouncing, war and small-scale trade) can be formed, and not just "After 100 turns, all AI:s hate you and think you are a ***hole criminal, and are best friends with each other. And really for no real reason at all!"
The game isn't fun to play if diplomacy is exactly the same old (and stupid) thing in each and every game.

Vote if you think there should be an actual sence in the AI:s diplomatic actions and oh so usual fanatic hatred and hostility towards players.

If you are tired of quitting a game because every single AI (including the ally you were helping) went berserk when you aided you ally, vote yes!

Links to discussion topics:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=404780
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=403819
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=403542
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=404316

 

[Shmike]

Crap I hit I disagree button. I meant to hit yes lol

 

[aatami]

Could some moderator move Shmikes vote to yes?

 

[Clement]

In my opinion the diplomacy in Civ 5 is the biggest reason i cannot bring myself to play it anymore, i find it shallow, chaotic and illogical, but it's more than just those things, AI leaders actually get angry if you are accidently heading for the same victory as them, as long as that design is sustained there is no hope for subtle diplomacy or meaningful alliances in the game, all is geared for war.

 

[Dralix]

I can't exactly vote that I haven't seen anything of the sort, but I certainly haven't experienced the dogpile that so many have reported. Sometimes, I'm doing everything I can to try to get the AI to DoW on me.

Playstyles will have a huge impact on how the AI treats you. There have been some "guides" thrown about, but those are still largely speculation I think. To some extent, diplomacy is a black box, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

[Beef Hammer]

My allies have generally been staying my allies, even civs that start right next to me have been game long friends since patch.

 

[aatami]

Hopefully developers will notice this for the next patch. Everyone should vote, the more voices the better.

My allies have generally been staying my allies, even civs that start right next to me have been game long friends since patch.

Have you helped out them in war? Have you done what they have asked you to do?

 

[Left Foot]

For the sake of clarity, next time please put your question on the poll itself and not only on your post. Makes it so much easier to vote.

I had to read your post a couple of times to see exactly what I was supposed to agree (or disagree with).

Voted yes BTW, I absolutely hate the fact that because the AI thinks I'm trying to win the game the same way he is, I should get a diplomatic hit. Since we're all trying to win, according to the developers, might as well get rid of diplomacy altogether. That little text tidbit kills any immersion there may be (and there isn't much to start with) in a heartbeat.

 

[elprofesor]

As far as I see, it is easy to stay on good terms with the AI, post-patch, without even needing to befriend them, as long as:
- they have space to settle for themselves
- if they don't, and start massing units on your common borders, you do the same
- it's been a while since you started a war, and you have never eliminated a civilization from the game, be it a real civ or a city state.

Till now, I have never been dogpiled when going for a victory other than domination, and the one time I was backstabbed was because I had my army pretty far away from my starting zone (it was highlands, so a small distance takes years -litterally- to cross). Still, I saw it coming, since he was regularly putting troops next to my borders, and then moving them away.

I do agree that the AI has no idea of why you are starting a war, so it is usually crazy easy to get the warmonger title without deserving it.

 

[KillerClowns]

I understand what Firaxis was trying to do with the AI, though they didn't actually succeed. The AI should play to win, and on high difficulties, I can accept that that meaning engaging in "gamey" behavior like attacking a player close to victory for no reason than to prevent that victory. I also understand trying to make the AI a black box, though again, they didn't quite balance it out well enough. You should be able to see some information on why an AI likes/hates you, though other data could be left obfuscated. In short, good ideas, terrible implementation.

 

[Misotu]

I have only played a couple of games to the end so far and only on King difficulty to get the feel of things, so this is just an initial impression of the new diplomacy.

On the positive side, I *really* like the fact that in Civ V I can decline getting into a war and it doesn't seem to have the negative diplomatic impact that it did in Civ IV. Similarly, it's a relief not to have a constant stream of civs demanding that I cancel my deals with their enemies - those lose-lose situations are pretty tedious.

On dog-piling, I have not seen this (although I've only killed barbs so far, no wars!) The AI gradually became better disposed towards me through the games - the last ended with every AI (on a huge map) being "friendly" and no-one declared war even when I was close to victory, which was slightly disappointing as I'd taken some trouble to prepare

Overall though I think the diplomacy could be improved in Civ V. I really enjoyed having quite a lot of information about why the AI liked or loathed me in Civ IV as it enabled a reasonably strategic approach to diplomacy. The "black box" approach in Civ V is not welcome to me as it really reduces the fun and interest. Do open borders affect anything now? Supplying a resource consistently? It's no longer possible to gift a tech of course and there appear to be no trade routes between civs any longer which seems very strange! No, I'm not a fan of "mystery" - I'd really like to know whether to bother with the tedium of renewing open border agreements every 30 turns or not and whether it's worth supplying a nice resource to my closest neighbour to try to keep him sweet ...

Similarly, if agreeing to help an ally in a war is going to produce a negative diplomatic consequence, I think it's important to know this in advance, and to know how badly hit my relationships will be. Otherwise, it's hardly a strategy game really, is it?