Poll: what makes a good diplomacy system?

[Che Guava]

I'm still not totally convinced that domestic penalties (happiness or otherwise) should apply when attacking allies. I mean, unless those people happen to be nationals of the civ you're attacking ("You declared war on our homeland!"), aren't the masses generally pliable to the suggestion of foreign enemies, even when they've been allies in the past?

I guess I'd rather see these kind of penalties only apply under a 'free speech' social policy, but then again, I could be missing a viewpoint here.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'm still not totally convinced that domestic penalties (happiness or otherwise) should apply when attacking allies. I mean, unless those people happen to be nationals of the civ you're attacking ("You declared war on our homeland!"), aren't the masses generally pliable to the suggestion of foreign enemies, even when they've been allies in the past?

I guess I'd rather see these kind of penalties only apply under a 'free speech' social policy, but then again, I could be missing a viewpoint here.

In Civ 4 the AI player has a 'penalty' for attacking a good friend... they Can't, they are forced not to.

The gameplay reason for some type of a 'penalty' for attacking a friend is that it means diplomacy is something you can use to make yourself safer... ie you can use it strategically.

The 'roleplay' reason for some type of a 'penalty' for attacking a friend is that if you have good relationships with another civ your people will have formed business/social relationships with the people of that civ and so will not want those disrupted.

ie If the US president/senate were told today that they would have to go to war with China or England... what factors would they consider?
1. The difficulty of doing so (strength of the countries/distance)
2. There would be the reaction of other nations to consider (their reaction to an upset of balances of power)
3. There would be the potential gains (North Sea Oil, 1 billion new taxpayers)
But there would also be
4. which side would cause more problems domestically..(country with similar government and long standing cooperation OR country with strongly opposed government and trade disputes)


The idea is to Keep sometype of a 'penalty' and apply it to both the human AND the AI (which means it shouldn't Force you to do something... like the Civ4 AI penalty does)

 

[Loppan Torkel]

That's what the players should Act like. But the game should mean that winning involves acting like a civilization.

So not a 'senate stops you from declaring war' but...
The AI has offered me a gift, if I take it, it will cause more unhappiness for me to declare war on them later... I'll decline it.

Then the AI can use the same logic... (the human player is offereing me a gift.... etc.)

If attacking my 3000 year ally has Massive happiness penalties then there is a Benefit to having a 3000 year ally (because they get those happiness penalties if they attack me).

If making a trade treaty with someone I was just in a massive war with causes happiness penalties, then I will wait until we have been at peace a little bit longer to propose those treaties (and so will my AI previous enemy)

I could only see that this would be a potentially good idea if they kept the penalties pretty minor. I'd rather see a reduced trust toward the treaty-breaking civs, plus some small morality system that works to keep bonds between civs. Similarly to how it's been in the past, but improved...

I still think what you're suggesting makes the system too rigid and inhibits the player freedom too much.

What options are there when playing an AI-civ that's slightly stronger than me and that's been my ally for the last 3000 years.

 

[Disgustipated]

I dislike the poll choices, so... The last one

The poll seems to indicated the only way to play to win is to attack and presumably conquer people. Sigh. For one, this isn't necessarily a war game. It's time to move away from civ2 concepts of victory.

Should the ai play to win? maybe. At the beginning, everyone should be playing to win. But as some point, I'd like an AI smart enough to realize it "can't" win, and will ally with someone they think will win, or ally with someone that will attack who they don't want to win.

I'm not going to comment on specific diplomacy too much, I just wanted to mention my views on what the AI's philosophy should be.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I could only see that this would be a potentially good idea if they kept the penalties pretty minor. I'd rather see a reduced trust toward the treaty-breaking civs, plus some small morality system that works to keep bonds between civs. Similarly to how it's been in the past, but improved...

I still think what you're suggesting makes the system too rigid and inhibits the player freedom too much.

What options are there when playing an AI-civ that's slightly stronger than me and that's been my ally for the last 3000 years.

What options are there for an AI-civ playing against a human ally that is slightly stronger than them?

Well that depends on the system

1. Alliances means something.... rest easy, they won't attack you (at least not for a while... they would have to discontinue the alliance, and then break the trade treaties, start denying exchange you suggest, make some arrogant demands of you.)

2. Alliances mean squat.....Build up your military fast , they could attack you at any moment

I'd prefer #1

The key is that the SAME mechanic apply to the Human and the AI player.

I mentioned earlier what this might mean

If Civ Wants to go to war then they
1. Can end agreements (alliances, Right of Passage, trade, etc.)
2. Can reject trades, requests that the other side proposes
3. Can make demand/requests that the other side will probably reject
4. Can switch their 'government' to something different
5. Do all of those to their 'target's friends, and make friends with the 'targets' enemies
and
6. Can just suck it up and deal with the unhappiness

If a Civ wants to Avoid war (making it harder for the other civ) then they
1. Can form agreements (alliances, Right of Passage, trade, etc.)
2. Can accept trades, requests that the other side proposes (even if it is bad for them)
3. Can make offers/trades/requests that the other side will probably accept
4. Can switch their 'government' to something similar
5. Do all of those to the 'threat's friends, and do the opposite to the 'threat's enemies



So diplomacy allows you to avoid war, and still beneft from a military (everyone starts buying you off to keep your military away from them)

The poll seems to indicated the only way to play to win is to attack and presumably conquer people. Sigh. For one, this isn't necessarily a war game. It's time to move away from civ2 concepts of victory.

Should the ai play to win? maybe. At the beginning, everyone should be playing to win. But as some point, I'd like an AI smart enough to realize it "can't" win, and will ally with someone they think will win, or ally with someone that will attack who they don't want to win.

I'm not going to comment on specific diplomacy too much, I just wanted to mention my views on what the AI's philosophy should be

Well I think that should be the Human player philosophy too... essentially "allied with the winner" needs to be considered a Win as well (even if it is a win with less points.)

I do think that 'dominating the world' should be the predominant way of winning, but you should have nonmilitary methods of dominating other players.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

What options are there for an AI-civ playing against a human ally that is slightly stronger than them?

Well that depends on the system

1. Alliances means something.... rest easy, they won't attack you (at least not for a while... they would have to discontinue the alliance, and then break the trade treaties, start denying exchange you suggest, make some arrogant demands of you.)

2. Alliances mean squat.....Build up your military fast , they could attack you at any moment

I'd prefer #1

I prefer #1,5. Alliances mean something, but the friends can still attack you at any given time, if they see it benefits them long term or when going for the win. I wouldn't want them to become so predictable that they every time show their intentions before going to war.

If I was playing the game and was weaker than my long time ally, I'd probably have to sneak attack him at some point to win the game. If I do it at the right moment and in the right way, there might be a chance to turn it around, but only if I don't have to deal with "Massive happiness penalties". The war against a stronger enemy, the distrust and anger from other civ are enough of penalties. Perhaps there could be a "vengeance"-modifier for the long time attacked ally, which reduces the war-weariness.

Imo, this should be a viable strategy for both me and the AI. Although, the alliances should matter, and perhaps more than in civ4 which I haven't played very much. I just think that your suggestion appears to limit the strategical options a bit too much.

Some civleaders could also be more trustworthy than others, with a +-2 modifier.

The key is that the SAME mechanic apply to the Human and the AI player.

I mentioned earlier what this might mean

If Civ Wants to go to war then they
1. Can end agreements (alliances, Right of Passage, trade, etc.)
2. Can reject trades, requests that the other side proposes
3. Can make demand/requests that the other side will probably reject
4. Can switch their 'government' to something different
5. Do all of those to their 'target's friends, and make friends with the 'targets' enemies
and
6. Can just suck it up and deal with the unhappiness

If a Civ wants to Avoid war (making it harder for the other civ) then they
1. Can form agreements (alliances, Right of Passage, trade, etc.)
2. Can accept trades, requests that the other side proposes (even if it is bad for them)
3. Can make offers/trades/requests that the other side will probably accept
4. Can switch their 'government' to something similar
5. Do all of those to the 'threat's friends, and do the opposite to the 'threat's enemies


So diplomacy allows you to avoid war, and still beneft from a military (everyone starts buying you off to keep your military away from them)

Most of this isn't new though and I expect most of it to be in. The question is how the AI and the player should be penalized and how much. Some minor unhappiness when attacking a brother-nation could perhaps be expected as long as it's still a viable strategy. If so, maybe the effects could be reduced with "propaganda".

 

[Naokaukodem]

It's pretty simple. Ais should play to win, because this is a game. If the game mechanics are not aimed towards realism, then nevermind for the realism. Civ is a game. Ais should play to win. Not to mean they should all go warry or anything, because there are victories like diplomatic win (although as long as it would be submitted to other AI votes it would be broken), cultural win, space race win and time/score win. Plus, they should take into account the general picture.

Example: there is a "big dude" with twice more score points than the second. AIs should tend to make alliances with weaker civs in order to declare war to this "big dude". Now that would make no sense if one AI would attack me if I had a middle score. Maybe to increase its own score and become more competitive, yes, but not at the price of a long war, weakening both of us while the "big dude" is building up his army. Unless a war with me would be pretty easy, alliances should merge. If the AI can't figure out how strong i am, then a "test war" should occur. If it fails, AI should give up and start to throw eyes at the stronger civs.

Then all kinds of tactic is allowed from this point. Not having too much points early. But that's good for army and science also. If there is a "big power dude" or a "big science dude", this should be put in the balance, because of other victory types. Same as "big culture dude". A big culture dude, on the verge of winning, should be harrassed by other AIs. It makes for a tough gameplay where alliances are the key. But there is a line not to overpass: alliances are good but not permanent alliances. Because, when the big dude is killed, a new political scheme should merge. Even before the annihilation of the big dude. After some cities taken (including legendary ones), alliances should fade away. No more "we will kill you until the last one" behavior. Ais should not be rancorous. This does not make sense. After all they are political figures. Or maybe in some rare cases when the leader IQ is low? Or if there is leader changes and that the new leader arised from a rancorous population? (Hitler) Well, rancorousness being in the game or not, it should NOT be the general picture. In that regard, AIs should be superior to humans. They largerly can, and that would make them nothing but more competitive, with more interesting political intrigues.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Most of this isn't new though and I expect most of it to be in.

I expect none of it to be in... at least not for the human player. (the closest effect you had in Civ 4 was the 'you are attacking our brothers in the faith' unhappiness)

It probably will all be in for the AI player which means the AI will probably be just as exploitable as in Civ 4... but the exploitation will be frustrating because the numbers are invisible.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I expect none of it to be in... at least not for the human player. (the closest effect you had in Civ 4 was the 'you are attacking our brothers in the faith' unhappiness)

It probably will all be in for the AI player which means the AI will probably be just as exploitable as in Civ 4... but the exploitation will be frustrating because the numbers are invisible.

In civ3, the civs were pretty annoyed with you when you attacked if you had trade agreements and right-of-passage deals. The numbers were invisible there, weren't they?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

In civ3, the civs were pretty annoyed with you when you attacked if you had trade agreements and right-of-passage deals. The numbers were invisible there, weren't they?

Yes but you didn't know How annoyed they were... which made exploiting it frustrating. (although if I remember that was pretty much like a Civ 4 -10 type situation... never really coming back from that)

Note: They were annoyed with You, was there anything about the game that forced You to be annoyed with Them if they did the same thing.... no, if you thought it would be best you could accept peace.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Why exploit it? You knew it was a dirty move, the betrayed civ had all the right to be mad at you and the other civs wouldn't trust you. That seems perfectly normal.

I don't think the game should force me to be mad at them. I also think that the AI-civs could be a bit more sly. Instead of hating me throughout the game for attacking them, they could change to friendly again, but perhaps never trust me again.

I also think that if some civ broke a right-of-passage deal with me, I'd be pretty pissed on him and I wouldn't trust him. There could be a system where I assign my feelings toward AI-civs and perhaps a journal where the actions toward me are kept. The feelings toward other AI-civs could be preset from the journal with the player making adjustments to them, either truthfully or to gain trust and later betray.

Taken further, the player could earn a reputation over several games, as in a roleplaying/campaign mode. If you're untrustworthy you shouldn't expect to be able to trust the AI-players, and their friendliness wouldn't be worth as much, while if you're a decent guy, the AI-players would adjust to that.
A blank, reputationless mode would preferably exist also.

 

[Semmel]

This would make the AI play more like a human adapting to the situation in the game, and able to "play and win the game". This is what I'm hoping for in Civ5.

Yeah, I like that opinion.

First, an AI should play like a real nation and the player should be encouraged to do the same. The only way to do that is a honey/whip strategy. If you betray a friend, you should get penelties. If you declare war on a nation with (in Civ4) different religion for example, you should get a bonus from your population. Like: "Finaly we try to kill these unbeleavers!" or something like that. If you have a very good relationship to your neighbor, you should get uprisings in your population for declaring war. As said above, a slow incremental "we like that nation" in the population would be nice. You can encourage that by small gifts to the other nation, or by actions in your own kingdom. Like propaganda. I think propaganda is a part that is missing in civ so far. If you like your opponent and you want to be friends with him, you should be able to tell your people what a nice nation that is. That its fun to make holidays there, or something. Trade relationsare always good and make people like the other naion. Also you can come up with "Our brothers in the other nation need our moral support as they have lost some of their people in an accident". If you want to go to war, but your population has a good attitude towards your opponent, you should be able to tell bad things about them to make your people hate them. For example: "all $other_nation_people are potential suicide bombers" which creates fear in your population. Or tell bad lies "they are bad people because they make evil bargins to get our money"... or something classic like "They come to our cities and take our jobs!".. so you should be able to play the bad ass. Of course, if you tell lies about your other country, they notice and begin to dislike you as well. Properbly causing them to get to war with you before you are ready.

But thats all game mechanics that make the game more to lure the player into behaving like a real nation. There is still the GAME aspact. Which it is. And the player wants to win the game. If there is a space race going on and you decide to win by coulture, and you win because you are faster, you dont care about the space race. Or if one AI conquerd half the world and is winning by domination. But you make the culture win first, it doesnt matter to you how good the AI is at the moment. Even the extreme example that an AIs army is all over you but you win like 2 turns before they can reach your cultural cities, you dont care because you won the game. It doesnt matter that your nation is at the edge of being overrun. In the real life, no one wins, its always going on. That meens, in the moment one player, AI or not, can win the GAME, the simulation stops of being realistic. In this moment, the AI should try to prevent you from winning with all its might. So, even if you are close allies and you are close to win by culture, your close ally should attack you to prevent you from winning the game. So you cant just sit there, with units from midevil and sail to victory because everybody likes you. You have to defend your self as well. Which makes the culture victory much slower and harder.

My excample with culture win is just one, it applies to all other victory conditions similarly. In this way, a diplomatic victory would not occur. But.. to be honest.. I dont want the AI to vote me to win the game. Its just lame if they are not forced to by for example they are vassals. But thats almost a domination victory with a different flavor.

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

I believe Krikkitone hit it on the head when he said that system should make both AI's and Human players act like Civilizations.

Those that argue that a happiness/penalty system should be minor as to not restrict the player forget that Civ is FULL of restrictions. The player is not a god. They are restricted by the patterns on the tech tree. They are restricted by their budget. They are restricted by city happiness. Etc....

Such happiness/penalties should be tempered by the civics chosen. Dictatorship like gov'ts reduce the penalties while representative type civics increase the penalties. The player (both AI and Human) must balance the benefits and consequences of choosing certain civics.

To discourage the "I will just switch to Dictatorship in order to declare war and avoid penalties" action, there should be a longer penalty of unhappiness for someone "regressing" in civics (restricting the freedoms of the people). Also, if someone were do go from, say, Democracy to Dictatorship to declare war, then attempt to go to Democracy again, the penalties that they would have incurred by declaring war during Democracy should be applied, because the war is still going on and the people have their "freedoms" again to speak out.

To those that argue that it is a game and doesn't need to be realistic, you are missing the point of the game. It is meant to model the growth of civilizations as realistically as possible while not making it a chore. That is why there are tech trees. That is why there are civilizations with historically accurate leaders/units. If you want a lack of realism and no player restrictions, dig out the old game called "Populous" and play as a god.

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

Just an FYI from the Strana Igr interview:

"Religions, in the form in which they were in Civilization IV, are removed. Despite the fact that this part of the game was popular among fans, it is not included in the new diplomatic system developed by our chief designer, John Shafer (city-states, a completely different approach to diplomacy AI, etc.).. We are confident that gamers will like this system too."


"You often mention a new system of diplomacy Civilization V. In connection with this - the question" What about the casus bellli ? The fact is that in Civilization IV sometimes even peace-loving civs "going at you" for no apparent reason, even if previously they treated you kindly. "

Dennis Shirk: Similar situation will arise in the new part. For example, Gandhi will try to act in its peace-loving style. But he will not fail to exploit the situation and start a war, if the player himself would ask for it. In Civilization V, we hope to motivate AI more logical and understandable."

 

[Ahriman]

The poll seems to indicated the only way to play to win is to attack and presumably conquer people.

Eh? Not at all.
But determining who attacks who through war *is* the primary function of the diplomacy system.

In fact, if you want a less war-oriented builder experience you should prefer choice 1, because otherwise you can't use diplomacy to effectively protect yourself from being attacked.

It's pretty simple. Ais should play to win, because this is a game. If the game mechanics are not aimed towards realism, then nevermind for the realism. Civ is a game. Ais should play to win.

Thats a very strange argument. This is a game, so AIs should play in a way that is most fun for the human, who is actually playing the game. The AIs aren't people playing the game, they're there to enhance *my* enjoyment, not there own.
Many people (myself included) feel a total break in history immersion if AIs do things that make them feel like gameplayers, rather than real countries.
For example, if the US and UK had annexed France rather than liberating it after WW2 (play to win!), or if the US troops in Britain before D-day had suddenly marched on London and conquered it (play to win!) or if the US suddenly invaded Canada during the 20th century (play to win!) then that would feel totally wrong.

"You often mention a new system of diplomacy Civilization V. In connection with this - the question" What about the casus bellli ? The fact is that in Civilization IV sometimes even peace-loving civs "going at you" for no apparent reason, even if previously they treated you kindly. "

Dennis Shirk: Similar situation will arise in the new part. For example, Gandhi will try to act in its peace-loving style. But he will not fail to exploit the situation and start a war, if the player himself would ask for it. In Civilization V, we hope to motivate AI more logical and understandable."

Which of course tells us very little. He didn't answer the question about cassus belli (my personal take is that they never want to say "no feature X is not in the game", so a non-answer is more likely a no than a maybe) and the meaning of "we hope to motivate AI more logical and understandable" is a matter of opinion.

In my opinion, AI being more understandable means that they won't declare war on you if they're your friend, but I can see others arguing that more logical means the reverse.

So, no info here.

 

[Krill]

Just so you know, the opening question on the poll and the options given are orthogonal, never mind poorly phrased.

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

Which of course tells us very little. He didn't answer the question about cassus belli ...
So, no info here.

Well, the original Russian uses both the term cassus belli as well as an explanation of what it meant. I don't think the question was whether or not there was a cassus belli system similar to EU. The question was simply looking at why AI's attack and how people, you and I included, have been frustrated at friendly nations attacking. Although he didn't go into detail, he acknowledged that it would still occur in the new diplomatic system.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I believe Krikkitone hit it on the head when he said that system should make both AI's and Human players act like Civilizations.

Those that argue that a happiness/penalty system should be minor as to not restrict the player forget that Civ is FULL of restrictions. The player is not a god. They are restricted by the patterns on the tech tree. They are restricted by their budget. They are restricted by city happiness. Etc....

The game shouldn't restrict the player too much. That's reasonable and what I expect the devs to see to that it doesn't happen. You could argue that the player should be straight-jacked all you want, but it's not going to happen. Restrictions are only good to a degree.

To those that argue that it is a game and doesn't need to be realistic, you are missing the point of the game. It is meant to model the growth of civilizations as realistically as possible while not making it a chore. That is why there are tech trees. That is why there are civilizations with historically accurate leaders/units. If you want a lack of realism and no player restrictions, dig out the old game called "Populous" and play as a god.

I'm sorry, but you're missing the point of the game. It's foremost supposed to be fun, that's what's wise and that's what the devs want. How realistic the game is comes second. If it's totally unrealistic the players won't be immersed or have fun.
If you want a realistic game, go play Hearts of Iron.

Well, the original Russian uses both the term cassus belli as well as an explanation of what it meant. I don't think the question was whether or not there was a cassus belli system similar to EU. The question was simply looking at why AI's attack and how people, you and I included, have been frustrated at friendly nations attacking. Although he didn't go into detail, he acknowledged that it would still occur in the new diplomatic system.

Of course it will, as it should.
Maybe there will be greater penalties to such attacks in civ5 but they still need to be viable as options.

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

1st) I simply don't understand why some equate realism with lack of fun. Perhaps that is their opinion, but others find realism truly captivating and fun.

2nd) The fact that you have penalties/happiness based on your actions and choices is not "straight-jacketing" you. You still have free will to act within the choices you make. If you choose a democracy to get the financial benefit, don't complain that your people are more demanding. If you would want fewer negative effects for attacking whomever, whenever you wished, then choose a gov't system in which those are more "accepted" and have fewer negative effects. The idea that you want your cake (Democracy) and eat it too (attack whomever without any negative consequences/reactions from your population) is simply unrealistic.

In Civ you guide your civilization; you do not play a god. You play within the parameters of the game. You are restricted in all sorts of ways, via penalties/bonuses/limitations. To say that you are straight-jacketed simply because there are consequences of your actions is just plain illogical.

 

[Ahriman]

The question was simply looking at why AI's attack and how people, you and I included, have been frustrated at friendly nations attacking. Although he didn't go into detail, he acknowledged that it would still occur in the new diplomatic system.

No he didn't. He said *pacifists* will still attack you if there is a big value from doing so.

Didn't say anything about close allies attacking you, or not.