Promise Broken?

[steveg700]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I managed to actually form a long lasting friendship/alliance with Japan in one game by some miracle. It didn't seem to really do anything that special though. They decided to declare random war, probably as a join war, with Spain out of nowhere. Joint wars seem to be a strong factor in a lot of war declaration silliness. They aren't sensing weakness or anything, my military far outclasses theirs.

Of course Spain and Japan didn't feel the need to actually send any troops my way. Just declaring for the lols I guess. I took their money when they eventually offered it.

Right now in my current game almost everyone is now unhappy or denouncing me. Part of the diplomacy logic of an AI hating you is they will ask for large gold per turn with nothing to return, then get pissy when you say no. I'm not sure why they do this, I guess the logic is "if relations are bad, offer worse deals in trade" so at the worst relation their offer for anything is just zero? I'm supposed to take their crappy offer to win back their respect? Their respect which has zero value for me and will easily be wiped away when they randomly decide to declare?

AI doesn't like you breaking some stupid promise? Well, it's not like their promises have any value. Just ignore them. Slam the ESC button over and over whenever their animation starts to appear because whatever they have to say is not worth your time. Maybe you weren't planning to go for a domination victory this game, but the AI will do everything in its power to tempt you in to it.

I can see scenarios where the AI civ's DOW you even if you outclass them. I mean, they're pursuing a victory condition, and you may be outclassing them at it, so at some point they need to make some kind of move even born of desperation.

Having said that, the problems we're declaring to be so very broken in Civ VI are largely the same issues that were in Civ V. Namely:

1) The AI doesn't do a job (if any at all) of weighing its needs against its preferences. That is to say, the fact that a civ doesn't like you should not cause it to bite off its own nose to bite off its face. A broke civ should want you to give it GPT, and an unhappy civ should want your luxuries, and it *should* be willing to offer an equitable deal based on how bad its needs are, *even* if it has to do business with someone they hate. And then in turn, that relationship where you helped them in an hour of desperation should perhaps roll off some of those negative diplo modifiers.

2) The design of the AI prioritizes the notion that players are a bunch of cheap-shotting blitzkriegers. So, they maintain massive armies even after generations of peace, and those massive armies have nothing to do and nowhere to go. They dance around the edge of our borders and we can't tell them to go away. Conversely, they get very upset when even a single unit of ours shows up near their borders. You don't even get a warning from them a lot of the time, but there will often be a "moving forces nearby" penalty for just exploring with a scout or a mounted unit. That's even if your cities are close to theirs, and even if you have open borders.

3) The trade route system exists without any real integration to the diplomacy system. In Civ V we accepted this because trade routes were tacked on with the BNW expansion, but the truth is this is absurd because trade has ever been the driving force of peaceful diplomatic relations between civilizations (especially those abutting each other). You don't have to consent to having a trade route sent to you, and worse still it seems that in Civ VI there is no inherent benefit to being a trade route destination for another civ. Of course, issue #1 is a prime reason why we're stuck at this junction: if a civ is weighted heavily towards disliking you, and its needs don't outweigh that animus, then they would probably turn off any spigot they had to control trade at their end. So, the final decision to prevent any sort of trade restrictions except in times of war.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

right now it is pretty much pointless to befriend any of the AI's. so just push them around and if they get in your way destroy them

Distant AIs without abrasive agendas will give you some good deals until you come for them though.

 

[agonistes]

Yeah there are some diplomacy issues that need to be addressed. Hopefully it will be reduced to a realistic tile count in the near future

His wasn't a problem with the tile count, it was that the request/deal to move troops persisted even though the requesting party dow'd on him. I've had this happen to me too.

Many of the dow's have zip to do with your standing. I'm at about 80% certain right now (and I play a lot... I mean, a lot) that civs will dow on you for starting a wonder that... well, let me back up... I think civs are randomly assigned wonders to shoot for at game's creation. This is the only explanation for some of the odd beelining and wonder production I've seen (particularly from crazy Gandhi). So I think if you start a wonder another civ is checked for, they will dow. I also think if you expand at a rate beyond a certain limit, the game is coded to dow on you. Finally, if you settle in a place another civ is eyeballing, you will get dow'd on. None of these is written into the diplomacy, but I'm pretty sure they exist. Plus probably a random % chance per turn X of being dow'd on. I mean, even your besties will dow on you at seemingly random.

So pay attention to it: wonders, rapid expansion, resource hot spots, + the randomish every 30 turns - usually within 3 turns of you making peace with someone else (think its meant to keep the game exciting or something).

As for peace, I'm also pretty sure there is a type of war that gets declared for which you cannot make peace until the invasion force has been defeated, regardless of the time/distance between you and the moron who dow'd on you. That's why some wars you cannot have a peace deal for like 400 turns... the invading army is still on its way to you - carpets of death colliding, like tectonic plates. My guess is one of the invading units is flagged, probably the last one sent.

So far, the only type of relationship that hasn't led to a dow is my having brought a civ back to life. But I think a rezzed civ is bugged, cause its still showing Cleo being at war with Kongo, even though they are trading. Liberating a city is a +20 relationship bonus with that civ, +5 with some of the others, just a fyi. Also, fyi, if you conquer a city, have it ceded to you, and then trade that city to another civ, the original owner will still be pissed at you for occupying one of their cities. Apparently the occupation anger does not get transferred. Back to point, this is not tested extensively.

So, if green smilies are your thing, not that they mean a damn thing, but if you, like me, prefer them to hot cherries, try liberating a city/city-state.

Since the liberation bonus and occupancy bonus are exactly the same, I'm keen to try liberating a city for a civ I am occupying a city of, or vice versa.

 

[bladex]

Distant AIs without abrasive agendas will give you some good deals until you come for them though.

any AI will they are that stupid. pretty much every civ in my current games hates me, deno me but they still beg for luxuries LOL

 

[Cymsdale]

There seems to be a million of reasons the AI 'could' be declaring their random war, but it all comes out as nonsense if nothing in the game gives you any clue. It wouldn't be as aggravating if the war declaration had a note like "you are getting too far ahead in science", "you started a wonder I wanted to build", "you settled in a spot I was planning to expand."

Yeah, some of these reasons would probably still seem dumb, but at least it would give the players a glimmer of understanding of the thinking.

3) The trade route system exists without any real integration to the diplomacy system.

I think you get a small positive modifier if you send a trade route to the AI. I have no idea why though, since sending a route to another nation gives them zero benefit. I'm not sure who's bright idea it was that trade routes should be completely one sided. That's not how trade works!

 

[Sascha77]

Thing is: Settling new cities is much less restricted than in Civ V - the AI can and will put down cities right on your border (meaning their city center is right next to your border).

Together with the insane "trigger distance" for the "your troops are on my border"-whine, this leads to constant conflict, even if you only have a single unit in your border town. I for one am at a point where I either only play island maps to minimize the AI's chance to get all close and cuddly with me or where I simply ignore the AI's complaints. I mean: A lot of their other complaints are pretty much unavoidable anyway (hating you for your "low" income when you're making plenty of cash or simply for being on the wrong continent), so what difference does one more baseless complaint make?

here seems to be a million of reasons the AI 'could' be declaring their random war, but it all comes out as nonsense if nothing in the game gives you any clue. It wouldn't be as aggravating if the war declaration had a note like "you are getting too far ahead in science", "you started a wonder I wanted to build", "you settled in a spot I was planning to expand."

To be fair: I usually never get declared upon once I've reached a certain era. The (very) early aggro seems nearly unavoidable (almost like a scripted event), so I don't really care *why* they declare during this period. Heck, I've had DOW happen as early as turn 15 (on "Epic") and from civs that weren't anywhere *near* my realm. So I'm guessing they declare "just because" early on and there's no way to avoid those DOW. I mean.. when someone discovers your civ on turn 20 and then declares on turn 21 or 22, what could you have done to prevent him going to war with you?



S.

 

[agonistes]

I mean.. when someone discovers your civ on turn 20 and then declares on turn 21 or 22, what could you have done to prevent him going to war with you?

Heck, what about the civs that dow on you and you don't even meet them for another 90 turns?

 

[Sascha77]

Heck, what about the civs that dow on you and you don't even meet them for another 90 turns?

LOL.. yeah.

But I suspect that this is a different bug that should be relatively easy to eliminate. Still: I'll kinda miss seeing my own leader declare on me over and over again.

 

[steveg700]

There seems to be a million of reasons the AI 'could' be declaring their random war, but it all comes out as nonsense if nothing in the game gives you any clue. It wouldn't be as aggravating if the war declaration had a note like "you are getting too far ahead in science", "you started a wonder I wanted to build", "you settled in a spot I was planning to expand."

The best thing they could do is make it possible to go to a civ and say "what can I do to improve our relations", and then they'll say something like "I'm building the Hagia Sophia, so don't build that', or "denounce Germany", or "stop sending envoys to Lisbon", and so forth. This gives you a way to proactively earn positive bonuses for fulfilling promises. And more to the point, it would help the player feel immersed in a sense of diplomatic collaboration.

But I don't need a civ to tell me why they're DOW'ing me. I'm fine with not having a civ's motives be clear if I don't invest in demystifying them. Of course, if I'm spying on them, that's rather a different matter. Then, I'd not only want to know why there's a DOW, but that it's coming in advance.

I think you get a small positive modifier if you send a trade route to the AI. I have no idea why though, since sending a route to another nation gives them zero benefit. I'm not sure who's bright idea it was that trade routes should be completely one sided. That's not how trade works!

They will probably patch benefits in at some point, but they're likely unsure how to get it right. They don't want civ's getting too much gold too quickly, or favoring civ's with lots of neighbors versus those that have isolated starts.

The modifier you speak of is actually for making deals, not for establishing trade routes. Again, this is another non sequitor that we accept because in Civ V trade routes were tacked-on late. But if you think about it, there are no Silk Road scenarios in Civ VI, because you aren't actually looking to establish an intercontinental trade route to get silk and spices. You can get that just from bumping into the other civ and then can perform trades for luxes outside of the trade route system.

 

[agonistes]

The modifier you speak of is actually for making deals, not for establishing trade routes.

There is a modifier for both, I believe. Having no trade deals present or in the past, I can get + modifiers for having "good trade relations," due to the existence of trade routes... even if, interestingly, its only the other civ who is sending routes to me, not me sending routes to them. Then there is the bonus for "favorable trades" as well. Which makes 3 total, doesn't it? Because isn't there one for simply "trading with" as well?

 

[orasis]

Borders overlap for some reason and it sees that even within your own territory if you're within 2-3 tiles of their border they trigger that warning. It's almost as buggy as settling new cities and being warned that your cities are too close when they are 10-12-16 tiles away from the complainer.

 

[Sascha77]

being warned that your cities are too close when they are 10-12-16 tiles away from the complainer.

Yeah... I've had that happen to me as well. Maybe I'm giving the AI too much credit here, but it *felt* like I was settling in a spot they had earmarked for their own expansion. My city was well clear of any of their towns with plenty of space left between our borders after I settled. But the spot I used would've been a natural choice for the AI to plop down their next city in.

Again: This is yet another of those complaints where the AI demands things it'll do to you in a heartbeat. And all you can do is complain after the fact and get the standard "oh, I'm sorry.."-reply (even AIs that *hated* me have never, ever given me a "screw you.. I'll do as I please"-reply yet).

Just as annoying as AI players constantly shuffling a carpet of doom around on your border while complaining about the one garrisoned unit you have in your border-city. Or them settling a city within pressure distance of my holy city and then freaking out about their city getting converted. That's like me hitting my own thumb over and over with a hammer and then blaming the hammer for my pain/broken bones.

I'm not suggesting that with our current technology the AI could ever be "smart" enough to actively avoid this sort of thing under all circumstances - but it clearly should be possible to adjust their behavior-pattern to make this kind of stuff less likely to happen. Right now this behavior makes the AI players look even dumber than they already are.

S.

 

[AriochIV]

My favorite is when the friendly civ I have Open Borders with complains about my troops being near his borders (they're not), when half his frickin' army is in my territory.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Couple of things (besides those ridiculous promises and the way they get broken) really boils my blood. Your damn scout passing them by giving a negative "You moved troops near our borders" modifier and the fact that if I forget to send the delegation the very same turn I meet them, they'll refuse it. Damn I forgot to send the delegation, oh well I'll send it next turn... nope. The fact that this happens should be a pretty good indication that maybe, just MAYBE they haven't thought it through and it's not working as intended. I really wish it wasn't intended to go like that.

 

[Mustakrakish]

My favorite is when the friendly civ I have Open Borders with complains about my troops being near his borders (they're not), when half his frickin' army is in my territory.

I don't do alliances and open borders no more. Teddy teached me not to. I had accepted friendship and then alliance with him. As soon as I accepted alliance, he flooded my lands with chariots. Freaking chariots all over the land. About 20 of them. What does he do with them? Nothing, just parked them there for the whole time that alliance was active. Needless to say I decided there's no way I'm renewing the alliance once it runs out. But when the alliance finally runs out, he's still parked inside my territory... and next turn declares war on me... with all the units still in my borders. They didn't get pushed out or anything. Nice... While those outdated chariots, no matter the numbers, didn't pose an actual threat, it did took me about 10 turns to clear the land of vermin with 2 conquistadors, 2 crossbows and cities bombarding. AND the way war weariness works, since all those chariots were slaughtered inside MY territory (who cares that not a single unit died on our side, right? Who cares that we're decimating invaders, right?), my cities gone to -6 to -8 amenities in those 10 turns with rebels popping left and right. Had to go for peace with the backstabber (who BTW then asked for friendship again the next turn).

 

[Sascha77]

I don't do alliances and open borders no more. Teddy teached me not to. I had accepted friendship and then alliance with him. As soon as I accepted alliance, he flooded my lands with chariots. Freaking chariots all over the land. About 20 of them. What does he do with them? Nothing, just parked them there for the whole time that alliance was active. Needless to say I decided there's no way I'm renewing the alliance once it runs out. But when the alliance finally runs out, he's still parked inside my territory... and next turn declares war on me... with all the units still in my borders. They didn't get pushed out or anything. Nice... While those outdated chariots, no matter the numbers, didn't pose an actual threat, it did took me about 10 turns to clear the land of vermin with 2 conquistadors, 2 crossbows and cities bombarding. AND the way war weariness works, since all those chariots were slaughtered inside MY territory (who cares that not a single unit died on our side, right? Who cares that we're decimating invaders, right?), my cities gone to -6 to -8 amenities in those 10 turns with rebels popping left and right. Had to go for peace with the backstabber (who BTW then asked for friendship again the next turn).

Priceless..


S.

 

[Cymsdale]

I don't do alliances and open borders no more. Teddy teached me not to. I had accepted friendship and then alliance with him. As soon as I accepted alliance, he flooded my lands with chariots. Freaking chariots all over the land. About 20 of them. What does he do with them? Nothing, just parked them there for the whole time that alliance was active. Needless to say I decided there's no way I'm renewing the alliance once it runs out. But when the alliance finally runs out, he's still parked inside my territory... and next turn declares war on me... with all the units still in my borders. They didn't get pushed out or anything. Nice... While those outdated chariots, no matter the numbers, didn't pose an actual threat, it did took me about 10 turns to clear the land of vermin with 2 conquistadors, 2 crossbows and cities bombarding. AND the way war weariness works, since all those chariots were slaughtered inside MY territory (who cares that not a single unit died on our side, right? Who cares that we're decimating invaders, right?), my cities gone to -6 to -8 amenities in those 10 turns with rebels popping left and right. Had to go for peace with the backstabber (who BTW then asked for friendship again the next turn).

"It's about creating stories. Huge success. No patch needed." - random dev thoughts