Pulled my first Civ V all-nighter: My biggest gripe with the game.

Seriously what the . I am really impressed with this game but they need to build up the whole diplomacy system from scratch.
Exactly. The current diplomacy system is great for a wargame where everyone is trying to win, but not a "civilization" game. I miss having actual allies and friends I had with previous versions. I would love to see a deep, meaningful diplomacy only expansion to this game. My last hope is that the DLL gets released and it can be adjusted via a mod.
 
Exactly. The current diplomacy system is great for a wargame where everyone is trying to win, but not a "civilization" game. I miss having actual allies and friends I had with previous versions. I would love to see a deep, meaningful diplomacy only expansion to this game. My last hope is that the DLL gets released and it can be adjusted via a mod.

Well, I don't know about you, but at least personally I'll eventually start to consider attacking a friendly AI civ if I think I can handle them, they have something I want and I don't need them as an ally anymore, so it makes sense if the AI does the same thing.
I think that's the real problem in many games where people complain about the diplomacy, they feel that they should be able to trust the AI and that it's a big problem if the AI tend to break alliances if it would benefit it, and forget that they'd do the same thing.

Maybe we can get the AI to adjust its actions based on the players character though by tracking your actions even between games so that you get a reputation that influences how the AI will interact with you, just like we have a rough idea about how each AI nation will act, so if you have a tendency to stab your allies in the back the AI will trust you less in future games and be less likely to work with you and more likely to do the same to you, but if you tend to honor your agreements the AI will do the same.
It shouldn't be a guaranteed thing though of course, so for example you might have a deceitful AI stab you in the back despite a trustworthy reputation, while other trustworthy AI personalities will be honest and keep any deals that you make. You'll have to make a call on if you trust a particular AI based on previous experience and reputation, and the AI would be able to do the same with this system.

The obvious problem is that you could box yourself into a corner where you'll be unable to change play style from game to game, but that could be avoided by introducing a simple RP element where you get to create different characters (nothing complicated, just a name and maybe an icon) and then you select one of them at the start of every game and actions are tracked based on the character. They'd all start out neutral for the first game where the AIs decisions wouldn't take it into account at all, but if you stay honest they'd trust you a bit more in the next game you play with that character, while if you spent that game stabbing your allies in the back the diplomacy would move further towards the Total War style where alliances mean absolutely nothing at all in the next one. If you want to change style at any point, you simply start a new game with an another character selected.
 
You are correct that a player of this game will be very pragmatic with allies, when they have outlived their usefulness and we have not grown attached we will often do with then whatever we feel like.
This is however not how a real leader would act, things like personality, religion, human suffering and personal bonding play an important role.
If you deal with a country, do you want it to feel like you're talking to a player or a leader? As the kind
of cold blooded rationale is something only a player or a sociopath can have.
Ofcourse Monty or Alex being untrustworthy is a given considering their homicidal nature, but being a backstabbing bastard should be the exception, not the rule.
 
The AI is already heavily handicapped by not being a human. It has to play to win by acting like a player rather then trying to be a real world simulation. In the end, there can only be 1 winner, so eventually one of you has to attack. Either to score a domination victory, or to prevent the other from winning one of the other victory types. Basically, I'd like to feel like I'm talking to a leader, but not if that comes at the cost of making the AI less of a challenge.
 
I agree that diplomacy needs to be reworked from scratch. You are another player on a very very long list that would love to see the game fixed and finished properly. At this point however, it does not look like we will even get a patch soon though, let alone anything else.
 
I don't get why the conversation always leads to "the diplo system needs to be completely redone" as opposed to "some of the diplo modifiers should be changed"

Ever played a game with a Korean ally? They have a very high "loyatly" value and so they don't actually stab you in the back! The system works. The problem is...all of the other civs have really low loyalty values.

The point I am trying to make is that the system works, but could just use a little fine tuning.
 
I don't get why the conversation always leads to "the diplo system needs to be completely redone" as opposed to "some of the diplo modifiers should be changed"

Ever played a game with a Korean ally? They have a very high "loyatly" value and so they don't actually stab you in the back! The system works. The problem is...all of the other civs have really low loyalty values.

The point I am trying to make is that the system works, but could just use a little fine tuning.

When I played as China they stabbed me in the back. There is no difference between civs. They turn on you sooner or later. Mostly they do it when there is no sanity to or even remote advantage to their decisions. They simply act without thinking. I think the problem with the current diplomacy system is that there are too few things that the AI civs take into account, because the game is lacking depth.
 
I don't get why the conversation always leads to "the diplo system needs to be completely redone" as opposed to "some of the diplo modifiers should be changed"

Ever played a game with a Korean ally? They have a very high "loyatly" value and so they don't actually stab you in the back! The system works. The problem is...all of the other civs have really low loyalty values.

The point I am trying to make is that the system works, but could just use a little fine tuning.

I agree with this for the most part. It took me a long time to accept some of the behavior from the AI but most of it makes sense and is predictable after you've played enough games. It does still need fine tuning though.

The lack of balance in diplomacy modifiers and the predatory disposition that was patched into the AI to make the game "harder" actually makes the AI at times seem reckless, obnoxious and inefficient on about 6 of the 8 difficulties. And the only reason they're efficient on the other two settings is because of the enormous bonuses, not because it's sound play to cancel research agreements and throw away production and gold on repetitive and fruitless war efforts. The back-stab games are a part of this problem. Most of them are totally predictable (if you've played more than a few games), not that clever, and not that efficient.

I'd also like to see better focus on productive war efforts if the AI chooses to go to war. Avoid multiple fronts, avoid trying to attack several cities at the same time and avoid declarations based solely on military score. If the AI isn't near the three-legged-antelope that it's spotted in the demographics, then just pass. If the AI was extremely unsuccessful at attacking a weak or hated rival then take that into account and make some some kind of adjustment to strategy. Don't just repeat the cycle over and over and over again.
 
Just put open borders on your side as an offer, then click their gold and ask 'what will you give me for this?' and 50 or 43 comes up right away. Thank me later.
Thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom