Revamped Diplomacy

[Namaspamus]

Agree with OP. If you're civ A, and civs B and C are at war, C shouldn't call you a warmonger for attacking B.

They should also absolutely rework liberated civilizations. When you liberate them you would expect some sort of alliance or a huge bonus to diplomacy relations

This, too. They're grateful for a liberated worker, and they don't care for a city. There should be an option as soon as you take the city to liberate it.

 

[Dralix]

That is the design flaw we are talking about.

It's not a design flaw. It's a design decision that you don't agree with.

It's possible that this design could change, and maybe more likely now that Shafer is no longer with Firaxis, but I wouldn't count on it. So you can choose to work with the system as it is, or look to mods to change the AI so that it is more to your liking.

It is gandhi, not AI oponent number 3. Or it should be.

No one is suggesting that every AI is, or should be, the same. But AI Gandhi shouldn't just roll over and play dead every game just because real life Gandhi was a man of peace.

 

[Namaspamus]

This is a game, and the AI knows it. The AI is not on your side. There are no alliance victories. The AI is not there for you to steamroll on your path to inevitable victory. So don't expect the AI to be your BFF. They might maintain good relations if they believe it's in their best interest, but don't be surprised if they turn on you for the same reason.

In Civ IV the AI was not just playing to win, they cared about many things that were not in their victory's interest, and yet our victory was far from inevitable at the highest levels. It added many interesting decisions to the game, and a lot more of fun by the feeling of immersion.

 

[bryanw1995]

Also to note, Arabia had asked me to declare Russsia along with them and reacted hostily when the war was over. Anyways, I agree completely what everyone has been saying about erratic AI. If we wanted "realistic" diplomacy, we would play multiplayer. Playing with AI has always been about having the opportunity to form alliances and good relations.

did russia ask you for peace and you refused it? anytime you are steamrollering an ai OR you take out City States your warmonger hate goes through the roof. your best bet would have been to take out moscow then just...do nothing.

I'm starting to think that I need to be very careful with dof's. any time a friend denounces you your reputation becomes toast, plus they ask for free luxuries/gold/etc a lot. probably your best bet is to have or max 2 friends, preferably on different continents or at least opposite sides of continent, and none of them anywhere close to you.

 

[Roto-Router]

Agree with OP. If you're civ A, and civs B and C are at war, C shouldn't call you a warmonger for attacking B.

...

This, too. They're grateful for a liberated worker, and they don't care for a city. There should be an option as soon as you take the city to liberate it.

Yep. You'd think this wouldn't be too difficult to code: If you go to war with B, then C will not apply a warmonger penalty to their relations state with you. If they ask for your help, they will not only not apply a penalty, they will give you a bonus for helping them. I don't want permanent alliances like in Civ4, but it should be possible to form some kind of alliances like in real life.

Has anybody seen weirdness with the "Afraid" diplomatic state? I met Catherine in the mid-game, she was on the other side of the world from me and was initially guarded. Then after 10 or 15 turns she changed to "Afraid" and began begging me not to attack her weak little civ and such. I had no units on her border or close relations with her neighbors, and she was only a bit below average in empire size and tech. WTH? Not that I was able to exploit the situation of course: she still demanded way more than I was willing to give in order to trade away her luxury resource (of which she had 5, so why should she hang onto it?).

 

[lschnarch]

It's not a design flaw. It's a design decision that you don't agree with.

Then, by definition, there aren't any design flaws at all.

No one is suggesting that every AI is, or should be, the same. But AI Gandhi shouldn't just roll over and play dead every game just because real life Gandhi was a man of peace.

Why not make Gandhi go for a cultural victory? Why not allowing him to create a decent defensive army?
Would fit into his peaceful nature and would allow him to survive. But no, if the RNG tells him to be so, he becomes a warmonger as any other civ in the game.

 

[neilkaz]

this.

Exactly...for me the only diplomacy is to walk not so softly and carry a big stick.

Diplomacy post patch while a bit more tranparent remains a big joke.

.. neilkaz ..

 

[Dralix]

Then, by definition, there aren't any design flaws at all.

Of course there are. But a flaw is not defined as "something I don't like."

Why not make Gandhi go for a cultural victory? Why not allowing him to create a decent defensive army?
Would fit into his peaceful nature and would allow him to survive. But no, if the RNG tells him to be so, he becomes a warmonger as any other civ in the game.

Make him? No. Allow him? Sure. I don't think that the AI should ever be forced to follow a historical personality if the game situation doesn't make that a wise decision. It's not just a die roll, but that's part of it. If Gandhi is put in a situation where he has absolutely no room to expand peacefully beyond his capital, then I think war should be an option for him.

 

[Txurce]

I'm starting to think that I need to be very careful with dof's. any time a friend denounces you your reputation becomes toast, plus they ask for free luxuries/gold/etc a lot. probably your best bet is to have or max 2 friends, preferably on different continents or at least opposite sides of continent, and none of them anywhere close to you.

Off-shore friends work very well on the whole. They even overlook minor disagreements (like being friends with their enemies).

 

[Txurce]

Of course there are. But a flaw is not defined as "something I don't like."

Actually, I think this is exactly how lschnarch defines it. All of his opinions are stated as simple fact, inevitably leading to the conclusion that there is nothing right with Civ 5.

 

[City Raider]

Make him? No. Allow him? Sure. I don't think that the AI should ever be forced to follow a historical personality if the game situation doesn't make that a wise decision. It's not just a die roll, but that's part of it. If Gandhi is put in a situation where he has absolutely no room to expand peacefully beyond his capital, then I think war should be an option for him.

Lack of cities is not an excuse for the AI to not be able to win.

Humans can win in OCC, why can't an AI?
We can even be stuck on a tiny island build 3-4 cities and still win.
The culture victory in Civ 5 is completely based around having as few cities as possible.

"play to win" does not mean conquest only and constantly backstab.

That is the frustration from many of us. We want the AI to play to win, but not in a completely insane random way that makes your entire game pointless.
Why play a 400-500 turn game where you are trying to win via space only to get dog piled at the end cause the AI is trying to prevent you from winning?
Whats the point of playing and building up? You might as well attack every AI as soon as you meet them and take them out right away (less units for them, less cities).
Unfortunately that game style has zero replayability and quickly turns into all games being the same.

The reason Civ Leaders are given personalities is because you want every game to be different and added variety that goes along with those personalities. You don't need a warmonger Ghandi if Khan or Monty is in your game.
You need some AI personalites to be:
rex'ers
warmongers
ics'ers
wonder spammers
science freaks
culture freaks
etc.

You don't need all AIs to be all of these and specifically all AIs to be insane warmongers. It is overkill, bad design, and destroys the role playing and replayability aspect. Remember a standard game has 8 or so AIs. That is plenty for 2-3 insane warmongers, 2-3 science/culture guys, then 2-3 other. NOT 8 eventual warmongers.

 

[Dralix]

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that Gandhi should be a warmonger. I'm saying that if the situation is such that going to war is a good option for him, he should have that option, even if in normal situations he is less inclined to do so. Different leaders should have predispositions to certain victory conditions and personalities, but should also be able to adapt to the game situation and break out of that mold.

 

[City Raider]

Oh, okay. I agree, they should be able to adapt.

Unfortunately it seems they adapt to war much to quickly and whats doubly unfortunate is the AI is currently terrible at war. Just frustrating to see the AI fall back on the crutch of war when it really can't fight wars effectively to begin with.

 

[lschnarch]

Actually, I think this is exactly how lschnarch defines it. All of his opinions are stated as simple fact, inevitably leading to the conclusion that there is nothing right with Civ 5.

I completely agree with you.
Undeniable facts have let to my opinion about the game, this cannot be debated.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that Gandhi should be a warmonger. I'm saying that if the situation is such that going to war is a good option for him, he should have that option, even if in normal situations he is less inclined to do so. Different leaders should have predispositions to certain victory conditions and personalities, but should also be able to adapt to the game situation and break out of that mold.

Which is based on the assumption that the AI would be able to clearly identify the sitiuation in which it could follow its predisposition and in which it can't and has to change course.

Meanwhile we know that this is a task the current AI is just unable to fulfill.
Sometimes it "convets your land" while being half a continent away and lots of open space in between, sometimes it simply refuses to spread although not going for a cultural win (which you can check via the diplomacy screen).

I have to state that under these circumstances I really prefer to have a Gandhi actiing like Gandhi - being peaceful and trying to achieve whatever is possible in a peaceful way.

 

[Dralix]

Oh, okay. I agree, they should be able to adapt.

Unfortunately it seems they adapt to war much to quickly and whats doubly unfortunate is the AI is currently terrible at war. Just frustrating to see the AI fall back on the crutch of war when it really can't fight wars effectively to begin with.

Agree completely that it would be better if the AI was better at war. But about war being a crutch that the AI falls back on, that might just be the nature of the beast. If another player is very close to winning, what other option is there to prevent it? If someone is about to win a diplo victory, then an AI with sufficient funds could try stealing enough city state allies, but other than that? Short of going to war, there really isn't a lot that the AI can do to prevent the player (or another AI for that matter) from winning if victory is close.

Maybe the problem is that the AI needs to respond quicker, before the situation gets to where war is the only recourse.

By the way, you can see the AI traits in Steam\steamapps\common\sid meier's civilization v\Assets\Gameplay\XML\Leaders

 

[lschnarch]

Agree completely that it would be better if the AI was better at war. But about war being a crutch that the AI falls back on, that might just be the nature of the beast. If another player is very close to winning, what other option is there to prevent it? If someone is about to win a diplo victory, then an AI with sufficient funds could try stealing enough city state allies, but other than that? Short of going to war, there really isn't a lot that the AI can do to prevent the player (or another AI for that matter) from winning if victory is close.

Maybe the problem is that the AI needs to respond quicker, before the situation gets to where war is the only recourse.

To me this seems to be quite some faulty design, if except for the "diplomatic" (aka bribery) win all other win conditions lead to war.

As City Raider stated: if the last resort always will be war, then it becomes boring.

 

[Txurce]

I completely agree with you.
Undeniable facts have let to my opinion about the game, this cannot be debated.

Very funny!

 

[seasnake]

Yep. You'd think this wouldn't be too difficult to code: If you go to war with B, then C will not apply a warmonger penalty to their relations state with you. If they ask for your help, they will not only not apply a penalty, they will give you a bonus for helping them. I don't want permanent alliances like in Civ4, but it should be possible to form some kind of alliances like in real life.

Has anybody seen weirdness with the "Afraid" diplomatic state? I met Catherine in the mid-game, she was on the other side of the world from me and was initially guarded. Then after 10 or 15 turns she changed to "Afraid" and began begging me not to attack her weak little civ and such. I had no units on her border or close relations with her neighbors, and she was only a bit below average in empire size and tech. WTH? Not that I was able to exploit the situation of course: she still demanded way more than I was willing to give in order to trade away her luxury resource (of which she had 5, so why should she hang onto it?).

Actually, in real life countries that start wars or at war with others get huge worldwide penalties and lose a lot of prestige. Think of the U.S. and Iraq, U.S. declared war on Iraq but tons of allies were frustrated with them for doing so and their diplomatic relations were strained.

I think the new Hotfix is promising as I think it will let you create more consistent AI.

 

[lschnarch]

Very funny!

Not funny at all.

What am I complaining about?

Weak diplomacy. Can this be denied?
Weak combat AI. Can this be denied?
Weak UI. Can this be denied?
Weak techtree design. Can this be denied?
Extensive hardware utilization compared to what is presented. Can this be denied?
"1upt" which doesn't fit to the scale of the main game. Can this be denied?
"1upt" leading to low production, leading to less things to do for a builder. Can this be denied?

Conclusion: it is neither a good wargame, as the AI doesn't cope with it, nor is it a good builder's game as building times are too long and therefore boring.

The previous game was a bit of everything. This version is none of anything.

 

[Dralix]

To me this seems to be quite some faulty design, if except for the "diplomatic" (aka bribery) win all other win conditions lead to war.

As City Raider stated: if the last resort always will be war, then it becomes boring.

How do you propose to stop someone from achieving a space or cultural victory when they are close to it?