Revamped Diplomacy

[Namaspamus]

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

I know this is not addressed to me but again, Civ IV was very difficult in its highest levels without the "all civs gang up" effect. They just launched the space ship before you.

 

[Dralix]

You could also build a faster ship and get there sooner, which I think was also the case in Civ II. I'm disappointed that this is no longer an option. Even without that, launching first is great, if they have the time. I think a huge part of the problem is that the AI is not competitive enough for this to be an option, so war is the only recourse. In which case we can hope that the AI is improved and the dogpiling becomes less common.

 

[lschnarch]

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

That's a basic design question.

*DO* I have to stop somebody else when he's close to a certain victory condition?
*DOES* the AI have to stop somebody else when he's close to a certain victory condition?

As the human player, I am free in that decision, and no design should take this freedom away from me.
As the AI is concerned, is it really necessary to gang up against the human?
Even more important: does the AI gang up against other AI civs?
Or is it just an obstacle for the human?

Personally, I wouldn't make it obligatory for the AI to try to stop another player.
After all, it is called "Civilization" and not "Last Man Standing".

Don't get me wrong: I am really enjoying some hard to fight wars. Especially when not knowing in advance that I will win.
But if I know in advance that finally there will be one last war, the fun is ruined.

Then I am just playing a wargame. And there are better wargames available.

 

[Dralix]

Of course as the human player you can make whatever decision you want, and no design in Civ V forces you to stop an AI player from meeting the victory condition. You just won't win.

The AI, from what we're told, is supposed to be playing to win, so I would think that an AI opponent should try to stop another opponent, AI or human, who is close to meeting a victory condition. But this has to make some sense. It's kind of pointless for an AI with two military units left to DoW someone in a futile attempt to prevent a spaceship launch. But if the AI has the means, then yes, according to the vision of this AI (ie. playing to win) they should try to delay someone else's victory.

It's not called Last Man Standing, but there is a single winner. I think Civ I was the last game where you "won" by just still being in the game when the spaceship arrived at Alpha Centauri, whether it was yours or not.

 

[Namaspamus]

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.

Didn't want to say it cause I know nothing about programming but no, you wouldn't think it's difficult to code. And it was in Civ IV. And hundreds of people complained about this on this forum, so it could have been in the patch.
Don't want to be hostile, just... guarded.

 

[Namaspamus]

Sorry for double-post.

You could also build a faster ship and get there sooner, which I think was also the case in Civ II. I'm disappointed that this is no longer an option. Even without that, launching first is great, if they have the time. I think a huge part of the problem is that the AI is not competitive enough for this to be an option, so war is the only recourse. In which case we can hope that the AI is improved and the dogpiling becomes less common.

Yes it was possible in Civ II, with three types of modules. (components, structure and survival)

But I think it's more a fundamental design decision than an AI problem (at least now because in the beginning they really had problems to build spaceship/buy votes/whatever). They could have more bonuses, not in happiness, but in tech, policies and bribing costs to make the game challenging.

One point for the "play-to-win" system though: in previous versions if you were even slightly ahead the late game could become tedious by absence of suspense. The final war adds suspense undoubtably.
One reason why I don't like it is that for me the game doesn't end with victory at all: maybe it's silly but I want my people to be safe, I want my friends to stay my friends and help me defeat my enemies. That's where the final war takes place.

This question is so divisive that I wonder if an option in the game settings menu, like "aggressive AI" in Civ IV, wouldn't be the best solution.

 

[nsotos]

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.

Russia did offer peace once and I denied. Eventually, I accepted their peace offer which included St. Petersburg (which I razed), and Medina (which I proceeded to return to Arabia). Further in the game, I decided to eliminate Russia who were only remaining with one city left that had formerly belonged to Arabia. Despite the fact that I returned the city to my "ally" Arabia, they proceeded to denounce me as a war-mongering menace of the world, and the chain of denouncement never stopped. Despite the fact that I came to the aid of Arabia, they destroyed my relations with every other civilization as well.

 

[Txurce]

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.

I disagree with most of your complaints but, in all seriousness, I get a kick out of most of your posts. You can't walk away from the game you hate, and I find that perversely entertaining.

 

[Sneaks]

I just put together a rough AI adjustment mod that ideally would solve some of these issues. On modhub as WWGD. Could use some feedback

Civfanatics post on it here.

 

[lschnarch]

I disagree with most of your complaints but, in all seriousness, I get a kick out of most of your posts. You can't walk away from the game you hate, and I find that perversely entertaining.

Sorry, I am not a native speaker, so I really don't get the first sentence.
Care to explain for a foreigner?

And btw, I am not *hating* the game. I am utterly disappointed with it beyond my abilities to explain.
I just see that there was a chance to lift the franchise to a new peak and that chance was missed (in my eyes) in almost any way.

 

[Isikien]

I just put together a rough AI adjustment mod that ideally would solve some of these issues. On modhub as WWGD. Could use some feedback

Civfanatics post on it here.

Now THIS is what I've been waiting for
Will test for you if I get time

Sorry, I am not a native speaker, so I really don't get the first sentence.
Care to explain for a foreigner?

'Getting a kick' means he is finding your complaints funny

I do find some of your complaints legitimate, but you have to be careful not to mark down every aspect of this game as broken. Yes, the game sucks in its vanilla format, but some of it is workable (1upt in particular, and there isn't really much wrong with the tech tree). In your extensive hardware utilization comment, I'd disagree with the fact that the game isn't good looking. However, it IS a massive resource hog.

 

[flyingbunnys]

I really enjoy the post patch AI diplomacy. I agree that it could be more transparent by letting you know all the + and - that you have with a certain civ, but other than that I have had great success with diplomacy.

The last game I played there was only 1 war the entire game. I managed to be friendly with every single AI. I had declaired friendship with all of them, and defensive pact with all but Persia. Also amazingly they were all friends with eachother because they were friends with me. There were a few that started hostile towards each other but once they saw that they were both friends of mine they made declarations of friendship, and remained peaceful the whole game.

The only diplomatic problem I had with was Persia kept attacking Japan. I won the game with a diplomatic victory. Japan even helped fund my victory, he gave me 1000 gold at the end On the behalf of the the Japanese people for a generious friendship or something like that. Does this sound like an AI thats all about winning to you, or an over aggressive AI? Because I don't think so, to me the AI is completly logical, It could be that the AI follows the same logic that I do though.

For those who complain that the AI hate you because of acts of aggression, or backstabbing your ally, you shouldn't play with me because I would side with the AI.

When another Civ attacks and takes a city I usally jump in and demand peace, if not I supply units, and then if another city falls I go to war with the aggresser, simular tactics to the AI.

 

[Geppenguin]

As shocking as it sounds, I actually preferred the Pact of Cooperation/Secrecy system. The current system leads to too much ganging up and it doesn't have enough provisions for acts of goodwill. For example, if I help someone out in a war when he asks me to, it doesn't make them friendlier to me. If my 'friend' asks me for something like gold or resources, the only advantage I get from them is that they DON'T feel angry about it. Denunciation and declarations of friendship should be reversible and not permanent, nor should the AI be angry over a war that happened a hundred turns before, or the fact that you WERE a warmonger. From experience, the whole diplomacy system usually devolves into EVERYONE denouncing EVERYONE and no more Decleration's of Friendship still existing by mid-game. Everyone hates everyone. Liberating a worker makes them happy; but liberating a city? NO. And these 'friendship points' should stack, like repeatedly liberating workers/ helping out in war should lead to better relations.
The AI also backstabs me for no good reason, or maybe just over competing for influence over a city state and this sets off a chain reaction where everyone else denounces me just because one of my friends saw reason to. WTH?
So, bring back the Pacts of Cooperation. And Secrecy. At least the AI didn't hate me so much back then And we wouldn't end up with things like a 20 civ FFA
Even better, bring back Civ 4 diplomacy

 

[flyingbunnys]

As shocking as it sounds, I actually preferred the Pact of Cooperation/Secrecy system. The current system leads to too much ganging up and it doesn't have enough provisions for acts of goodwill. For example, if I help someone out in a war when he asks me to, it doesn't make them friendlier to me. If my 'friend' asks me for something like gold or resources, the only advantage I get from them is that they DON'T feel angry about it. Denunciation and declarations of friendship should be reversible and not permanent, nor should the AI be angry over a war that happened a hundred turns before, or the fact that you WERE a warmonger. From experience, the whole diplomacy system usually devolves into EVERYONE denouncing EVERYONE and no more Decleration's of Friendship still existing by mid-game. Everyone hates everyone. Liberating a worker makes them happy; but liberating a city? NO. And these 'friendship points' should stack, like repeatedly liberating workers/ helping out in war should lead to better relations.
The AI also backstabs me for no good reason, or maybe just over competing for influence over a city state and this sets off a chain reaction where everyone else denounces me just because one of my friends saw reason to. WTH?
So, bring back the Pacts of Cooperation. And Secrecy. At least the AI didn't hate me so much back then And we wouldn't end up with things like a 20 civ FFA
Even better, bring back Civ 4 diplomacy

I agree diplomatic events should expire after X amount of turns, I always wanted that in Civ 4 too, but it never happened. Instead we have trades that expire after X amount of turns instead of trades that last till canceled, like they should be.

 

[joyous_gard]

Well, at least they have "This is why I'm mad at you" sentences now. I know that gets decried a lot regarding Civ IV, but it seems pretty useful (necessary) to determine what is causing the hate or love.

 

[Dralix]

I'm happy with the info explaining the AI attitudes, but glad it isn't reduced to a a +/- score like Civ IV was. I think this is a good compromise, so we still have feedback on how our actions affect AI relations, but not to the point where it's a numeric rating. Leave some amount of the unknown in it.

 

[Txurce]

Sorry, I am not a native speaker, so I really don't get the first sentence.
Care to explain for a foreigner?

And btw, I am not *hating* the game. I am utterly disappointed with it beyond my abilities to explain.
I just see that there was a chance to lift the franchise to a new peak and that chance was missed (in my eyes) in almost any way.

I appreciate the explanation. "Get a kick" means "to enjoy."

 

[Describer]

nice screenshot, isnt it?
all i did "wrong" is conquered incas in early renaissance. then, in late industrial era all civs, and even my best friend siam with all his befriended city states, started declaring war on me. almost simultaneously

 

[Sonereal]

Diplomacy is still very much a strange beast. One denouncement can easily result in more.

 

[lschnarch]

I appreciate the explanation. "Get a kick" means "to enjoy."

Ah, I see. Thanks very much for the explanation.