[Rising Tide] So, where's the actual diplomacy ?

[Aldor]

Who wants tech trading when you can steal aquire techs from other civs through espionage

 

[kipwheeler]

I don't miss trading technologies as much as I miss trading maps. Given that the Firaxis lads and lasses are trying to make exploration more central to the game, having the option to clear up some fog of war would make a nice dilemma for the player. Do I show the A.I. my map in exchange for that goody I want (or vice-versa) when I know the A.I. will then beeline toward unexcavated sites that he'll see? Or do I withhold my map and not trade geographic knowledge--but then I might miss out on some unexcavated sites the A.I. scout's spotted?

 

[Galgus]

Who wants tech trading when you can steal aquire techs from other civs through espionage

On a related note, I wonder if spying will have diplomatic penalties when caught.

 

[Veras]

On a related note, I wonder if spying will have diplomatic penalties when caught.

Is Suzanne supposed to respect you more if you're spying a lot?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Is Suzanne supposed to respect you more if you're spying a lot?

Well, since her unique trait is related to spying, I imagine she will respect you more if you have good spies although maybe not if the spying is against her.

 

[Acken]

I've always disliked tech trading. I have never liked how it transformed teching in Civ4 to be centered around it and where your choice of techs were no longer about what you need but about what other people do not have.
It's counterintuitive and really inelegant gameplay in my opinion.

I'm happy it was removed in civ5.

 

[Veras]

Well, since her unique trait is related to spying, I imagine she will respect you more if you have good spies although maybe not if the spying is against her.

Actually it would make some sense the ARC greeting you for having such well trained agents capable of protecting your colony instead of complementing you for stealing techs or sabotaging other colonies. They respect your notable inteligence network, but not the fact that you're using it against others

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Actually it would make some sense the ARC greeting you for having such well trained agents capable of protecting your colony instead of complementing you for stealing techs or sabotaging other colonies. They respect your notable inteligence network, but not the fact that you're using it against others

Exactly. I'm thinking that she will increase respect for you based on the quantity and quality of your spies, not based on specific spy actions.

 

[GeoModder]

Well, since her unique trait is related to spying, I imagine she will respect you more if you have good spies although maybe not if the spying is against her.

Mmm... a mission to 'infiltrate a colony's covert ops HQ'. You can at the very least see the total number of operatives this colony has. And perhaps as a more difficult follow-up mission know their whereabouts for a couple turns.

What I would like to see is those cities which your spies are located in/made visible with enough espionage points have the production icon visible on the UI, and perhaps the remaining turns for finishing their current production. It shows a player which cities are 'under observation' by you without popping into the espionage menu.

 

[Ryika]

Actually it would make some sense the ARC greeting you for having such well trained agents capable of protecting your colony instead of complementing you for stealing techs or sabotaging other colonies. They respect your notable inteligence network, but not the fact that you're using it against others

I don't thing Suzanne is meant to be such a person. She may have some respect for you about that, but I doubt she would actually show it.

 

[ray111]

What ?

Yeah okay. Tried playing above king ever ? Cause i doubt it reading that about CIV V BNW.

Even today I was playing a marathon (with normal speed production) game on Deity (even with Smart AI mod, without it they can't seem to even defend against raging barbarians), after over 90 turns most of the map is settled, but there hasn't been a SINGLE war, not even among AIs, even though they settle their cities over each other (Caesar stuck a city in the 3-tile diameter free space between French and Byzantine cities and nothing happened.. Sure, AIs ask me to go to war with them against somebody else, but when I refuse, they don't have the guts to try it alone. I have 2 poor cities, one on island and one on penninsula, so practically only Casimir wants my land (he's closest AI to me), but even he with his hellish overlord personality didn't initiate any war yet.

Oh well, maybe in next few dozen turns.. or I get my Danish Berzerkers first and start plundering myself..

(civs in game: Danish-Harald (me), Rome, Byzantium-Theodora, Poland, France-Luis, Marocco, Shoshone, Celts, English-Henry 8th, about 17 city states and raging barbarians)


AIs only dare to go to war with you if you have really really low score. Half of above civs have a wee bit higher score than me and still won't dow.

 

[Ryika]

Well, Raging Barbs do a good job at keeping aggression low - especially on Marathon, because even with Smart AI the Computer Players still lose a lot of units almost as fast as they lose them on Standard Speed, but producing new ones is a lot slower.

With that said though, uber-passive AIs are one of the main complaints that some people have. I guess it's hard to find a balance there - Vanilla had super-aggressive AIs and the world was basically at constant war and BNW probably put it a bit too far in the other direction.

Will certainly be interesting where Rising Tide ends up - I hope it's not a BNW 2.0 when it comes to the balance between peace and war and instead manages to find a good middle-ground.

 

[Halbbruder]

Is Suzanne supposed to respect you more if you're spying a lot?

I'd say the opposite. She wants to be the only spy power so she'd hate anyone who tries to rival it.

I wouldn't mind if war actually destroys your ability to generate diplomatic capital. In current civBE, there isn't really a downside to conquering. So for those going for domination victory, that's something they'll have to consider.

 

[Lord Tirian]

I've always disliked tech trading. I have never liked how it transformed teching in Civ4 to be centered around it and where your choice of techs were no longer about what you need but about what other people do not have.
It's counterintuitive and really inelegant gameplay in my opinion.

I'm happy it was removed in civ5.

Yeah, I can kind of accept tech trading in a futuristic game, but realistically, a tech isn't just the knowledge but also expertise, infrastructure and the ability/training to maintain something. You can't give that away wholesale and suddenly be able to reproduce it.

Having research agreements and discounts for already discovered techs (simulating that the knowledge is "out there") is a much better way, gameplay- and realism-wise.

 

[Westwall]

With that said though, uber-passive AIs are one of the main complaints that some people have. I guess it's hard to find a balance there - Vanilla had super-aggressive AIs and the world was basically at constant war and BNW probably put it a bit too far in the other direction.

Which is unfortunate because as challenging as the warmongering vanilla AI was, it was still incredibly fun to play against even at Prince difficulty.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I think you should be able to ask AI to not attack station X, to stop digging for ruins and so on for a cost in diplomatic capital proportional to your status, ie cheaper if friends more expensive if not.

That is a good idea!

Actually, I think it would harder that you think. We saw in the latest let's play that each civ has different requirements of respect/fear for being an ally. So Elodie might require 9 respect to be your ally whereas hutama might only require 7. Also, an alliance cost diplo capital. Lastly, we also know from the let's plays that each civ will change their respect/fear towards you differently based on their traits. So hutama might respect you if you build trade routes and might lose respect if you build military units. Elodie might like you more if you focus on culture but hate you if you focus too much on science. Brasilia might hate you if you focus on culture but love you more if you focus on military. So pleasing everyone won't be easy.

Maybe so, we'll see, but I agree with Westwall about it backfiring in some cases. And I still don't understand the practical usefulness and exact workings of having fear and respect. What is the difference in having 10 respect to 10 fear? What are the effects of having 10 respect and -10 (if it goes negative) fear or vice versa? What are the parties responsibilities if in alliance, if any? I need to know, damn it!

Backstabbing is part of the game but between allies it shoud only happen when there's an obvious mandatory reason to do it. Like closing in on a victory, or a sudden decision that affects that relationship

So basically everything stays the same as it was in civ 5? Isn't that how it pretty much worked so far? I get "backsabbed" in civ 5 for pretty much those reasons, either I'm closening in on a victory or sudden changes in relationship, like them demanding me to denounce another friend and me refusing. Or not so sudden, like adopting different ideologies or "building cities too fast" etc., which then worsens the relationship with domino effect, more often than not, resulting in them jumping on the hate bandwagon or something. Which in the end all seem like a bunch of spoiled teenagers having it a go at a serious relationships, all the same. So what's the point?

I'd want alliance to be a true commitment worth having AND requiring you to choose wisely, not jumping in with everyone offering, possibly having multiple partners at the same time. After all we all know it ends badly!
Cheating... sorry, "backstabbing" should have grave repercussions, like splitting in half everything you own and paying serious maintenance payments.

I don't miss trading technologies as much as I miss trading maps. Given that the Firaxis lads and lasses are trying to make exploration more central to the game, having the option to clear up some fog of war would make a nice dilemma for the player. Do I show the A.I. my map in exchange for that goody I want (or vice-versa) when I know the A.I. will then beeline toward unexcavated sites that he'll see? Or do I withhold my map and not trade geographic knowledge--but then I might miss out on some unexcavated sites the A.I. scout's spotted?

I think they see it anyway.

 

[kipwheeler]

I think they see it anyway.

Oh. I'd not considered that. Never mind.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Maybe so, we'll see, but I agree with Westwall about it backfiring in some cases. And I still don't understand the practical usefulness and exact workings of having fear and respect. What is the difference in having 10 respect to 10 fear? What are the effects of having 10 respect and -10 (if it goes negative) fear or vice versa? What are the parties responsibilities if in alliance, if any? I need to know, damn it!

I could be wrong but my impression is that the reason there are 2 meters (respect and fear) is because respect is relevant for the peaceful player whereas fear is relevant for the warmonger. Respect changes based on peaceful things like same traits and focusing on food and such whereas fear changes based on military things like how big your army is. That way both playing styles are covered. If I am a peaceful builder, I can focus on increasing respect to get what I want whereas if I am a warmonger, I can intimidate others with my big military and scare them into giving me what I want.

 

[cazaderonus]

Even today I was playing a marathon (with normal speed production) game on Deity (even with Smart AI mod, without it they can't seem to even defend against raging barbarians), after over 90 turns most of the map is settled, but there hasn't been a SINGLE war, not even among AIs, even though they settle their cities over each other (Caesar stuck a city in the 3-tile diameter free space between French and Byzantine cities and nothing happened.. Sure, AIs ask me to go to war with them against somebody else, but when I refuse, they don't have the guts to try it alone. I have 2 poor cities, one on island and one on penninsula, so practically only Casimir wants my land (he's closest AI to me), but even he with his hellish overlord personality didn't initiate any war yet.

Oh well, maybe in next few dozen turns.. or I get my Danish Berzerkers first and start plundering myself..

(civs in game: Danish-Harald (me), Rome, Byzantium-Theodora, Poland, France-Luis, Marocco, Shoshone, Celts, English-Henry 8th, about 17 city states and raging barbarians)


AIs only dare to go to war with you if you have really really low score. Half of above civs have a wee bit higher score than me and still won't dow.

90 turns in marathon means absolutely nothing tbh. And the many many games i have played on deity (normal speed, no mods) show that war will always happen among AIs and against you. Maybe only 1/2 games have i been able to go through without being DOWed at all. And always because i had a particularly isolated location.

And obviously having a weak army will motivate a civ to attack you. But in Deity, unless you go berserk, most civ you havent ruined through war will always have superior army numbers so that criteria is irrelevant 85% of the time.

Also, war isnt the end game. Plenty ways for an AI to screw you big time.

 

[cazaderonus]

So basically everything stays the same as it was in civ 5? Isn't that how it pretty much worked so far? I get "backsabbed" in civ 5 for pretty much those reasons, either I'm closening in on a victory or sudden changes in relationship, like them demanding me to denounce another friend and me refusing. Or not so sudden, like adopting different ideologies or "building cities too fast" etc., which then worsens the relationship with domino effect, more often than not, resulting in them jumping on the hate bandwagon or something. Which in the end all seem like a bunch of spoiled teenagers having it a go at a serious relationships, all the same. So what's the point?

Not really what i meant. I'm strongly in favor of building stronger relationship with AIs that just dont suddenly go from totally friend to sworn enemies for petty reasons like the ones you listed. But also, AIs should still keep in mind that they want to win and try everything they can to avoid you winning instead of them.

Yeah CIV 5 is often stupid when the simple fact of having a different ideology suddenly makes a 3000 year old friend denounce you and then declare war on you in just a few turns, i agree. But i'm less shocked when a friend turns on me because i'm closing in on being influent on him through tourism. I mean, that's what i'd do if i go for a SV in 30 turns and i see a friendly AI possibly getting a CV in the next 20.

There's a delicate balance to find here between allowing real solid meaningfull allied relations while still maintaining enough awareness in AIs that they dont just let you win because you're their friend.

Obviously, it shouldnt come down to a single event\decision or progression milestone to victory but something more fluid throughout the game. Like AIs measuring what s dangerous to give us or accept to do. Like in CIV5 when they accept to buy endless strategic resources for 2 gpt per unit. Or when they agree to be bribed to a war, or to consider that constructing a 4 tile away useless archeologic monument on their land is a positive action from you, etc..