roads and ignorance

[civnoob13]

Question 1:

Does the trade route bonus 'stack' up? Will you receive a higher bonus if you both have a trade route via road and a route via a harbour?

Question 2:

Do the AI and city states know of your previous warmongering if the whole civ/city state was destroyed before they met you or any mutual civ? Will a civ hate you for being a warmongerer if they have no means of knowing this? Will aq CS team up against a player that they have no way of knowing is aggresive?

 

[The Great Apple]

1) I'm pretty sure not.
2) I think so. Consider it "word of mouth".

 

[Thry]

1) No
2) Civ V AI diplomacy is broken, whether it counts or not is irrelevant, the system as a whole is broken.

 

[elthrasher]

The first question is answered. My experience is that if you eliminate a rival or city state before anybody else meets them, it doesn't count as a diplomacy demerit. Try a continents map on whatever difficulty level allows you to quickly take over your continent. Then go meet the other one. Everybody will greet you with "howdy, neighbor!" They don't know about your blood-drenched past.

 

[jorissimo]

2) Civ V AI diplomacy is broken, whether it counts or not is irrelevant, the system as a whole is broken.

Bullocks. The only reason you're saying it is because everybody says it. Everyone knows that civ 4 diplo was all numbers and that this system actually requires some thought. This guy's just asking a normal question and you go like 'Uh, it doesn't matter, it's broken, I don't like this game so I just keep on moaning about it'. If you got nothing helpful to say, then say nothing.

 

[civnoob13]

Thanks for the answers so far - I will keep Q1 in mind. Seeing as you guys are giving different answer to Q2 I will just be cautious with my warmongering; I am aiming for a domination victory but I want to have at least one long - term friend who I will war with for trade purposes until the end.

 

[EasyGoin]

#2 - In my experience I have not noticed a diplomacy hit from conquering civ before contact. When playing continents and I take over my entire content, I do not recall any point where the freshly discovered civs on the second continent have called me a warmonger. Instead they are typically friendly and open to trade.

 

[Surgeon]

Question 2:

Do the AI and city states know of your previous warmongering if the whole civ/city state was destroyed before they met you or any mutual civ? Will a civ hate you for being a warmongerer if they have no means of knowing this? Will aq CS team up against a player that they have no way of knowing is aggresive?

maybe on continents you might get away with it. The AI is very good at finding each other it seems as even if I smash someone very very early gossip manages to spread it around fast (I play on pangea though). I know as a human player I'm told when civs I havent met yet get destroyed, I wonder if the AI gets some extra info on WHO destroyed them.

 

[Thry]

Bullocks. The only reason you're saying it is because everybody says it. Everyone knows that civ 4 diplo was all numbers and that this system actually requires some thought. This guy's just asking a normal question and you go like 'Uh, it doesn't matter, it's broken, I don't like this game so I just keep on moaning about it'. If you got nothing helpful to say, then say nothing.

It's broken. There is no proof that the AIs use logic anywhere as coherently as the Civ IV AIs.

I like AIs DOWing on me when I outnumber them 3:1 in army and tech. I like AIs refusing to sign anything more than a PeaceTreaty-PeaceTreaty as I stand outside their capital with my army. I like the AIs asking me for a handout every X turns, then spitting in my face. I like liberating AIs, then having them complain about how " pathetic my army is " or how "I'm infringing near their borders".

The Civ IV AIs had a certain feel to them. Catherine would backstab you, Montezuma would DOW on people for absurd reasons, and Shaka would play a competent warmonger's game, eventually annihilating anyone in his way.

If you got nothing helpful to say, then say nothing.

Stop repeating this. It's broken, and the civfanatics community shouldn't be paying to beta test a product.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's broken. There is no proof that the AIs use logic anywhere as coherently as the Civ IV AIs.

Civ IV AI had no inherent logic. It wasn't until BTS that it ever pursued one kind of victory (culture), which was locked out from many of them.

V's AI is much better, but the non-transparent diplo is causing problems.

I've not seen any evidence of warmonger maphack, though maybe I've just been lucky.

 

[Thry]

Civ IV AI had no inherent logic. It wasn't until BTS that it ever pursued one kind of victory (culture), which was locked out from many of them.

V's AI is much better, but the non-transparent diplo is causing problems.

I've not seen any evidence of warmonger maphack, though maybe I've just been lucky.

Elaborate what you mean by warmonger maphack.

 

[Alki]

I warmonger in every game so have no idea how diplomancy is if you play peacefully.

 

[kaltorak]

For the first time ever I have to strongly disagree with TMIT.

The problem with diplomacy is far from just lacking transparency.

But we disagree because in my opinion tmit plays civ to win. I've watched almost all his lets play and he plays for beating the AI.
I want more from the game than an oponent. I want to interact with the AI. I want more than the 2 options civ5 has (I kill u or I kill u later). It is a monkey who tries to beat you and at the same time does that poorly.

 

[dkrussian]

It's broken. There is no proof that the AIs use logic anywhere as coherently as the Civ IV AIs.

The Civ IV AIs had a certain feel to them. Catherine would backstab you, Montezuma would DOW on people for absurd reasons, and Shaka would play a competent warmonger's game, eventually annihilating anyone in his way.
.

I think this is the crux of it. It's not so much the AI, or the diplomacy, or the logic. It's that V doesn't seem to have any CHARACTER. In IV as evidenced above, we got to know the AIs as we would people.

When you started next to Monty you immediately and desperately built up some military, tried to buy him off to attack someone else, and then built more army anyway just in case.

When you had Ghandi, you immediately dismissed him as a and either A. kept him for a techwhore or B. I BET I CAN TAKE HIM WITH WARRIORS AT 1AD.

When you had Isabella you desperately tried to convert to her religion, even if you were running FR before that because it just wasn't f-ing worth it.

To sum up, your reaction depended on who you met. THIS is what is missing. Diplomacy is BLAND. You really, really don't care who your nearest neighbor is. I shouldn't be characterizing my neighbors by when they get their UUs.

 

[Snapp]

I think the AI does have personality in 5...

Alexander, the Mongols, Aztecs are all very militaristic.
Ghandi is typically peaceful and usually builds a small amount of cities.
Catherine and Elizabeth seem to want to lip me off every chance they have.

The problem is that the AI is so heavily swayed by things like placing cities, war with other players and so on that rarely do their personalities come into play.

If you want a bit of proof about AI differences, try an immortal conquest game. Wait until you start beside one of the militaristic civs, then play one where you don't. The difference will be huge.

 

[dkrussian]

I think the AI does have personality in 5...

Alexander, the Mongols, Aztecs are all very militaristic.
Ghandi is typically peaceful and usually builds a small amount of cities.
Catherine and Elizabeth seem to want to lip me off every chance they have.

The problem is that the AI is so heavily swayed by city distance and so on that rarely do their personalities come into play.

If you want a bit of proof about AI differences, try an immortal conquest game. Wait until you start beside one of the militaristic civs, then play one where you don't. The difference will be huge.

That's just it, the environmental effects completely overshadow any personality they might have. For example, in my last game Gandhi conquered his continent and had all other city states perma war on him at turn 100. WTF? It may well have been a case of chain conquering like city states can sometimes do with borders being too close, but still, it shouldn't be happening to that extent.

In another game before that, I sent out a settler and slapped it down right next to Catherine, sold it to Bismark, and laughed my a-- off for the next 100 turns as they went at it.

 

[Erakleitos]

Question 1:
Question 2:

Do the AI and city states know of your previous warmongering if the whole civ/city state was destroyed before they met you or any mutual civ? Will a civ hate you for being a warmongerer if they have no means of knowing this? Will aq CS team up against a player that they have no way of knowing is aggresive?

I noticed this in my last game: i had Arabia in a continent game (10 civs, 0 city-state, small map, emperor). My continent was in the middle of two larger continents and under another smaller continent; on that continent was Suliman and on my continent were England and Aztech. I killed both the Aztech and England, before meeting the civs on the two larger continents, but i had met Suliman. Suliman called me "bloodthirsty" while the others had normal behaviour with me.

I don't know about citystates tho. Apparently it seems that they work togheter in some ways... think about when you conquer two or three and then the "City States are worried" message appears.

 

[Paradigne]

I think the AI does have personality in 5...

Alexander, the Mongols, Aztecs are all very militaristic.
Ghandi is typically peaceful and usually builds a small amount of cities.
Catherine and Elizabeth seem to want to lip me off every chance they have.

The problem is that the AI is so heavily swayed by things like placing cities, war with other players and so on that rarely do their personalities come into play.

If you want a bit of proof about AI differences, try an immortal conquest game. Wait until you start beside one of the militaristic civs, then play one where you don't. The difference will be huge.

HA!!! My first loss was to a VERY militaristic Gandhi running me over because 'my cities were to close to his'.