Snarky AI messages...

[Doctor Phibes]

I believe it does have a use.

"Very well" = no diplomatic modifier.

"You'll pay for this in time!" = negative diplomatic modifier.

You would WANT to give a leader a negative diplomatic modifier if you're interested in picking a fight with them. Get them mad at you and they'll declare war on you so that you don't have to. You'll look like less of a warmonger to the rest of the world and you'll be able to give the civ you're at war with a nice beating.

You get painted as a warmonger very quickly in this game. So if there's a civ you have your predatary eyes set on, don't be a phony and act polite to the civ.

If they tell you your troops are too close to their borders, tell them, "deal with it!". If they tell you to stop settling lands near them or purchasing tiles, again tell them, "deal with it!". Make some demands. Tell THEM to move their troops from your borders. Ally with city-states neighboring them.

Soon enough, you'll get the war you want without having to declare it yourself and you'll look like you're only "defending yourself" instead of a warmonger.

Well, I see that, but even if this is true, it's not so good. I understand the need to get the AI to DOW first, that's usually my style of play (makes me feel righteous too, never mind what the rest of the world thinks). But popping up every couple of minutes just in order to give me an opportunity to wind them up (especially when these guys are so childishly passive aggressive) is plain silly.

It's all very binary, whereas I think diplomatic interactions should be nuanced, just as in the real world. Levels of escalation and all that..?

 

[DaveGold]

I suspect these messages are mean to be clues to the player, clues that relations are souring because the AI leader isn't liking something. Unfortunately they look petulant and meaningless since the whole diplomacy system is an incomprehensible black art that nobody will understand until someone hacks into it and post up an explanation.

I tried to look up pacts of secrecy in the help section. It told me that I could make pacts of secrecy with other leaders. Believe it or not, I'd actually worked that much out for myself.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

I tried to look up pacts of secrecy in the help section. It told me that I could make pacts of secrecy with other leaders. Believe it or not, I'd actually worked that much out for myself.

Oh noes, Dave. Don't go there. If there's one thing that makes me angrier than the leaderheads it's Civ5 Civilopedia. Apart from the ******** writing style, it's full of pointless definitions like the one you cite. And the Search is a joke. I don't even look there now, easier to find info on civfanatics...

[I'm amazed there isn't a thread here devoted to the 'pedia alone. Ain't gonna start one, though. No sir.]

 

[Zechnophobe]

Maybe if every single leader didn't say the exact SAME thing it wouldn't be so bad.

It's like when England shows up and says "Would like a trade agreement with England?" but... she's making a demand for gold. What? That's not a trade agreement?

Why did we spend all this time and money on 3d leader arena's, and then have them all use the same text lines and boring, short, other lines?

 

[dexters]

I like the AI banter, the problem is the AI doesn't have the range to support the banter.

In Civ3 and Civ4 there were direct UI cues to it. There's pleased/annoyed/furious etc. But Civ5 only shows you when a leader is hostile, and non hostile leaders trade you at arms length.

That's probably what people complain about, they play to win so they treat everyone as a potential enemy.

But here's the salient difference. The CivIII AI was ruthless and was often described like 'a pack of dogs'. It was completely ruthless and wonderful. But in that game you can really buddy up withb an AI if there's common interest and be on fantastic terms with them. There's that feeling of alliance and friendship or working towards a goal (maybe both of you want to beat down a more powerful 3rd Civ).

Though the Civ5 AI does offer quite a few suggestions on who to form pacts of 'secrecy' against they are often running their own agenda, and when you work with them, you're treated like a disposable ally. It feels like you're completely alone in Civ5, and I think that's what people are reporting back when they mean the AI is ganging up on the humans.

 

[Jerieth]

If you could dish back snarky comments it would be a lot better.

Maybe you could even compel another civilization to go to war with you, that would be interesting.

 

[Jaroth]

If you could dish back snarky comments it would be a lot better.

Maybe you could even compel another civilization to go to war with you, that would be interesting.

"Snarky AI messages..." post #19

 

[Louis XXIV]

Maybe if every single leader didn't say the exact SAME thing it wouldn't be so bad.

It's like when England shows up and says "Would like a trade agreement with England?" but... she's making a demand for gold. What? That's not a trade agreement?

Why did we spend all this time and money on 3d leader arena's, and then have them all use the same text lines and boring, short, other lines?

BTW, I think the reason Elizabeth mentions a trade agreement is because she doesn't have a "demand" sound file. Oddly enough, only about half of them do.

 

[expuddle]

I think this is part of a larger problem with a lot of the copywriting in this game. I also think the opening blurb relating to the civilization you are playing with sounds like it's been written by an office junior researching wikipedia. Why always these questions about will I bring back glory for our people etc, will I build a civilization that will stand the test of time ugh *shudder* . The tone of voice is all mixed up, they start by addressing you and then speaking of the civ in the third person, and then end by addressing you again; it's like they had to fill up the space and resorted to meaningless rhetoric that I assume is intended to stir our blood before the game starts. Also the voice acting is awful. It's so half-assed, hurried at times, and generally uninterested like he doesn't know what he's saying. And the guy needs to clear his throat or gurgle some water.

These kind of details really affect the whole game - it is after all a largely cerebral game so getting the scene-setting "details" right should have been more important for the game's production team.

 

[man-erg]

I hate it. WHY reduce some of the greatest world leaders of all time to a bunch of idiotic 7-year-olds on the playgrounds calling each other 'stupid-faces', etc. Same thing with the 'pointiest sticks' nonesense.....I wanted to vomit the first time I saw that.

Because the 7-year olds are console players and that's the way the series is heading?

 

[jjkrause84]

I can't bring myself to EVER give the smart*ss reply in Civ5. I just can't do it. Why would I be like that the them? We're world leaders! Can't we at least treat each other with a level of respect and use diplomatic language?

 

[lissenber]

Diplomatic language?

"Oh, it`s you. I had you mixed with those Barbarians."

"It`s nice to see my favourite city state again."

I don`t think even smug real world representatives would say that. Not even North Korea. Maybe Russia. Not likely. Sometimes. I must be racist or something...

Anyway aside from 1 specific country noone would actually act in this way.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I can't bring myself to EVER give the smart*ss reply in Civ5. I just can't do it. Why would I be like that the them? We're world leaders! Can't we at least treat each other with a level of respect and use diplomatic language?

I did recently. Alexander was pissing me off and I was going to go to war with him anyway, so I decided there was no need to be polite. It was more satisfying too.

 

[d4everman]

I believe it does have a use.

"Very well" = no diplomatic modifier.

"You'll pay for this in time!" = negative diplomatic modifier.

You would WANT to give a leader a negative diplomatic modifier if you're interested in picking a fight with them. Get them mad at you and they'll declare war on you so that you don't have to. You'll look like less of a warmonger to the rest of the world and you'll be able to give the civ you're at war with a nice beating.

You get painted as a warmonger very quickly in this game. So if there's a civ you have your predatary eyes set on, don't be a phony and act polite to the civ.

If they tell you your troops are too close to their borders, tell them, "deal with it!". If they tell you to stop settling lands near them or purchasing tiles, again tell them, "deal with it!". Make some demands. Tell THEM to move their troops from your borders. Ally with city-states neighboring them.

Soon enough, you'll get the war you want without having to declare it yourself and you'll look like you're only "defending yourself" instead of a warmonger.

Will that work? I'm only guessing, but it would not surprise me if the AIs would look negatively on the player unles the player merely fought defensively. (meaning don't invade the enemy or take/raze/puppet cities. Only destroy the ubnits it sends into your territory). Of course, AI civs in CiV seem to give up easily. In my few scant wars while playing the AI civs seem to cry for peace after the first bloody nose. In Civ4 or even 2 or 3 I remember having wars that lasted forever because the AI just kept throwing units at me and they sometimes wouldn't want peace or surrender until you actually destroyed them.

Someone mentioned SMAC earlier...now thats a game I'd love to see remade into SMAC II. I loved crushing my enemies in that game *cough* Miriam *cough* and having them grovel just before the last blow. Then you throw 'em in that energy punishment sphere thingie.

 

[Ironmonger69]

it's just that I find these silly and patronising (patronising by the game designers that is, not the AI player - like all the 'pointiest sticks' and 'shiny things' stuff. Yuk yuk yuk.)

I have come to the conclusion that the people responsible for this type of content in the game are generally contemptuous of end users of their product, as if we are all slow-witted teenage third graders craving a pat on the head.