Speculation: New patch and/or DLC on the 21st of november

[CivOasis]

Why should the human player get a signifigent warmnger penalty and the AI doesn't simple because the AI at some point declares war at you if you are winning.... (it isn't a diplomatic hit simply a other word for the AI trying to stop from letting you win)


On higher diiffculty diplomacy is olmost impossible to manage just crazy. So i can imagine that you can handle diplomacy I can do it to on prince and king. But I am playing now on immortal..

Yeah did you ever played civ 1 2 they used this system and a lot of people hated it

They changed this in civ 4 But apperently they thought it was a good idea to go back to the origanal idea that everyone disliked

First of all, I never played earlier civs, so I don't get the comparison there.
Secondly, the AI does get that hit. Ever try to get allies against a neutral civ? That's impossible. Ever try against the neighbourhood bully? 90 gold or less should do it. And, yes, I play on higher difficulties (Emperor, and thinking of moving up), with 22 civs on a huge, marathon map. If you're winning by defensive-launched, non-capital conquest, science, wonders, and CS-fronted wars, AI tends to suck up to you. If you're weak, or launching wars against civs and CSs, that probably will tick someone off.

 

[nokmirt]

Clearly, you were a warmonger. Their reaction is logical.
Actually, to be quite honest I've never had issues with AI diplomacy, even before patches.
If you don't go around wiping out civs (or only do it once), diplomacy functions very well, and relations can improve quite quickly.

Logical is not the word I'd choose to describe it, more like maniacal. And relations do not improve unless you happen to be an AI civ. For the human you get penalized for attacking a CS, if an AI civ does it, the other AI civs praise it. Obviously this makes not sense. BTW are you sure your playing CiV? It sounds like your playing CiIV. If you were playing V you would certainly understand.

 

[nokmirt]

First of all, I never played earlier civs, so I don't get the comparison there.
Secondly, the AI does get that hit. Ever try to get allies against a neutral civ? That's impossible. Ever try against the neighbourhood bully? 90 gold or less should do it. And, yes, I play on higher difficulties (Emperor, and thinking of moving up), with 22 civs on a huge, marathon map. If you're winning by defensive-launched, non-capital conquest, science, wonders, and CS-fronted wars, AI tends to suck up to you. If you're weak, or launching wars against civs and CSs, that probably will tick someone off.

Why should the AI be mad if your launching war? My game's victory conditions are straight Domination. The only way to win is conquest. This game is also King Level. If I win and I will win. I am moving up to immortal. In the game I have already bested the AI easy in war. Really there is nothing else to prove. I should be able to move up to immortal quite nicely.

 

[CivOasis]

Relations don't particularly seem to improve for AIs, IMO. If anything, AI vs. AI is more hostile than AI vs. Human.
And, yes, I'm playing CivV. I've never played CivIV. Or I, II, or III, for that matter.

If you set it to Domination (which is always on), then that should mean you don't care about diplomacy. Otherwise, you wouldn't have put that as an option.

IMO, being good at war doesn't really prove anything. If you want to prove something, go and master every victory condition, as every civ, on deity (preferably many times, with different maps). No, I haven't done that - but you don't usually see me giving strategy tips, or complaining about parts of the game I find hard, either.

 

[nokmirt]

Relations don't particularly seem to improve for AIs, IMO. If anything, AI vs. AI is more hostile than AI vs. Human.
And, yes, I'm playing CivV. I've never played CivIV. Or I, II, or III, for that matter.

If you set it to Domination (which is always on), then that should mean you don't care about diplomacy. Otherwise, you wouldn't have put that as an option.

IMO, being good at war doesn't really prove anything. If you want to prove something, go and master every victory condition, as every civ, on deity (preferably many times, with different maps). No, I haven't done that - but you don't usually see me giving strategy tips, or complaining about parts of the game I find hard, either.

I find the other victory conditions boring. I've always been a wargamer. I am a military historian what do you expect. LOL! The point is their still needs to be diplomacy that works correctly. A civ still can have friends, and use those friends against enemies to gain an upper hand. Then of course they turn on each other later, hopefully from a position of strength. Isn't that what everyone tries for is to get themselves in a advantageous position within the game, no matter what victory condition your going for. Even in Domination, in many regards DIPLOMACY IS A VERY VERY USEFUL TOOL! Think on that seriously for a minute. However, In this game you do something aggressive their on you like flies to a ribroast. I don't mind enemies but fighting the whole world is a bit much. Don't you think?

Also, I wanted to say it is not just that I am good at war. Thats easy enough for everybody. I just feel more confident, in the way I run my empire and learned a few things that may help me move up to the next level. Of course, I won't know without trying. Confidence in oneself is a very powerful force. I'll do just fine one level up. If not well then I will keep trying until, I succeed.

"If anything, AI vs. AI is more hostile than AI vs. Human." I have yet to see this in any any any CiV game I've played. They are very far up each others behind to put it bluntly.

 

[True_Candyman]

So back on topic...

Do we have any update on what's happening with this suspected patch/dlc?

And incidentally, i'd like to see a modern Brazilian, Mexican or Indonesian empire

We have the rest of the BRIIC economies and they are supposed to be the world leaders of the future

 

[Louis XXIV]

Why should the human player get a signifigent warmnger penalty and the AI doesn't simple because the AI at some point declares war at you if you are winning.... (it isn't a diplomatic hit simply a other word for the AI trying to stop from letting you win)

Well, one is war designed to win the game, the other is designed to prevent a winner. The AI does get a warmonger penalty if they declare war trying to win the game. The only question is if you get a warmonger penalty to prevent someone else from winning. I generally don't get a penalty if I attack someone that everyone else has denounced. It seems the game treats it the same regardless of whether you are AI or human.

 

[nokmirt]

In any case my hard drive crashed yesterday. I can get my save data back, but I think, I am going to start a new game playing on emperor. This time instead of conquering a CS, I'll liberate them.

 

[apocalypse105]

Well, one is war designed to win the game, the other is designed to prevent a winner. The AI does get a warmonger penalty if they declare war trying to win the game. The only question is if you get a warmonger penalty to prevent someone else from winning. I generally don't get a penalty if I attack someone that everyone else has denounced. It seems the game treats it the same regardless of whether you are AI or human.

NO even if you denounced someone and declare war it still gets the diplomatic hit for declaring war so if you declare twice you are a warmonger. Even if you denounced them...


And I have tested this 10 times denouncing someone who everyone hates and declare him... There where 2 people everyone hates So i denounced the first one dowd then a few era's later I atacked the second person who i denounced

Still got the warmonger penalty its just bad designed

 

[Louis XXIV]

Odd, my experience has been different.

 

[nokmirt]

Hopefully they do something about that in the update. One thing that should be added for the human player is more info on AI to AI relations. We should be able to tell if they consider each other a warmonger etc.



Too bad they don't have some real diplo options like this for CiV.

 

[CivOasis]

So back on topic...

Do we have any update on what's happening with this suspected patch/dlc?

And incidentally, i'd like to see a modern Brazilian, Mexican or Indonesian empire

We have the rest of the BRIIC economies and they are supposed to be the world leaders of the future

No update.

And, as much as I'd like to see any of those three (although, I'd like to see Indonesia's entire history represented), I don't think Mexico is possible (same capital as the Aztecs).

Well, it technically is from a programming standpoint, but not from a conceptual one. (same city, two places?)

 

[MantaRevan]

In the end, I think I would most enjoy Carthage/Celtia. But Sumaria and Austria wouldn't be bad either.

 

[binhthuy71]

The Huns. Although the unified Hun empire only lasted a year after the death of Attila, they'd been terrorizing Eastern Europe and Central Asia for roughly 200 years before that. Some scholars credit them with stimulating the Great Migration, one of the causes of the downfall of Rome.

One obstacle to bringing them into Civ is that their main unit was the horse archer. The Huns used their horse archers for conquest a few centuries before the Mongol Keshiks but the Mongols were first into Civ so I don't hold out much hope for the Huns.

 

[apocalypse105]

Odd, my experience has been different.

I thinx I know why maybe the player who yo uare befriend with is olso a warmonger or declares a lot or kills a lot of civilization like in wainy lets play of the ottomans.

There you see pachepuchi way stronger in military and friendly and wainy declared 2 times (against montezuma and grece) and even took out a city state(declared war on it) so clearly he should have had a warmonger penalty but pachecutie doesn't care and stays friendly.
But ghandi on other continent and persia do hate him for it


I thinx the big reason is because pachecuti is fighting wars itself it even killed of persia, and will take montezuma's last citie so probably he is allready hated

 

[apocalypse105]

In the end, I think I would most enjoy Carthage/Celtia. But Sumaria and Austria wouldn't be bad either.

I hope the dutch but i dont thinx thats going to happen any time

Austria hmm wich bonus do you want to give them inca allready got the hill bonus?

 

[CivOasis]

Honestly, most civs don't totally freak out on you, in general. Not saying it doesn't need improvement, but it isn't as bad as everyone says. Navies, IMO, are the area that most needs improvement, because the AI is completely clueless on how to use them.
As far as Pachacuti (above post) goes, that would have more to do with whether or not they care about warmongers. My playthroughs seems to indicate that he is generally a good ally, but I haven't bothered too much to verify that.

 

[CivOasis]

I hope the dutch but i dont thinx thats going to happen any time

Austria hmm wich bonus do you want to give them inca allready got the hill bonus?

I don't think (and seriously don't hope) the next DLC civ will be European. Firaxis seems to be slightly less Eurocentric than normal, and Africa (especially southern Africa) is currently devoid of civs.

 

[Rewjeo]

This didn't stop the Ottomans and Byzantines from existing in Civ IV. You also had the HRE which occupied significant portions of France and Germany. I don't know if they shared any cities in game, but it seems possible.

 

[MantaRevan]

This didn't stop the Ottomans and Byzantines from existing in Civ IV. You also had the HRE which occupied significant portions of France and Germany. I don't know if they shared any cities in game, but it seems possible.

Agreed, but I don't generally consider the Ottomans europeans.