snapple232
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 101
My number one complaint with Civilization 5 is that leader attitudes are now hidden from the player. The reason this was done, it seems, is because the AI now evaulates its progress towards victory more than its attitude towards you. In other words, it's now playing to win, and is willing to backstab 'allies' to win the game, thus attitude is largely irrelevant. "That's more rational and realistic!" you may say. The thing is, this hurts the diplomatic side of the game.
AI that is purely playing to win gives the single player game just as much diplomatic depth as the multiplayer game. That is to say, none. You may trade gold or resources, but at the end of the day, building relations doesn't matter because they're just waiting to eliminate you and vice versa. It seems like the developers' idea here was "we'll make the leaders play the game like a deathmatch, and move the true diplomacy to city-states". The problem with that is, dealing with city-states is not true diplomacy. There's no political intrigue or maneuvering involved. You run errands or deposit gold to move a progress bar.
What's really lacking in diplomacy in Civilization 5 is what I had just referred to - politics. AI leaders that are predictable or able to be manipulated may not be 'human-like' or be acting in their best self interest (in terms of getting closer to a victory condition), but it gives the game an element of political intrigue that makes the single player distinct from multiplayer. Losing that, at least to me, takes something away from the Civilization experience.
AI that is purely playing to win gives the single player game just as much diplomatic depth as the multiplayer game. That is to say, none. You may trade gold or resources, but at the end of the day, building relations doesn't matter because they're just waiting to eliminate you and vice versa. It seems like the developers' idea here was "we'll make the leaders play the game like a deathmatch, and move the true diplomacy to city-states". The problem with that is, dealing with city-states is not true diplomacy. There's no political intrigue or maneuvering involved. You run errands or deposit gold to move a progress bar.
What's really lacking in diplomacy in Civilization 5 is what I had just referred to - politics. AI leaders that are predictable or able to be manipulated may not be 'human-like' or be acting in their best self interest (in terms of getting closer to a victory condition), but it gives the game an element of political intrigue that makes the single player distinct from multiplayer. Losing that, at least to me, takes something away from the Civilization experience.