The (failed) VIP group (Gamescom, again)

[Ahriman]

I don't understand where the idea of "no diplomatic impact" if AI plays to win came from? It was clearly stated in one of the interview what if you betray an AI, you'll be known as traitor and that will make new pacts more difficult for you.

Then I need to SEE THIS EFFECT somewhere.
Its not good enough for the AI to have various things built in that it cares about. As a player, I need to know what it cares about. I need to observe a diplomacy penalty somewhere from having betrayed an AI. I need to know, before I attack a city state, that it is good friends with Civ X, and that Civ X will be less likely to trade with me/more likely to attack me if I conquer that city state.

The issue isn't just about which things matter. Its about displaying that information to the player.
From the current reports, the UI appears to tell us almost nothing about what is going on. So we don't know what impacts our actions have, and the AIs are very opaque.

Having human like AI doesn't make the game any less deep at all.

Yes it does. If the AI no longer cares about things like gifts or being nice to it, then there is a whole array of strategic options that are no longer meaningful. Why should I ever give you a city if it doesn't make you less likely to attack me? Why should I ever gift you gold if it doesn't make you more likely to trade with me?

It's entirely possible that since the game isn't out yet and those who have had access are playing preview builds, that there are parts of the game that have yet to be revealed or are being intentionally left out or are incomplete or have changed since those builds, etc.

Yes, its possible. But it seems pretty unlikely that a diplomacy screen would be left out compeltely.

hey're not necessarily going to give you a point by point breakdown of every reason AIs love/hate you or each other, because seriously, having that level of info is ridiculous.

Why? It worked fine in Civ4. And it did so without being too predictable, because AI personalities still functioned on top of the parameters being displayed to you.

* * *
And I agree strongly with everything cccv said here.

 

[beestar]

Yes it does. If the AI no longer cares about things like gifts or being nice to it, then there is a whole array of strategic options that are no longer meaningful. Why should I ever give you a city if it doesn't make you less likely to attack me? Why should I ever gift you gold if it doesn't make you more likely to trade with me?

Well, true, but it can be flipped around: why should the AI gift you gold if it doesn't make you more likely to trade? Why should the AI ever give you a city when you might turn around and crush it when it's weak. You think Alex is bad? The human is by far the least reliable, most back-stabby player there is!

On the other hand, it would be great if the AI continues to make demands in exchange for certain things: an end to war, a period of enforced peace, etc. That would be something a competitive human might do.

 

[Ahriman]

Well, true, but it can be flipped around: why should the AI gift you gold if it doesn't make you more likely to trade?

Actually it does. If an AI player gives me stuff (like they do in Galciv) because they are my friend, then that totally makes me more likely to continue to cooperate with them.
And it gives me incentives to pursue good relations with them.
Why would you ever pursue a friendly strategy if it does nothing for you?
If all AIs are always your enemies, then you've just removed diplomacy as a meaningful part of the game.

The human is by far the least reliable, most back-stabby player there is!

I agree that there will always be a fundamental difference between the human player (who has agency) and the AIs (who do not).
The AIs are there so that I, the human player, can have fun. I'm not there for the AIs to enjoy themselves.

 

[Polobo]

Well, true, but it can be flipped around: why should the AI gift you gold if it doesn't make you more likely to trade? Why should the AI ever give you a city when you might turn around and crush it when it's weak. You think Alex is bad? The human is by far the least reliable, most back-stabby player there is!

On the other hand, it would be great if the AI continues to make demands in exchange for certain things: an end to war, a period of enforced peace, etc. That would be something a competitive human might do.

Less reliable back-stabbers should have few friends and lots of enemies; and be ganged up upon quite often. Good for real-life but not so good in a game. If the AI is gifting me gold/units/technology on any regular basis then unless I am going for world conquest I am likely to give great weight to the fact that we are friendly towards each other. If you start war-mongering THEN they should stop gifting you stuff AND when you gift to them the positive relationship you get should be reduced (maybe even to zero) since they will "know" that you are likely setting them up for later and, if they are in a position to do so, will strike anyway if it is to their advantage. Heck, the game should even make you think that you did indeed buy them off but then back-stab you anyway.

I am thinking they will end up showing general "relationship" status info even if specific modifiers are not shown by default. The whole (+4 from trade, +2 from open border) combined with knowing that at +7 they became friendly made everything too gamey for my liking. Thresholds should change and there are likely hidden negative modifiers (like if a secret pact is in place) that any good diplomat would not make obvious to their counterparts. If they would have kept espionage then paying to find out "hidden" info would make sense but not getting everything for free.

Put the above together and maybe even if they did show you more specific details and numbers behind the relationship there should still be some kind of "hidden modifiers" mechanic representing their true feelings toward you (and influenced by their own goals) and those that they publically show.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You have city-states for deep game of gifts and influence. You have AI to play AGAINST. That's the point. That doesn't mean you can't cooperate with them temporary.

 

[Tylerryan79]

I know that when Azazell's thread was up and new that the build he had they just had added a screen that shows all of your past/present diplo deals, how many turns they last/have left, and I think you could see other civs also, but maybe not that last part, seeing as the pics are gone I can no longer look. Also there was a screen for the top 5 or so armies(and the amount of the army), population etc. It sounds like these werent in this March build, so a lot of this stuff being discussed/wished for may have been added.

Also if you go to Azazells pic thread he has a brief back and forth with me, thats where he linked this pic I mentioned, however the link is dead now.....Carry on folks!

If this stuff was in this build then God help us blind human players!

 

[padlock]

Yes it does. If the AI no longer cares about things like gifts or being nice to it, then there is a whole array of strategic options that are no longer meaningful. Why should I ever give you a city if it doesn't make you less likely to attack me? Why should I ever gift you gold if it doesn't make you more likely to trade with me?

You should never give me a gift if it gets you nothing in exchange, that would be terrible play. Instead, what you should be able to do is trade with me. Instead of a modifier making it less likely that I'll attack you, you should be able to trade me a city in exchange for a guarrantied peace treaty for x number of turns. One that the game mechanics will not allow me to break.

Once that treaty is out, you should either be ready for war, or prepared to give me something else to appease me.

If you want to gift things to get on peoples good sides, do it with the pansy city states who aren't actually your opponents and aren't concerned about winning the game.

 

[Ahriman]

Civ is not a wargame. Other civ factions are not there just to fight. War is not the only form of interaction.

 

[padlock]

Civ is not a wargame. Other civ factions are not there just to fight. War is not the only form of interaction.

No one said it was.

Not all competitive games are war games. Acquire has no war in it at all, but it is still highly competitive.

One of the reasons I prefer games like Civ to sandbox simulations like SimCity is the well defined win conditions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ is not a wargame. Other civ factions are not there just to fight. War is not the only form of interaction.

Yes, they could beat you in culture or space victory.

 

[cccv]

Still missing the point because you're still looking at it from your playstyle perspective. Surely you can understand that the civ players who want a game of civ to unfold like a real history (not an our-world history but something that resembles a real history) would not be satisfied with the "treat all empires as backstabbers out to win a game and save diplomacy for the pansy city states" solution. By all means, rewrite history. Let the Aztecs defeat the French, build Big Ben, and go to alpha centauri. But it still makes no sense for Montezuma to nuke his closest ally for trying to build utopia because he thinks he's playing some kind of cosmic video game that he "loses" if the ally succeeds (unless he really was that much of a madman, but I kinda doubt it). And with all the fuss and emphasis they gave to diplomacy, I really doubt it's their intention to make it a meaningless optional thing that you only bother with if you want to get city-state bonuses.

I'm not all doom and gloom about this, I'll wait to see how it plays out. But if the end game really degrades into desperate nuke-flinging as the AI seeks to prevent victories of friends and foes alike, I will not be thrilled. I want the civ experience to be one of me building an empire alongside the personalities of Montezuma and George Washington, not playing against something that is aware that it's a computer game trying to win a computer game.

 

[mercury529]

Frankly, I'd love to seem them incorporate some game theory into the AI design. Specifically, I'd love to see them design the AI with the Prisoner's Dilemma in mind.

If the AI is modeled to act in its best interest over an indefinite number of games, then the AI would not backstab friends unless a genuine opportunity to win the game presented itself. If a friendly AI will win the game by thwarting your efforts, then it is reasonable to do so. But if they have no chance to win the game, there would be no reason to jeopardize their reputation.

If you take that one step further, you could offer the same capability to players as well. You could opt to let the computer determine a Leader Personality based on your previous games and shape AI behavior accordingly. In the same way we come to understand the decision-making of the AI, the AI could come to understand our choices. If you ruthlessly backstab in each game, AIs would know not to trust you in future games. It would ultimately push the player to pick the moments that it is most advantageous to betray an ally. Similarly, it could give incentive to helping weaker civilizations when there is nothing to gain in that particular game. The gained reputation may offset the momentary losses. It could definitely add an interesting dimension to gameplay.

 

[Thormodr]

This does sound a bit troubling. I do hope that you can make solid allies that won't backstab you at the drop of a hat. A truly devious and psychotic AI doesn't sound fun at all.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Ahriman]

You could opt to let the computer determine a Leader Personality based on your previous games

Based on previous games?

No. Each game starts fresh. The game should never care about what I did in some previous game on some Earth planet in a different dimension.

Why would the leader of the French on Planet Earth257 possibly care about what how the Russians on Earth254 acted, when considering how to treat the Romans of Earth257.

 

[mercury529]

Based on previous games?

No. Each game starts fresh. The game should never care about what I did in some previous game on some Earth planet in a different dimension.

Why would the leader of the French on Planet Earth257 possibly care about what how the Russians on Earth254 acted, when considering how to treat the Romans of Earth257.

Because you opted into it in order to enhance the gaming experience? Why should you know that each leader is going to act a certain way each game? It is an inherent disadvantage for the AI. It also incentivizes being indiscriminately self-serving. And there is nothing wrong with that. But I would personally like the challenge of knowing my decisions were going to impact future games.

 

[Ahriman]

Why should you know that each leader is going to act a certain way each game?

We don't. We've heard that the AI personalities are randomized (within a range) each time.

It is an inherent disadvantage for the AI.

I think people need to get over this idea of a 100% level playing field with the AI as a desirable goal.

There will never be perfect symmetry between the human player and the AI, and there's no point in trying to achieve this.

The game is not being designed for the AI to have fun.

Its fun for the human player to play against AIs that have particular personalities. There's no reason for why the AIs need to know anything about the human's personality (or each other's personality).

 

[fmm]

Yes, there should be practical reasons to be friendly with other CiVs. And there are! The major examples are trading luxury/strategic goods and research pacts; these are deals that benefit both sides at the expense of the other civs in the game. Hopefully they are important enough to encourage varying styles and not just pure warmongering.

Also, it's clear that the gifting/patronage aspect has been shifted to city states, so it's not as important to have it for major civs.

 

[mercury529]

We don't. We've heard that the AI personalities are randomized (within a range) each time.

Within a range means knowing how an AI will act. The variation is welcome, but you still have guidelines you can follow.

I think people need to get over this idea of a 100% level playing field with the AI as a desirable goal.

There will never be perfect symmetry between the human player and the AI, and there's no point in trying to achieve this.

The game is not being designed for the AI to have fun.

Its fun for the human player to play against AIs that have particular personalities. There's no reason for why the AIs need to know anything about the human's personality (or each other's personality).

If the point of the game is for the player to have fun, why dismiss an idea outright that appeals to another player (especially one proposed as an optional feature)?

I think it adds an extra dimension of strategy to the game. Your actions have long-term implications. You must weigh the value of the temporary advantage/disadvantage against the long-term effects. I find that concept particularly appealing because it will lead to strategies that would otherwise be completely ignored by win-focused players. This could actually encourage behavior like giving gifts to other Civs when it gives you no benefit within that game or delaying a win because it involves stabbing an ally in the back to do so. It might even encourage helping an ally win the game when a win is out of your reach.

 

[Ahriman]

If the point of the game is for the player to have fun, why dismiss an idea outright that appeals to another player (especially one proposed as an optional feature)?

Because you don't design a game by including hundreds of different optional features to cater to every last little individual taste.

I think it adds an extra dimension of strategy to the game. Your actions have long-term implications.

Long-term features... that affect an entirely different game?? On a different world? Its nonsensical.

Absolutely, have the AI respond to how you've played in a particular game. But to how the game was played in previous games played on the same computer??

 

[City Raider]

Yes I realize competitive AI and multiplayer isn't an exact parallel. The comparison I was making is that in both, diplomacy is basically meaningless. We've been hearing a lot about how they made diplomacy the focus of the game. They've built the game around it to a large extent. And then they decide that the AI will completely ignore it? So then what's the point? Like I said, I never tried to ally with Alexander. If we were on the same side of a war, fine, but I'm not plying him with gold and caving to his demands when he'll ignore his "friendliness" with me anytime he wants anyway. Moving the important diplomacy from the other civilizations and placing it on the city states does not satisfy me.

And yes, I prefer the role-play aspect. I want Elizabeth to act like Elizabeth, leader of Britain, not a computer trying to win a computer game. And I don't think I'm in as vast a minority as you probably assume when I say I play that way too. Many civ players are civ players because we want to build and rule empires. And in doing so, many of us will play with that as our goal, rather than winning a computer game as the goal. So no, I'm not going to nuke a history-long ally because he was about to create utopia, even if it means "losing" the game.



No one said we want the game to simulate our real world history. But we do want to create history within the game. A 200 year alliance should mean something. It can end because the relationship sours for various reasons, sure, but not because someone is building a spaceship and the friend of 200 years yelled "no, me first!" and then nuked the crap out of the other party. That's not being true to the history we've spent several hundred turns creating. It's pretty ridiculous, actually, and only serves to make civ a computer game like any other rather than an empire building/ruling experience.

So true.

If a "friendly" AI is going to attack you when you are about to win, then diplomacy is completely meaningless.