The (failed) VIP group (Gamescom, again)

[Ogrelord]

Maybe there is no diplomatic overview because the AI won't necessarily rely just on those factors, and the player shouldn't either. Today's enemy might be tomorrow's friend. They said politiks make strange bed fellows. The DEV mentioned that the AI will play more like a player.

-player:"Come on Izzy, I know I burned Barcelona back in our teens, I mean the classical era, but the IROQUOIS are at our doors, and they don't look like they are selling Mohawk scout cookies."

-AI Spain A: (furious)"No I won't help you, I love my Barcelona and you kill it in a fit of jealousy, I know I'll die by a tomahawk axe, but I get to watch you die too."

-AI Spain B: (pondering) "Yes you're right. If we combined our forces and attacked on 2 fronts, the Iroquois can't encroach in our backyard woods. Let's make some deal."
Later on, a city state allied to the player switch to Spain side because player neglected during the Iroquois war.


A past log will be useful. Oh yeah we did a research pact together last weekend. It's better than +2 (positive) "mutual tech research".

 

[EmperorFool]

I don't wanna fan the flames of the great Steam debate, but I gotta say that the only reason I don't play Battlefield 2 more often is that it has its own separate friends list--limited to twenty friends! While there are some valid gripes about Steam, it has been an overall boon for game developers and players alike, IMHO.

Just be glad that Valve beat Microsoft to the punch. Imagine a Windows-only game distribution platform with the awesome stability of Windows! Play in offline mode? Not an option. Still running XP? Not an option! Install non-MS games? Not an option!

 

[Stalker0]

Feedback is based on player expectation; "Hey.. i was nice to you, you should be nice to me" ~ emphasis on "should"... in civ4, unless civs made certain decisions before certain thresholds (like internally declaring war X turns before reaching the status that they "no longer declare war on"), the A.I. was enslaved by the modifiers.

This is why I wish there was a penalty for attacking a person you have good diplomatic relations with...on both human and ai side.

If an AI decides to send me a gift, and I accept, then there should be a penalty if I just turn around and attack him. This is the only real way to enforce diplomacy in Civ, otherwise the diplomacy is either completely random (aka useless) or is so strict that its exploitable.

 

[cccv]

This is why I wish there was a penalty for attacking a person you have good diplomatic relations with...on both human and ai side.

If an AI decides to send me a gift, and I accept, then there should be a penalty if I just turn around and attack him. This is the only real way to enforce diplomacy in Civ, otherwise the diplomacy is either completely random (aka useless) or is so strict that its exploitable.

Maybe there will be. I hope so. I remember that from civII-- "Your words are not worth the parchment they're written on." It's not like it can be hard to add a penalty with other civs when you attack someone who feels "pleased/friendly" with you. If you're a backstabber the AI should be smart enough not to trust you if they really are smart and using human-like strategy like we keep hearing they will. I know I never put any effort into trying to be friends with Alexander.

 

[Some guy]

People keep complaining about there being no information on what you're doing "wrong" with AI diplomacy. It's quite simple when you're making the AI mad at you; you're beating them.

The AI is out to WIN, not suck-up to the humans. And why should we know about what wars are going on, especially if we have no one scouting? Somehow were just supposed to magically know?

Basically, people are mad that the "illusion" of competitive AI was replaced with an actually competitive AI (human-like players that actually WANT to win). Saying if I wanted to play "human-like AI I would play multiplayer" isn't an argument. You just don't want to lose, admit it.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Maybe there is no diplomatic overview because the AI won't necessarily rely just on those factors, and the player shouldn't either. Today's enemy might be tomorrow's friend. They said politiks make strange bed fellows. The DEV mentioned that the AI will play more like a player.

-player:"Come on Izzy, I know I burned Barcelona back in our teens, I mean the classical era, but the IROQUOIS are at our doors, and they don't look like they are selling Mohawk scout cookies."

-AI Spain A: (furious)"No I won't help you, I love my Barcelona and you kill it in a fit of jealousy, I know I'll die by a tomahawk axe, but I get to watch you die too."

-AI Spain B: (pondering) "Yes you're right. If we combined our forces and attacked on 2 fronts, the Iroquois can't encroach in our backyard woods. Let's make some deal."
Later on, a city state allied to the player switch to Spain side because player neglected during the Iroquois war.

I tend to agree, but I do feel the AI should reward you for mutual trust. An AI that can use you to mutual benefit and has a history of doing so will be more likely to continue to do so than an AI who has no history of cooperation and will be weighted more towards competition than cooperation (unless other factors override).

A past log will be useful. Oh yeah we did a research pact together last weekend. It's better than +2 (positive) "mutual tech research".

A transaction log does strike me as the best compromise, all things considered.

 

[fmm]

I believe Azazell had a picture showing the diplomatic history log but it's been taken down now. It basically listed all ongoing and completed deals you've had with other civs, how long they lasted, when they ended, etc. That seems like the only diplomatic information you could have right? All diplomacy is through deals

 

[Calouste]

I don't wanna fan the flames of the great Steam debate, but I gotta say that the only reason I don't play Battlefield 2 more often is that it has its own separate friends list--limited to twenty friends! While there are some valid gripes about Steam, it has been an overall boon for game developers and players alike, IMHO.

Just be glad that Valve beat Microsoft to the punch. Imagine a Windows-only game distribution platform with the awesome stability of Windows! Play in offline mode? Not an option. Still running XP? Not an option! Install non-MS games? Not an option!

Never heard of XBox Live apparently.

 

[EmperorFool]

Never heard of XBox Live apparently.

Note that Microsoft owns the hardware and software on X-Box. They could have taken that platform to the PC but didn't. And I'm very glad they didn't otherwise I wouldn't get to easily play games with my friends who have Macs.

 

[beestar]

Interesting ideas about the AI treating you like a competitor.

Will the AI have visibility into how strong you are? For that matter, will we know how strong they are? (military strength, techs known, number of cities, "score", etc.)

 

[Calouste]

Note that Microsoft owns the hardware and software on X-Box. They could have taken that platform to the PC but didn't. And I'm very glad they didn't otherwise I wouldn't get to easily play games with my friends who have Macs.

No, they haven't taken that to the PC. Not at all. Nope.

 

[kaltorak]

People keep complaining about there being no information on what you're doing "wrong" with AI diplomacy. It's quite simple when you're making the AI mad at you; you're beating them.

The AI is out to WIN, not suck-up to the humans. And why should we know about what wars are going on, especially if we have no one scouting? Somehow were just supposed to magically know?

Basically, people are mad that the "illusion" of competitive AI was replaced with an actually competitive AI (human-like players that actually WANT to win). Saying if I wanted to play "human-like AI I would play multiplayer" isn't an argument. You just don't want to lose, admit it.

If I want to play a competitive strategy game I'll play sc2, or a panzer like game. Or even civ5 in multiplayer. But Civ is much much more than that. I don't want a fighting sandbox.

 

[Ituralde]

I believe Azazell had a picture showing the diplomatic history log but it's been taken down now. It basically listed all ongoing and completed deals you've had with other civs, how long they lasted, when they ended, etc. That seems like the only diplomatic information you could have right? All diplomacy is through deals

That's the only thing I'm asking for. The version that was shown at gamescome didn't have this. I couldn't even check one turn after I made it against whom the Secrecy Pact went that I just signed with Oda. Or whether I already had a Friendship Pact with Alexander. That's the only thing that's bugging me.

I'd rather have a competitive AI that's trying to win than one that is mad at me in 1942 for some things I did in 2000 BC. That's just annoying...

 

[Ahriman]

Basically, people are mad that the "illusion" of competitive AI was replaced with an actually competitive AI (human-like players that actually WANT to win). Saying if I wanted to play "human-like AI I would play multiplayer" isn't an argument.

No. People are mad that in a single player game aimed at historic immersion, that the AI seems like it will play like a deathmatch bot rather than an actual nation. Alliances, friendship, vendettas and so forth are meaningless if historic actions don't affect the AI's likelihood of declaring war.

If I didn't care about how the other players acted, and just wanted them to win, then I'd play multiplayer. How is that not an argument? This is a game about history, not just Command & Conquer.

I want a game where real history can happen. If AIs are just playing to win, then the Allies would have annexed France after D-day. After Waterloo, the English would have turned around and marched on Amsterdam. Britain would have refused to bankroll the construction of US industry in the 19th century, fearing a competitor. The European union would never have formed.
In real history, alliances are meaningful, and countries don't attack their friends just because they don't have a big army on their mutual border. Cooperation is possible. Grudges are held, and acted on, whether rational or no.

You just don't want to lose, admit it.

Wow. You really can't think of any alternative, and just want to be insulting?
Nice.....
I want a diplomatic system that feels real, and then I'll crank up the difficulty level to make it challenging.

That's the only thing I'm asking for.

I want more than this. I don't want to have to look through a history log to try to figure out the state of diplomatic relations. That should be available, at my finger tips.

If an AI isn't willing to trade with me (for example, because its worried about my military strength) then I need to be able to know that, and know why.

I'd rather have a competitive AI that's trying to win than one that is mad at me in 1942 for some things I did in 2000 BC. That's just annoying...

There is nothing inherent in having a transparent diplomatic system where actions matter that says they have to matter forever. Its entirely possible for example that declaring war could give a -4 for the next 50 turns, thne -2 for the 50 turns after than, then -1 for 50 turns, then nothing.
But without a transparent system, you won't know this.
And its ridiculous to think that having declare war on a country and razed their cities won't have *any* future impact on their diplomatic dealings with you, even in the short term.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

I think that kind of things is much more:
- Rational.
- Realistic.
- Clever.
Than just have dumb +/-

You don't have to go in war with someone if he/she betrayed you in the past. You just need to be more careful signing anything with him/her.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Plenty of real world examples of rivals acting as friends because of some strategic threat (the US and Japanese because of the Soviet Union). Also plenty of examples of allies becoming enemies because they became each others' competition (US and USSR). Note: I didn't have to US WWII examples, I could have said Rome and Carthage for the latter.

I do agree, however, that building a relationship with an AI should have advantages (especially if you two aren't threats to each other and there is an external threat). I'd argue it isn't so much past wars that should be an issue, but past betrayals. However, in a system where you can't really saber rattle as much as in the real world, they come out to similar situations. I'd suggest that strategic considerations > Trustworthiness > History of Peace, but they all should be in there. I'd also argue that this would be both realistic historically and lead to good gameplay by encouraging positive relations with AIs (unless you conquer them) and discouraging negative ones.

 

[padlock]

The 'If I wanted to play against competitive opponents, I'd play multiplayer" argument is very weak.

I dont want to be tied down to other peoples schedules. I want to be able to take a bathroom break whenever I please. I don't want to play the game with simulataneous turns, and don't have the time or patience to wait for 6 other players to take their turns. Yet I do want to play against competitive opponents. Civ 5 is finally going to give me that opportunity.

Having human like AI doesn't make the game any less deep at all. Civ isn't going to suddenly change into an RTS or FPS simply because the AI behaves like a rational opponent as opposed to a system you can easily game.

Saying that the game will turn into a deathmatch is absurd. If you've ever played a reasonably deep boardgame (like Avalon Hill's Advanced Civilizations for instance), you know that diplomacy and co-operation are extremely important even when all players are trying to win.

The developers even included city states so the old "giving things to try to get on somebodies goodside" system is still in place for those who believe it provides such deep gameplay.

 

[Dunkah]

Look do we want a roleplaying AI or a competitive AI.

Isn't it possible that the AI makes up it's mind about a trade or some other bit of diplomacy based on current situation and its personality and maybe a few other cultural/civ based modifiers? How do we even know that the Civ is keeping track of what happened in the past?

If in the past you had a deal with them but now you are much more powerful and have troops on their borders, well then things have most certainly changed!

The City states are the thing that you have to worry about as far as how they feel towards you as they are going to act like civs did in Civ IV.

The other Civs are out to win and play like human players with a predetermined personality and should make up thier AI minds each and every time a new opportinuty comes along IMHO.

As far as I am concerned the AI should assume that I am going to attack him at any given time that I deem appropriate, and vise versa!

This isn't a game that simulates history. It takes historical units and technologies and allows you the player to rewrite history as you go. Who wants to replay hsitory over and over? Ok it's 1942 time for WWII!

I like the concept. Can't wait for the game!!!

 

[cccv]

The 'If I wanted to play against competitive opponents, I'd play multiplayer" argument is very weak.

I dont want to be tied down to other peoples schedules. I want to be able to take a bathroom break whenever I please. I don't want to play the game with simulataneous turns, and don't have the time or patience to wait for 6 other players to take their turns. Yet I do want to play against competitive opponents. Civ 5 is finally going to give me that opportunity.

Having human like AI doesn't make the game any less deep at all. Civ isn't going to suddenly change into an RTS or FPS simply because the AI behaves like a rational opponent as opposed to a system you can easily game.

Saying that the game will turn into a deathmatch is absurd. If you've ever played a reasonably deep boardgame (like Avalon Hill's Advanced Civilizations for instance), you know that diplomacy and co-operation are extremely important even when all players are trying to win.

The developers even included city states so the old "giving things to try to get on somebodies goodside" system is still in place for those who believe it provides such deep gameplay.

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.

This isn't a game that simulates history. It takes historical units and technologies and allows you the player to rewrite history as you go. Who wants to replay hsitory over and over? Ok it's 1942 time for WWII!

I like the concept. Can't wait for 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.

 

[Zhahz]

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.

A lot of people are treating the info that's been available like concrete fact, when anything could different at release and/or there could be stuff nobody has seen yet. Which, IMO, makes some of the freaking out or speculation going on a little bit premature. (But I guess there isn't much else to do except speculate and discuss what's known til release, eh?)

For ex, if there's no diplomatic relations screen at release, when every civ game and every civ-like game has had one, then freak out. Although, they'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.

IMO, this is somewhere they could tie espionage into the game without it being ridiculously hands-on or ridiculously overpowered for the abstraction level of civ. Funding espionage against an AI could get you their details - their tech level, unit strength, relations with other civs, etc - stuff you shouldn't just magically know. The more you successfully invest in espionage, the more you know. It would almost make sense.