The most infuriating diplomacy fails in G&K

[Hammer Rabbi]

one thing i just realized. i havent had one RA broken yet. that's kind of amazing, that maybe a DoF is semi-serious now.

 

[nefloyd]

It's an AI - how else would you have it determine relationships? It is a lot more consistent in G&K, and at least now "Friendly", "Neutral" and "Hostile" do tend to be reliable descriptors of an AI's attitude towards you, unless a backstab is planned.

I'm talking about stuff with more permanence. I have literally had an AI player go from "Hostile" (so many red negatives) to "Afraid" (still most of the reds) to "Friendly" ('previous war' gone and several others) within the span of a few turns.

Whether you were friendly allies for a thousand years or two months doesn't matter. It's schizo.

I don't want more diplo hits from making a dumb choice of how to respond to the 70 different threats and hostile 'oh hi you are terrible' insults the AI likes to pop up and throw in my face.

When the AI attacks a CS I have under my protection, I want this as an option:
-<City State> is under my protection. Retreat now or pay the price!

AI: Ok, we're sorry, we'll leave it alone <AI makes peace treaty with City State> (If it considers you a decent enough threat)
AI: No way, you do what you have to, I want that city (If not)

Player (If AI refuses): Fine, but I'll be watching you (If you chicken out)
Player : The world will know of your indiscretions <Denounce>
Player : Then die! <Declare War> <You gain rep with city state>
and doing so should NOT accrue 'warmonger' points unless you start conquering their cities

and other various actionable options when diplo events occur

Because as it currently stands, the AI takes tribute or attacks a city-state under my protection, my options are:
-Do nothing, lose protection and influence
-Tell the AI they will pay, which leads to either:
---The AI has been friendly to me and says "oh we're sorry but its for the good of our country so too bad I made the right choice"
---The AI has been hostile to me and says "whatever like I care"
Neither of which has any meaning or impact whatsoever.

OH, and I'm damn tired of a city-state asking for help against a civ, I DoW and kill like 4-5 units and then they make peace with the CS before I even finish the quest. so lame.

 

[casusbelli]

There is no 'casus belli' (loosely means just war). Doesn't matter if you're responding to a threat, protecting a CS, honoring a pact, if you declare war, you're gaining 'warmonger' amongst the civs of the world

This would be nice but, I imagine, very difficult to code. The concept of "justified" war is a difficult one even for humans in the 21st century. Having said that, there should be no denouncement for upholding a Defense Pact, especially not from neutral civs.

 

[Tachii]

@netfloyd I think you're just overcriticizing the diplomacy mechanics.

Once you ally a CS, you can simply revoke protection without dip of relationship at all. And I've rarely seen a civ DOW on that CS and not me. Most of the time I see Genghis Khan, for example, DOW on me just so he can take over my allied CS.

Not having the option to demand AI civs certain stuff is a minor gripe at best. You can also think of bullying as a way of provoking you to DOW on them. The result is a pointless war with a diplo hit toward other peaceful civs. Contextually you can provoke them by saying "you'll pay for this" so they're more likely to DOW and get whipped by you. Or, just do what they say if you don't feel like allying the CS(this happens if their requests are ) or have a lot weaker army than they do.

Friendship is a lot more stable now than before as said already. I have been able to DoF for a long long time provided I remain peaceful. Even competing for CS and wonders are minor problems that gets overlooked because of constant trades, friend of a friend, and sharing intrigues. That status really only fluctuate if you aren't DoF, in which it makes sense they can shift quickly from one state to another especially if you are DoWing or competing for land/CS/wonders.

 

[animalguy]

Not only that, but there is some weird dividing line between "I surrender and I'll give you basically all my gold, income, luxuries, and strategic resources" and "I will surrender but I'll give you NOTHING else, ever, no matter how badly the war has gone". Not even 1 gold piece when they are about to die.

Perhaps the AI is aware that if you devour them entirley the rest of the world will label you a warmonger ?

 

[Harv72b]

Game I was playing earlier tonight:

I'm Babylon, I've had a nice little bloc going for most of the game with Polynesia, Rome, and Sweden. We all hate Egypt and Russia, and we're all ambivalent to China (who has been plotting against me for 150+ turns & embarked several invasion fleets which never got near my coastline). Then from out of nowhere, Rome DoWs China...they sink a few of each other's ships and after 10-15 turns sign a peace treaty...and a DoF. In the same turn.

My modifiers with China instantly go from mostly red (lands she covets, wonders she wanted, etc) to all green (DoF with the same people, denounced same people (China immediately denounced Egypt & Russia after signing the peace friendship)). China is suddenly part of the "in crowd" (but continues to plot against me).

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Callonia]

OH, and I'm damn tired of a city-state asking for help against a civ, I DoW and kill like 4-5 units and then they make peace with the CS before I even finish the quest. so lame.

Lemme show you how to solve that little dilemma.


Germany just chilling and doing nothing with 1k gold to spare or whatever.

Rome leers at Zurich city state nearby to me, but I have no relations whatsoever to zurich.

Rome giggles and declares war on zurich because rome is being rome and he wants dat porcelain candy.

Zurich freaks out and knows he is a goner unless he could drag in a major civ to help in its war against rome.

Zurich sends out a request asking for someone to go on over and blow up like say, 10 roman units pwease.

Germany spots a request for help but germany knows rome will be like a jew and sign peace before 10 units gets blown up there, precaution measure is taken first.

Moderator Action: Warned for inappropriate turn of phrase.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Germany contacts Zurich in the midst of the Zurich vs Rome war and shows zurich the coinpurse with 1000 gold coins and says you and me alliance eh? eh?

Zurich likes 1000 gold pieces and goes into alliance mode with Germany.


Rome grows to realize the horror of his own folly for he now cannot sign peace with zurich before he loses 10 units for germany is going all in to assure that germany is going to get that danged influence bonus for blasting roman units to pieces.

Rome goes emo and berserk at this stage and splits attack between zurich and you.

Germany gets to blow up 10 units and Zurich gets to enjoy 1000 new gold pieces and continued protection of germany and rome gets to allow its soldiers rest in pieces and be emo.

 

[jahsoldier]

Had an absolutely golden one with Hiawatha the other day. Just come out of a war that had lasted from the classical period right up to the modern, which ended when I finally got fed up playing defensive and took half of his cities. He offered peace but remained hostile/guarded to me for the next 100 or so turns - fair enough.

Then he starts building spaceship parts. Since he seems to be closest to victory out of everyone and I'm working on a spaceship of my own, I rush buy 5 nukes, declare war and bomb all of his remaining cities to slow him down a bit.

After that he offers me peace and all his cash, but get this - he's FRIENDLY with me for the rest of the game. Even offers a DoF the next turn.

What

 

[Babri]

Yes some aspects of ciV diplomacy are still broken like defence pacts for example. Instead of declaring war I would have placed my units in the CS so that Washington won't be able to take the city or gift them units. Remember that there is no casus belli systems so a logical explanation in human minds is not understood by the fellow AI players.

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't want more diplo hits from making a dumb choice of how to respond to the 70 different threats and hostile 'oh hi you are terrible' insults the AI likes to pop up and throw in my face.

When the AI attacks a CS I have under my protection, I want this as an option:
-<City State> is under my protection. Retreat now or pay the price!

AI: Ok, we're sorry, we'll leave it alone <AI makes peace treaty with City State> (If it considers you a decent enough threat)
AI: No way, you do what you have to, I want that city (If not)

Player (If AI refuses): Fine, but I'll be watching you (If you chicken out)
Player : The world will know of your indiscretions <Denounce>
Player : Then die! <Declare War> <You gain rep with city state>
and doing so should NOT accrue 'warmonger' points unless you start conquering their cities

Yes, this would work - as I say, using the existing system a "pay the price" response followed by a war dec shouldn't accrue a diplo penalty, so that it would work the same way as the "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" response when you are accused by an AI (which leads either to a negative modifier if you break that promise within the timeframe, or a positive one if you adhere to it). There should be a system where, if you tell a civ they'll pay the price and then declare war on them, you won't get the general warnonger penalty, but if you don't declare war within the time limit you get a diplo penalty for not following through (and the loss of the 'Pledge to Protect' option and influence hit with a CS you promised to protect but didn't).

They also need to adjust the promise system where CSes are concerned - I can promise not to attack/bully one CS the AI asks me not to, and they'll count it as a broken promise if I attack or bully a different one.

and other various actionable options when diplo events occur

Because as it currently stands, the AI takes tribute or attacks a city-state under my protection, my options are:
-Do nothing, lose protection and influence
-Tell the AI they will pay, which leads to either:
---The AI has been friendly to me and says "oh we're sorry but its for the good of our country so too bad I made the right choice"
---The AI has been hostile to me and says "whatever like I care"
Neither of which has any meaning or impact whatsoever.

Friendly civs will sometimes stop spying on you if they give the "we're sorry" response. And "You'll pay for this" is important with CSes because if you look the other way you lose influence and the ability to pledge to protect for a while.

OH, and I'm damn tired of a city-state asking for help against a civ, I DoW and kill like 4-5 units and then they make peace with the CS before I even finish the quest. so lame.

I think you've misunderstood that quest. The "they would prefer your active participation" line is just flavour - the quest is to either denounce the aggressor or give the CS units. You don't get rewarded for declaring war, or for fighting a CS's enemies (and I think in G&K the "kill units belonging to Civ X" quest has been removed - I don't recall seeing it).

After that he offers me peace and all his cash, but get this - he's FRIENDLY with me for the rest of the game. Even offers a DoF the next turn.

I haven't had them offer DoFs after being beaten, but the switch to Friendly occurs because the AI is coded to see a peace deal as a trade in its favour, so you get the positive "We traded recently" modifier.

 

[Erneiz Hyde]

one thing i just realized. i havent had one RA broken yet. that's kind of amazing, that maybe a DoF is semi-serious now.

A DoF is only needed to sign the RA. As long as you don't go to war, your RA won't get canceled just because you're no longer friends. Your DoF will expire before the RA pops anyways unless you do your DoF and RA on the same turn.

 

[Pembroke]

This would be nice but, I imagine, very difficult to code. The concept of "justified" war is a difficult one even for humans in the 21st century.

It doesn't have to be justified war on objective grounds. Just like it isn't in the real world, either...

Currently the in-game AI diplo principle is that war causes it to dislike the "technical warmonger". The end result is that as game progresses the civs will hate each other more and more. There's an inbuilt tendency to a progressive and absolute souring of relationships. I think this is the actual problem that IMO makes the game less enjoyable and repeatedly causes those situations that don't make sense from the point-of-view of the human interpreted game world breaking the suspension of disbelief.

I think the solution is to change the above basic principle in the AI diplomacy. Instead of "warring sours relationships" it actually should be "warring creates factions".

For example, suppose the current dipomatic situation is:
- Civ C dislikes Civ B
- Civ D likes Civ B
- Civ E is neutral towards B

Now, if Civ A declares war on Civ B then what should happen is:
- Civ B will hate the guts of Civ A because of the DOW.
- Civ C will like A slightly more than before because A is attacking a civ that C doesn't like. No doubt B had it coming and A's aggression is understandable and justified.
- Civ D will dislike A moderately more than before because A attacked a civ that D likes. Quite clearly A is the aggressor and B the victim.
- Civ E will dislike A slightly where it once was neutral. The cause of A might be just or not but nevertheless it disrupted the peace.

I.e. when you DOW someone then you anger that civ's friends but simultaneously gain support from it's enemies. This latter part is the key to creating factions dynamically and it's currently completely missing from the game as everyone will apply a negative modifier regardless whether it makes sense or not in the situation. If a DOW could cause both negative and positive reactions depending on whom you ask then the result would be that as the game progresses and civs war against each other now and then they would start to self-organize themselves into factions. Both negative and positive relationships would get reinforced through wars. The diplomatic field would start to make sense as interpreted by the human player.

Thus, the warmonger status would be relative instead of absolute. Some civs see it as a warmonger to be opposed but others see it as a potential friend. Who likes whom would be dynamic and situational and, more to the point, it would depend on what goes on in the diplomatic arena in the game world. Towards the end of the game the factions would quite likely solidify into blocks so that a local DOW of one civ against another would easily escalate into a global world war as the friends and sympathizers would join in in a cascading DOW feast allying one side or the other i.e. just like what happened in our real world twice and what almost happened between the Western and Eastern blocks. Now, what could be more fun?

So: instead of global modifiers for the diplo actions a civ takes have each civ keep a separate tab and make them interprete the actions through the relationship matrix. It would add to the diplomatic experience and thus to the fun. Not to mention to make it more sensible as interpreted by the human player.

 

[Lyoncet]

Actually, having something of a sliding scale would be nice. The diplo hit you take (and perhaps other civs' willingness to join one side or the other) could be dependent on where the slider is. DoFs, good relations, etc. set it toward the "you're a jerk if you DoW" side, and being spied on, being antagonized, being repeatedly attacked would put you on the "just war" side. Additionally, the penalties for taking cities and even capitals could possibly be reduced depending on how much bad karma the other side accumulated.

 

[Buccaneer]

I think most of you are overthinking this or expecting too much from this (roleplaying perhaps?). There are more diplomatic-centric scenarios and games (like Diplomacy or probably the Paradox games). In Civilization, diplomacy can be safely ignored and you can still win. I've done so winning several different ways (except Time) up to Immortal. It also could require you to change your victory priorities depending on game situations.

 

[Light Cleric]

@ the OP: Most of the time the AI fails at taking the city-state out unless it's in a very vulnerable position. Even if Washington did manage it, wait for the DoF to end, denounce him, beat the crap out of him and liberate the CS for a huge influence boost.

I haven't had them offer DoFs after being beaten, but the switch to Friendly occurs because the AI is coded to see a peace deal as a trade in its favour, so you get the positive "We traded recently" modifier.

That really only lingers for about a turn then it goes away. Most of the time the "Friendly" status is just deceptive. I've had plenty of times when I will get a peace deal and then be denounced the next turn or I get DoWed by a "friendly" person shortly after a peace treaty expires.

I like nefloyd's idea, it would actually make diplomacy more interesting. While the AI has gotten better in G&K, I still notice a civ close to you will be much more schizo than one that's far away, probably having to do with "coveting your lands" and the fact that you put your second city where they wanted to put their 20th, except yours wasn't in a terrible location.

Also the insults thing really needs to go away, it's so pointless, generic and boring. Maybe if they were actually leader specific, it would be more interesting, like Monty commenting that your empire is about as lively as the thirty people he just sacrificed. But for example, on my Immortal game yesterday, Atilla DoWed me about the time I hit Gunpowder, so I counterattacked and rolled him over with a pile of Muskets and Crossbows. Like 20 turns later when I beating the crap out of Spain with Caroleans, I get a "Ah, it's good to see my favorite city-state again". Dude, I have the biggest army in the world, I took your capital, and I could crush you without a second thought, and you're talking down to me?

Also along the line of diplomacy, can we PLEASE have a freaking option to ask the AI is they're going to DoW us like they can do to us? I get really tired of Hiwatha's mohawks on my borders for 80 turns when the AI gets pissy if it sees two of my units.

 

[_Calyx]

I think the solution is to change the above basic principle in the AI diplomacy. Instead of "warring sours relationships" it actually should be "warring creates factions".

For example, suppose the current dipomatic situation is:
- Civ C dislikes Civ B
- Civ D likes Civ B
- Civ E is neutral towards B

Now, if Civ A declares war on Civ B then what should happen is:
- Civ B will hate the guts of Civ A because of the DOW.
- Civ C will like A slightly more than before because A is attacking a civ that C doesn't like. No doubt B had it coming and A's aggression is understandable and justified.
- Civ D will dislike A moderately more than before because A attacked a civ that D likes. Quite clearly A is the aggressor and B the victim.
- Civ E will dislike A slightly where it once was neutral. The cause of A might be just or not but nevertheless it disrupted the peace.

I.e. when you DOW someone then you anger that civ's friends but simultaneously gain support from it's enemies. This latter part is the key to creating factions dynamically and it's currently completely missing from the game as everyone will apply a negative modifier regardless whether it makes sense or not in the situation. If a DOW could cause both negative and positive reactions depending on whom you ask then the result would be that as the game progresses and civs war against each other now and then they would start to self-organize themselves into factions. Both negative and positive relationships would get reinforced through wars. The diplomatic field would start to make sense as interpreted by the human player.

I think this is a great idea! At the very least, it would stop the irritating situation of:

Civ A asks you to join them in war against Civ B
You declare war on Civ B
Civ A denounces you because you are a warmonger

I think this idea would significantly improve diplomacy all around.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Do you think it would be a good idea to allow your units to fight units hostile to an allied city state within its borders?

That would solve this problem and be historically accurate.

This is one of the most interesting ideas regarding this problem I've heard in a while. The creation of a peacekeeper mechanic where one could freely attack enemies of a cs in it's borders (and one adjacent tiles to prevent diplo penalties from overrunning units) would be great. This could even be mandated by votes from the UN, if the devs ever decide to make the UN more than just a voting mechanic to win the game, as in CIV.

Historically, the USSR and China both supplied North Korea and North Vietnam, even sending soldiers to fight directly against us. But we weren't at war with the USSR and China even if the lines got blurrry.

I guess defending a CS should have a negative diplo hit against the civ you are fighting, but only with that civ and it shouldn't be a big hit. You are sticking up for an ally or making good on a pledge after all and as long as you don't go on a rampage and start taking cities you shouldn't be labled a warmonger by anyone - even the civ you are combating. This system could work if you could attack CS enemies within/near it's borders but the option to attack CS enemies far from the borders would force you to DOW, as any attack does now.

 

[bcaiko]

I've come to realize that almost every post I was going to quote for agreement comes from nefloyd. Can I be your friend? haha.

I find peace treaties to be very annoying: sometimes, the AI will suddenly give you everything it has for peace - at other times, it won't make peace for thousands of years even though it has never been a threat to your cities. If an AI agrees to give you 5 gold for peace, and you declare war on the same AI 3,000 years later, nobody will give you anything for peace ever again, even if it means they will be wiped out.

THIS. This is the most infuriating thing about diplomacy. When it comes to peace treaties, the AI can only play to the extremes ("I'll give you EVERYTHING!!" or "You get nothing even though I'm doomed next turn!"). There are no shades of grey in deals. And, as nefloyd points out, the current calculations can cause the AI to overvalue its position (though to be fair, the AI doesn't know *everything* about you and can't take everything you *could* do into consideration).

I hate it when the AI DOW's city-states. Particularly my allies. There should be ZERO diplomatic penalty for defending a CS you are allied with.

Agreed. Arguably, there should be a penalty of some kind for refusing to protect a City-State that's "under your protection."

I've done threads before on the "fakery of choice" (a very choice phrase!) when it comes to City-State protection. Just endlessly spam, "You'll pay for this in time..." even though they never will. Nothing forces your hand.

The options nefloyd came up with would be a nice fix, IMHO.

****

In the end, I think all players can agree, some sort of casusbelli mechanic for war and/or a sliding scale for the warmongering diplomatic penalty needs to be implemented.

 

[Smokeybear]

Perhaps the AI is aware that if you devour them entirley the rest of the world will label you a warmonger ?

Hmmm, lets see... choices, choices... should I accept the human player's rather surprisingly magnanimous last-minute peace offer and go on existing? Or should I die like a senseless fool just so the human player can get a diplo hit after I'm gone? What to do, what to do......

 

[Greasy Dave]

Slightly Off topic - but given teh criticism diplomacy is coming in for in this thread, I'd thought I'd stick my nose in.

I've only had time to play 2 games of G and K - if they had not screwed up the game's end of turn times that number might have been slightly higher - and in both games I've found diplomacy to be flexible, responsive and dare I say it, even enthralling.

First was an immortal game as the Mayan, where i went a warmongering, and civs behaved accordingly. Diplomacy was fairly basic because I managed to annoy everyone on my continent and then do the same for the civs on the neighbouring continents.

The second was a deity game as Korea, where I tried to finesse the diplomacy more carefully and play non-aggressively. On average I had 4-5 DOF's running constantly throughout the game. I was able to sign 4-5 RA's every 30 turns. I had to be careful about who I annoyed and who I didn't annoy, which CS's to ally with so as not to annoy a potential friend etc. and be a little more thoughtful about who had a DOF with who, and who I'd get brownie points from for DOFing with their ally etc. It was fairly simple to get the desired effect. It required just the right amount of thought about modifiers, such that it didn't consume my every decision, but I was aware of it in the background when making decisions. Diplomacy is definitely more responsive than it was in vanilla. It can be exploited - as the OP showed - but then if you play to exploit, why play? I like it alot. I like the fact that I chose to play in a certain way and only had two wars the whole game and was able to get so many sustainable DOF's. I like the fact, that if I had decided to play in a different way, as warmonger, it would have thrown up different kinds of problems and choices - which would have been equally engaging.

Diplomacy has definitely improved.