The most infuriating diplomacy fails in G&K

[Smokeybear]

Yes, sure, I have treated my CS allies that way too, feeling protective and so on. It's just that it doesn't infuriate me when another civ either DoW-s them or steals them. I take that as a very natural behavior. And I can't really expect that for that offense I should be allowed to DoW them without a diplo hit from the others (and due to that I have much less problems with diplomacy in civ)

It doesn't 'infuriate' me either. It just causes me to coldly and efficiently kick their dumb asses. Also a very natural and calculated behavior.

 

[Lakissov]

It doesn't 'infuriate' me either. It just causes me to coldly and efficiently kick their dumb asses.

Exactly! That's what they deserve

The main thing is to make some friends an enemies prior to that. If you don't then you can really piss off the world, and get the impression that it's being unfair towards you (like the OP apparently did).

 

[cairnsy44]

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. I really wish we had more ability to voice our stance to the AI and the options listed above make perfect sense. It seems like G&K has taken some steps in the right direction but needs to take it further.

 

[cairnsy44]

As for city state politics, I can't agree with the OP's point of view. The city state you're allied with isn't an extension of your empire. You can't really claim that a war against a civ to protect a city state is a just thing. Maybe that city state is blocking that civ's way to expansion, or maybe it holds some important resources, or maybe the AI just sees some profit in it. This is not your territory, and thinking that it is merely shows you as an imperialistic civ. If you DoW another civ over it, then it's fair that you get the penalty in the eyes of the world.

Kinda sounds like WW1. Germany getting the warmonger hate with France and England for siding with its ally, Austria-Hungary.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I agree with what has been said by both sides here.

You really should get positive credit for going to war sometimes. On the lines of the proposed changes - meaningful protection warnings to the AI, and faction-based attitudes around DOWs - those would be great, and add to immersion just like was said.

And really, why would the AI want relations with a civ (you) who never stood behind its promises with war? The AI knows war is a tool and should approve of its use in certain situations. It should penalize wimps.

The other thing that shows CIV's diplo flaws is that the current system turns the peace-lovers into jerks. Siam and Gandhi. Biggest jerks in the game. What ends up happening is that they punish you every game for beating the aggressor that tried to conquer you for weakness, and then end up denouncing and DOWing you later. What happens every game is that Siam and Gandhi side with aggressors against the weak. They are broken. Their low 'Forgive Warmongering' trait does not work correctly with the wide blanket of what counts as warmongering.

But,

Overall the diplomacy is engaging and mostly functional purely from a gameplay (not immersion) perspective. Just as others have said, it is a tool that you can use and manipulate smartly, and that adds to the fun of the game. This is demo'd by the OP's scenario.

In that scenario, the OP should make sure:

-Never to DOF with Washington in the first place. Same as Ghenghis, Washington sucks at diplomacy and is going to be hated by everyone in the long run.

-When you discover a Friend is going to become a future foe (by attacking your CS ally), start work on building an alliance against them. Steps in your example would be:
1: pledge protection with your CS just to speed up relationship breakdown
2: while relationship breakdown is on the burner, send your units to stand around the CS capital if possible. Don't DOW. Just have the stand around. Washington can't collect the city if he can't get a melee in. Or, if you can't save your CS with the standing trick, just plan on liberating later. (Especially if you are eying a diplo win, liberations opportunities are gifts.) Save gold to flop over Washington's allied CSs when the moment is right, you don't want to war them too.
3: By the time your DOF is about to expire, the stability-fixated AIs should be denouncing Washington already. Or, there should be a moment when you can safely denounce, and the other AIs will follow your lead (usually need to wait until DOF expiry to pull that off).

-in the long-run Washington is unpopular and you can DOF and conquer Washington without souring your other relationships.

See? It is engaging and functional gameplay.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Diplo fail:

I had promised Babylon not to settle or expand near him. We were separated by the dutch and also our nearest cities were across a narrow ocean. I had bought a few tiles on a peninsula that was near his city, but otherwise we had no touching borders (this was before I made the promise, actually this land purchase prompted the promise).

Babylon and the Dutch DoW at the same time. After 300 brutal years of intense warfare, I captured all of Denmark. I did not take any Babylonian cities or even a single tile of their land. But now we bordered each other as I possesed Denmark.

Babylon and I make peace. Nebuchadnezzer came to me the very next turn and says "I see you broke your promise not to settle or expand near me".

WTH
You declared war, not me. I didn't take any of your land, just took land from someone else who attacked me. Plus, any promises I made to you go out the door when YOU ATTACK ME.

 

[bcaiko]

Plus, any promises I made to you go out the door when YOU ATTACK ME.

Hmmm...that does seem to be an oversight in the diplomacy mechanic.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hmmm...that does seem to be an oversight in the diplomacy mechanic.

This was the first time it happened to me, but I think I remember reading that similar situations occur with other diplomatic deals and/or trades when a war breaks out.

 

[bayes]

The only thing that keeps the AI allied with you is common enemies in my experience.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

I went converting Egypt to the holy faith of Pastafarianism with my great prophet when they asked me to stop. That's reasonable, but why cant I do that?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I went converting Egypt to the holy faith of Pastafarianism with my great prophet when they asked me to stop. That's reasonable, but why cant I do that?

Oh yeah. There are about 5,000 threads of people being upset that they can't tell the AI to stop proselytizing or to move their soldiers from the border.

 

[El Caballerion]

I really think different CIVS should emphasize different diplomatic factors, especially with religion. Isabella should DOW you immediately if you convert one of her cities, whereas a CIV like Sweden probably wouldn't care.

 

[PhilBowles]

I really think different CIVS should emphasize different diplomatic factors, especially with religion. Isabella should DOW you immediately if you convert one of her cities, whereas a CIV like Sweden probably wouldn't care.

They do, and Isabella often does.

The only thing that keeps the AI allied with you is common enemies in my experience.

It's not hard to create a common enemy if you don't have one to begin with. Though I've found more peaceful accommodation with civs before now - in my last game I did indeed draw Babylon into my war with the Ottomans (and Austria adopted my enemies, along with nearly everyone else, as her own), but they weren't particularly devoted to war with Suleiman. I retained alliances with Arabia and China in the absence of common enemies (and in Arabia's case, while being at permanent war with their Turkish friends), although having people we could both denounce helped.

The most important thing in keeping alliances going is to be friendly with your friend's friends (although, as with Harun in that last game - who did at one time plan to invade me until I denounced his enemy to make him happy - you can be hostile to some of their friends if you like the others and are nice enough to them).

 

[ahawk]

The lack of mutual victory or any incentive to work to get close to another Civ is one of the main things I can't take. In real life, leaders are erratic, or will pull some of the stunts in the game. But mutual victory is what I really miss, because it makes every game a free-for-all unless I choose to play with locked teams, which isn't very fun or workable unless you're playing multiplayer.

I also agree with nefloyd that the AI just doesn't compute anything other than the units you've already made when it comes to choosing to go to war. It shouldn't be that hard for the AI to be programmed to estimate your hammers/gold per turn based on what turn the game is in and how many cities you have. With just those basic variables, the AI could be programmed to assume you have a pre-set range of hammer/gold values based on, again, your size, population, and the turn the game's in. It might add to turn-end time, sure. But that's one of the few things I wouldn't mind adding to turn-end delays, because it's always ridiculous that someone attacks me, I rush buy 5 to 10 units that are a tech or two ahead of my attacker, and end up having the attacker offer peace with luxuries to me when all I did was defend myself and suddenly have more standing units than the attacker.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Diplo fail:

I had promised Babylon not to settle or expand near him. We were separated by the dutch and also our nearest cities were across a narrow ocean. I had bought a few tiles on a peninsula that was near his city, but otherwise we had no touching borders (this was before I made the promise, actually this land purchase prompted the promise).

Babylon and the Dutch DoW at the same time. After 300 brutal years of intense warfare, I captured all of Denmark. I did not take any Babylonian cities or even a single tile of their land. But now we bordered each other as I possesed Denmark.

Babylon and I make peace. Nebuchadnezzer came to me the very next turn and says "I see you broke your promise not to settle or expand near me".

WTH
You declared war, not me. I didn't take any of your land, just took land from someone else who attacked me. Plus, any promises I made to you go out the door when YOU ATTACK ME.

Hmmm...that does seem to be an oversight in the diplomacy mechanic.

Hilarious update:
So after we made peace, I decided that 'all your bases are belong to us' and decided to provoke Babylon into another war. I plopped down citadels around his capital, making it a virtual ghost town. He must have been scared of my army as he never DoW'd me after this provacation and I eventually got tired of waiting and attacked.

I took his capital and another city right away. A few turns later I got a notification:
A long time has passed since you promised to not expand near Babylon. You may considered your promise fufilled.

 

[Halcyan2]

Disagree with you on all points.

a) The city state you're allied with is not an extension of your empire, but it is your friend and partner. If it is attacked by an agressor (and all the other AI civs are agressors if they attack a CS, since CS's aren't expansionist warmongers), you have a right, and an expectation by that CS, to help defend them. You don't just yawn and let your friends get rolled over by any agressor civ that wanders by, for any kind of lame-arsed Mussolini reasons. To defend them in this situation is a completely just thing to do.

b) Selfish AI 'reasons' for attacking a CS: It's in the way of their expansion? And that expansion is more 'just' than your right to defend your friend from being destroyed in the name of selfish AI expansionism? Some kind of moral system you go by, there. Maybe it holds some important resources the agressor civ wants? Maybe the agressor just sees 'some profit in it'? Haha. And you're accusing the PLAYER of imperialism by defending them? <shakes head> If the AI wants to outbid me for their friendship, or even buy them out (Austria), so be it. But if they want to brutally conquer a friend who is under my protection, I have every right and even a duty to stop them. End of story.

The concept of "war" is tricky since it has changed over time.

In modern times, a war declaration is a big deal and it is unlikely to happen over a city state. Can you imagine the U.S. (or other country) actually declaring war on Russia after its aggression towards Chechnya or over China's treatment of Tibet? You might see plenty of denouncements, but outright war?

Alternatively, while Russia might grumble about growing U.S./E.U. influence over Eastern European FSR's and the U.S. might be alarmed that China is outspending them in influence in Africa and Asia, world sentiment would not be very favorable towards a declaration of war on such grounds.

As a result, I think it's understandable that the AI's would not consider a DoW due to city state treatment (even aggression) to necessarily be justifiable.

Some rarer examples may be Taiwan, which the U.S. has essentially "Pledged to Protect." There is a larger chance (though certainly not guaranteed) of war between the U.S. and China if China were to attack Taiwan. Or if you look at World War I, it started after an arguably justified attack on a city state. If a city state randomly killed one of my Great People units, then I'd be pissed. Russia declared war partly due to Austrian attacking the "city state" of Serbia. The U.K. got involved largely because of the invasion of the "city state" Belgium (Germany needed to go through Belgium to get to France).

And if you think we treat the city-states like property, we're nothing compared to the AI. In my last game Atilla had conquered Valletta(which led to the world basically hating him) Spain took it back but did not liberate it. I liberated it, Spain had enough Tercios to re-take it(It only had like 19 defense at this point) and then I re-took it again. I ended up with like 270-something influence because I liberated them twice. What happens next? Ethiopia gets on me about Valletta being in their "sphere of influence". He had done literally squat for them all game long and treats them like they're his. The AI complains at you all the time for buying CS that they haven't touched the entire game, claiming its "their" city-state.

In Civ V, spheres of influence seem predominantly geographically based.

Analogies might be the historical U.S. sphere of influence over Central/South America. Even though the U.S. doesn't have good relations with the "city state" of Cuba, I can still see them sending a similar diplomatic message for European/Asian countries that get too friendly with Cuba (or Mexico or Panama). In recent years, China has been looking outward more towards Asia as its sphere of influence, so it is more commonly sending similar diplomatic messages to the U.S. (even though the U.S. has maintained CS alliances with some of those city states for quite some time).

-----------------------------------------------------

The more I think about it, I really do think the Civ V diplomatic system actually mirrors real world international politics rather well. Even a lot of the "flaws" that people complain about are often flaws that exist within the existing political system itself.

 

[Ekmek]

The first 8 posts sound like people want a predictable AI. If they did that people would claim that the AI is predictable and boring.

I see the point. On one side people want a game where they can manage and shape the AI based on your deals like you are managing and shaping terrain. Kind of like a builder game by picking diplomacy choices.

ut I don't think civ5 went that route - it looks like they are trying to have an AI that plays like another player. it has goals and interestes of its own and when your interests overlap/compete with the AI their behavior will change.

They also apparently wanted and backstabbing feature to make the game interesting so the AI will pretend to be friendly but really plot against. I think this has been the most convoluted part of the AI. On the one hand humans do it to the computers all the time but really, really hate it when it happens to them. not having it gives an exploit to humans who wil use it often.

I'm kind of torn on that one - the back stabbing feels like broken AI maybe if they handled it better by having your foreign advisor say that they think they arefaking might be better.

 

[Halcyan2]

The first 8 posts sound like people want a predictable AI. If they did that people would claim that the AI is predictable and boring.

I find it interesting that a lot of the common complaints about Civ IV (diplomacy with AI being too predictable, AI's not playing to win) have been completely reversed yet people are now complaining about those very things in Civ V. Almost feels like some people want a reversion back to the Civ IV model....

I see the point. On one side people want a game where they can manage and shape the AI based on your deals like you are managing and shaping terrain. Kind of like a builder game by picking diplomacy choices.

My point is that I feel like I already can manage and shape the AI to a large degree (though not perfectly) through diplomatic choices.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The more I think about it, I really do think the Civ V diplomatic system actually mirrors real world international politics rather well. Even a lot of the "flaws" that people complain about are often flaws that exist within the existing political system itself.

Oh for sure. Since G&K came out I really have felt this game comes pretty close to how the world works - better than past Civ games by a mile in fact. My whinning (and that of a lot of other people) are over (sometimes severe) imbalances in the system, not the system itself per se. Or when the system simply doesn't work as intended. Read my above post in this thread about a hilarious situation with Babylon for an example.

Edit: @halcyan2's above post
I do not miss CIV diplomacy at all and much prefer CiV diplomacy. I do wish you could form permanent alliances though so you can worry less about being denounced by a close ally.

 

[ahawk]

I find it interesting that a lot of the common complaints about Civ IV (diplomacy with AI being too predictable, AI's not playing to win) have been completely reversed yet people are now complaining about those very things in Civ V. Almost feels like some people want a reversion back to the Civ IV model....


My point is that I feel like I already can manage and shape the AI to a large degree (though not perfectly) through diplomatic choices.

I actually like the current model. My main complaint is that, as I said earlier, there's no mutual victory anymore. I think the AI playing to win is a good thing, but it'd just be a little more interesting if they could play to win by allying me or by allying another AI.

The most immersion-breaking things are relatively small details that could probably be simply fixed. My favorite is when I pop a goodie-hut and turn my opening warrior into a spearman. If I do this at a time when an AI has lost his opening warrior to barbarians or whatever, I'll sometimes have that AI as 'Afraid' of me and my might. This is the only time I actually laugh when playing the game. Afraid of me in turn 15? Because I own a single spearman? I think they should not even bother starting the diplomacy modifiers until turn 30 or 50 maybe (with the only exception being for major things... like DoW).