The one thing I really want to see in CIV.

[BigBirdZ28]

Been playing Civ since the verrrrry first days of the original CIV. It's great, I'm a die hardfan. Sad to say that if Civ 5 is absolute junk & civ 6 is worse than simcity societies (man I hate that game), I would still buy Civ7 & it would be like every entry in the entire series was a God send & I would not complain.

There is one thing that is consistently missing from every single Civ game though & that's diplomacy. I'm not talking about trade here & there or about getting a country to declare war for either a pittance or refusing a game breaking sum of money to declare war on the weakest, most hated state in the game.

I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that is a game all in it's own, we need a new resource in the game, similar to espionage I suppose: Diplomatic pressure.

Now this is the first time I put some of my thoughts into words & think them through, so there is definitely a lot that I want to say but have not come round to, but at least lets start with a few scenarios which will mostly be civ 3 or 4 blind.

When I'm the only superpower in the game, with 200+ nukes and number 2 has only 3 nukes & 1/5th the military power, number #4 should not outright refuse a demand to stop fighting a war. Nor should I be refused from even offering them things unless it's pure gold.

I don't like fighting wars as much as I like knowing I can win. It's like having a huge engine under the bonnet, knowing you can rip apart any other car on the roads, but being content with the sound of a heavy cam lope at the light & a tamed roar on the highway.

Which brings me to this. Why can't I threaten civs with consequences? Stop producing nukes or I'll put a sub full of nukes SOMEWHERE in your civ. Stop sending spies against us or we will blockade 3 of your major port cities. You cant do this in the game without declaring war. Not all wars have to be completely for conquest. Sometimes I want to fight a limited war to take over 1 island next to me, sometimes I just want to capture, confiscate or destroy enemy units that are near my land and suffer diplomatic consequences or whatever without having to go to complete war *immediately*. Whatever happened to the ramping up of tensions??

Open borders in Civ4 is terrible/great. On the one hand you can gain so much with it, on the other hand it's a one time deal as it can only be signed at the beginning of the game before the civ hates you. Whats up with that? Do I really have to declare war with a tiny pathetic civ because it still holds a grudge that I attacked an allied civ (that turned on them) 300 years ago? I cant even restrict the open borders to non military units only

How about subversion, that was great stuff in Civ 2 or was it 3? We could go in & destabilize a city, well cant I help a friend stablize one of his cities, or send a team of workers to help him out, without losing the workers!! Military aid is so weak in these games, it doesn't even register that I just planted 30 mech inf into a civ's main cities & then gave them to him. Half of them get disbanded without even fighting a proxy war or even saying, thanks for 30 of the most modern units in the game, we would like to give you something, ANYTHING, in return.

I'd also like to be able to setup separate military organizations, things like NATO that all the nations in my alliance could contribute to either with units or cash. I dont know how this would work out in great detail, but if I or one of my vassals creates a new city then I want the weak vassal to be able to pull & control some of my units that are in this "share pool" to reinforce his city.

These are the kinds of things a board game could never achieve. In short we need a plethora of non military options, to help & to hinder friends & enemies. Enemies should never refuse to talk to you.

 

[Camikaze]

I completely agree that diplomacy should have far greater scope, and should definitely include more options for pressuring civs and communicating displeasure at particular things without necessitating a war. Or even allowing for limited use of armed force without a full scale war. The problem is, however, that it's hard to apply a realistic diplomatic system to an unrealistic scenario. I mean, sure, in the real world, countries pressure other countries and whatnot, but in the real world, neither country is hell bent on complete domination and victory, and has more concern for things that are not represented in the game, and can not be represented in the game. For instance, if you have a powerful civ and a weak civ in the real world, there is a limit to what the powerful civ can demand of the weak civ, before diplomatic and domestic pressures force them to stop demanding more. In Civ, there is no such constraint; there is no adequate mechanism to stop you from doing whatever you like to the weak civ, with the one sole goal of victory in mind. So it's not really possible to implement a realistic diplomatic system, due to the inordinate number of parameters under which a realistic diplomatic system would need to work. A system where stronger civs could demand things of weaker civs without any drawback would be subject to great abuse.

 

[Naokaukodem]

When I'm the only superpower in the game, with 200+ nukes and number 2 has only 3 nukes & 1/5th the military power, number #4 should not outright refuse a demand to stop fighting a war. Nor should I be refused from even offering them things unless it's pure gold.

I don't think the number of nukes you have should determine solely if a weak civ should obey to you. Shouldn't even be a factor. If you are so powerfull then invade them, after all that's the purpose of the game.

Which brings me to this. Why can't I threaten civs with consequences? Stop producing nukes or I'll put a sub full of nukes SOMEWHERE in your civ.

You have to invade the civ in order to them to stop building nukes. Like it was wrongly done in Iraq with USA. You can't just order things and being upraised by a finger snap.

Stop sending spies against us or we will blockade 3 of your major port cities.

BtS spies are ed. I don't play BtS anymore partly because of spies. They are so annoying...

You cant do this in the game without declaring war.

Then declare war.

Not all wars have to be completely for conquest. Sometimes I want to fight a limited war to take over 1 island next to me, sometimes I just want to capture, confiscate or destroy enemy units that are near my land and suffer diplomatic consequences or whatever without having to go to complete war *immediately*.

Not every AI will fight a grand scale war, especially if they do not have the units. It happened to me several times when we are at war, but no one send units. (mostly because the dumb AI declared war with no army)

Do I really have to declare war with a tiny pathetic civ because it still holds a grudge that I attacked an allied civ (that turned on them) 300 years ago?

Yes that sucks. Especially when the AI notion of like/dislike is complete , like "you have the same/a different religion as me", which have really NOTHING to do with strategy.

How about subversion, that was great stuff in Civ 2 or was it 3? We could go in & destabilize a city, well cant I help a friend stablize one of his cities, or send a team of workers to help him out, without losing the workers!! Military aid is so weak in these games, it doesn't even register that I just planted 30 mech inf into a civ's main cities & then gave them to him. Half of them get disbanded without even fighting a proxy war or even saying, thanks for 30 of the most modern units in the game, we would like to give you something, ANYTHING, in return.

I agree that giving units should be recognized by AIs. But on the other hand, you don't need it, considering Civ is a game and that you want to win it despite all the other civs. If you give units, there's a purpose, like weakening a given civ. I did it last game, Frederick started to have a high GNP, then another AI declared war on him. Good! I gave a whole stack of Cavalry to that civ and Frederick was weakened. Later, 2 other civs declared war on him, I gave him some modern armors and he survived, preventing the other civs to become too powerfull. That's only strategy!

Enemies should never refuse to talk to you.

I recon it is their fair right. However, to be automatic and systematic, is a thing I don't like either. Just like the "no matter we will crush you!" silly behavior.

Civ4 AIs are way too much emotive. I hate that. That is silly.

 

[frekk]

When I'm the only superpower in the game, with 200+ nukes and number 2 has only 3 nukes & 1/5th the military power, number #4 should not outright refuse a demand to stop fighting a war. Nor should I be refused from even offering them things unless it's pure gold.

I don't know ... in the real world, small countries with few or no supporters thumb their nose at superpowers regularly. The ones that are always pliant are those that find themselves in the economic, political, or cultural orbit of the power in question. Those that have fewer such ties are the ones that regularly ignore 'suggestions'.

I don't like fighting wars as much as I like knowing I can win. It's like having a huge engine under the bonnet, knowing you can rip apart any other car on the roads, but being content with the sound of a heavy cam lope at the light & a tamed roar on the highway.

To each their own I guess. I pretty much stop playing once the game is a foregone conclusion; the rest is just pushing units about the map, which bores me. I like the tension, the challenge. The hard-won victory.

Why can't I threaten civs with consequences? Stop producing nukes or I'll put a sub full of nukes SOMEWHERE in your civ. Stop sending spies against us or we will blockade 3 of your major port cities. You cant do this in the game without declaring war.

Well, usually, in the real world, consequences short of war tend to be unspecified until they happen. "We will take measures" etc. Plus it would be difficult to cover all the things you might do. But I see what you're getting at and I agree, there should be actions short of war that you can perform. Probably all of them should carry a risk of war, but not necessarily an automatic chance.

Maybe there should be a state somewhere between war and detente ... one in which you can attack units, violate territory, blockade and so forth, you just can't actually take any cities.

Open borders in Civ4 is terrible/great. On the one hand you can gain so much with it, on the other hand it's a one time deal as it can only be signed at the beginning of the game before the civ hates you. Whats up with that? Do I really have to declare war with a tiny pathetic civ because it still holds a grudge that I attacked an allied civ (that turned on them) 300 years ago?

Well ... on the one hand, we can look at the partnership between the UK and USA and say that this isn't really realistic, because nations can and do forget their differences. On the other hand, most of the conflicts in this world are driven by centuries-old history that doesn't even make any sense anymore, so it does reflect an aspect of reality.

 

[Camikaze]

Maybe there should be a state somewhere between war and detente ... one in which you can attack units, violate territory, blockade and so forth, you just can't actually take any cities.

There should be multiple types of war. Border wars, I reckon, should be the first to be implemented. You can have a little skirmish without setting off a full blown total war. Then there can be military action without the commitment to a full scale war (unless the other side responds), such as bombing an improvement, or something. This is a crucial step in fixing diplomacy, IMO.

 

[King Kalmah]

There should be multiple types of war. Border wars, I reckon, should be the first to be implemented. You can have a little skirmish without setting off a full blown total war. Then there can be military action without the commitment to a full scale war (unless the other side responds), such as bombing an improvement, or something. This is a crucial step in fixing diplomacy, IMO.

I'm not sure about that simply because many nations view their land as their land and usaully don't like their nieghbors bombing their farms or whatnot...

It'd be like Mexico started bombing our farms or our improvements...

would America just send in a small force?

probably if the bombing was done by the cartels,but if it was done by Mexico thats an act of war....

Anyway the majority of countries don't sit by unless they have no power or influence in the region they live in....

 

[Sonnybonds]

play MP games and there s much beter diplomacy and they are much more fun the play.

 

[frekk]

Anyway the majority of countries don't sit by unless they have no power or influence in the region they live in....

Border skirmishes are actually pretty common. Pakistan and India do it all the time, without starting a full-blown war, and they certainly have power and influence - they're both nuclear powers.

Even more powerful rivals have done it. The USSR and Communist China spilled blood over borders, without escalating to all-out war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

 

[Camikaze]

I'm not sure about that simply because many nations view their land as their land and usaully don't like their nieghbors bombing their farms or whatnot...

It'd be like Mexico started bombing our farms or our improvements...

would America just send in a small force?

probably if the bombing was done by the cartels,but if it was done by Mexico thats an act of war....

Anyway the majority of countries don't sit by unless they have no power or influence in the region they live in....

Well of course if you initiated any military action, the opposing side would have the option of retaliating to any extent possible. But let's look at another modern day example, and an actual realistic one. Say Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities. This is military action against Iran, but it does not have to represent a full scale war. Iran would have the choice to respond, but it is entirely conceivable, and entirely realistic, that they'd just shake their fists at Israel and get quite angry at them. But this option is completely missing from Civ, even though there have been an absolute multitude of such circumstances throughout history.

See this thread for some further discussion.

 

[Vatras]

I can understand the OP's position: he wants several shades of grey between white and black when it comes to conflict, and more involved diplomacy.

I would like such things to be present too, but I doubt they will implement them, as I imagine that to be very hard to program or balance. For example, being a superpower can affect diplomatic negotiations, but there is no uniform pattern in our world, which you could program. Take 1938, when Germany demanded parts of Czechoslowakia, and under threat of invasion, the european powers signed them over the Sudetenland. And then look at the conflict between Iran and the western powers about his nuclear program, which doesn't look as if the irani would give in. Those examples show, that the response of a nation to a stronger one varies a lot, which is hard to simulate. Here factors in history, cultural similarities/differences, religion and current alliances/standing of a nation in it's part of the world, which is a bit much for a casual game.

Civ evaluates such factors and the outcome determines the nations view of you, but I think the balance of those factors should be a bit adjusted (relations go too easily downhill, and it is too difficult to improve them), if nothing else is done.

 

[Turkey_ballz]

Another example is the Falklands_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

It does make sense and I think it could add something to the game.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

BtS spies are ****ed. I don't play BtS anymore partly because of spies. They are so annoying...

Then just do a custom game and disable espionage.

 

[Ahriman]

That didn't work so well, because disabling espionage messed up culture, because all EPs were converted to culture.

 

[LeHam]

Been playing Civ since the verrrrry first days of the original CIV. It's great, I'm a die hardfan. Sad to say that if Civ 5 is absolute junk & civ 6 is worse than simcity societies (man I hate that game), I would still buy Civ7 & it would be like every entry in the entire series was a God send & I would not complain.

There is one thing that is consistently missing from every single Civ game though & that's diplomacy. I'm not talking about trade here & there or about getting a country to declare war for either a pittance or refusing a game breaking sum of money to declare war on the weakest, most hated state in the game.

I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that is a game all in it's own, we need a new resource in the game, similar to espionage I suppose: Diplomatic pressure.

Now this is the first time I put some of my thoughts into words & think them through, so there is definitely a lot that I want to say but have not come round to, but at least lets start with a few scenarios which will mostly be civ 3 or 4 blind.

When I'm the only superpower in the game, with 200+ nukes and number 2 has only 3 nukes & 1/5th the military power, number #4 should not outright refuse a demand to stop fighting a war. Nor should I be refused from even offering them things unless it's pure gold.

I don't like fighting wars as much as I like knowing I can win. It's like having a huge engine under the bonnet, knowing you can rip apart any other car on the roads, but being content with the sound of a heavy cam lope at the light & a tamed roar on the highway.

Which brings me to this. Why can't I threaten civs with consequences? Stop producing nukes or I'll put a sub full of nukes SOMEWHERE in your civ. Stop sending spies against us or we will blockade 3 of your major port cities. You cant do this in the game without declaring war. Not all wars have to be completely for conquest. Sometimes I want to fight a limited war to take over 1 island next to me, sometimes I just want to capture, confiscate or destroy enemy units that are near my land and suffer diplomatic consequences or whatever without having to go to complete war *immediately*. Whatever happened to the ramping up of tensions??

Open borders in Civ4 is terrible/great. On the one hand you can gain so much with it, on the other hand it's a one time deal as it can only be signed at the beginning of the game before the civ hates you. Whats up with that? Do I really have to declare war with a tiny pathetic civ because it still holds a grudge that I attacked an allied civ (that turned on them) 300 years ago? I cant even restrict the open borders to non military units only

How about subversion, that was great stuff in Civ 2 or was it 3? We could go in & destabilize a city, well cant I help a friend stablize one of his cities, or send a team of workers to help him out, without losing the workers!! Military aid is so weak in these games, it doesn't even register that I just planted 30 mech inf into a civ's main cities & then gave them to him. Half of them get disbanded without even fighting a proxy war or even saying, thanks for 30 of the most modern units in the game, we would like to give you something, ANYTHING, in return.

I'd also like to be able to setup separate military organizations, things like NATO that all the nations in my alliance could contribute to either with units or cash. I dont know how this would work out in great detail, but if I or one of my vassals creates a new city then I want the weak vassal to be able to pull & control some of my units that are in this "share pool" to reinforce his city.

These are the kinds of things a board game could never achieve. In short we need a plethora of non military options, to help & to hinder friends & enemies. Enemies should never refuse to talk to you.

THIS MAN IS A GENIUS

YES! It would be very nice if Diplomacy was a "game in itself." I'm currently "beta-testing" a board game I made--in terms of Diplomacy, it's right on par with CivIV. CivIV Diplomacy . . . is the same as a board game.

Look, the reason people play a computer game instead of, say, a board game, is because a computer can do things non-electronic entertainment can't. The fact that Diplomacy in CivIV is so bare-bones really is saddening--if we had better diplomacy, players wouldn't feel as much of an urge to go to war in order to actually have fun, and the game overall would improve.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, think it should be mentioned again--having certain diplomatic options blocked because a civ "doesn't like you enough," or, "we aren't willing to trade this," makes no sense. meanwhile, the AI will senselessly ask you for more and more gifts/tribute, and you will suffer a negative diplo bonus if you refuse. It's giving the AI an excuse to hate you. It should be done away with.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

I agree that diplomacy is a rip-off. The enemy refuses to talk to you? Even if you declare war on Gandhi and nuke all his cities, he won't talk to you and beg for peace. And how come they're not willing to give me some things or even suggest offering them? I mean, everyone will give everything up if what they get back is better. Anyone would give up their very identity if they were offered something so overwhelmingly awesome. It just takes a lot of work.

 

[mjs0]

Oh, yeah, think it should be mentioned again--having certain diplomatic options blocked because a civ "doesn't like you enough," or, "we aren't willing to trade this," makes no sense.

I couldn't disagree more with this. The current implementation is a great example of how to implement a good UI. If there is nothing useful to be achieved by selecting an option or launching a new dialog window then disable that option. This is just saving you the time of going into the dialog and being rejected by letting you know the result preemptively

meanwhile, the AI will senselessly ask you for more and more gifts/tribute, and you will suffer a negative diplo bonus if you refuse. It's giving the AI an excuse to hate you. It should be done away with.

Whilst I have some more sympathy with this because it can get annoying the fact of the matter is the mechanic is working well. If you are going to refuse the AIs request it should affect its opinion of you. The reverse situation is you being the blocked items and getting frustrated with the AI. I'm not sure how they could make this work more smoothly somehow the AI has to learn that you are rejecting its request...I guess it could allow you to flag items to block and let the AI get annoyed just because they are blocked but then you lack the information to know why the AI now hates you a little more and you have to remember to unblock them later.

No...I am quite happy with the way it is and would be upset if it changed.

Now if you think the requests the AI makes are unreasonable, or that it should be more open to talking and making certain deals then perhaps the way the AI sets its expectations and evaluates what requests to make and allow should be modified, but the UI for the interaction is not at fault.

 

[Ahriman]

If there is nothing useful to be achieved by selecting an option or launching a new dialog window then disable that option. This is just saving you the time of going into the dialog and being rejected by letting you know the result preemptively

Absolutely. I really like the Galciv diplomacy UI too, which automatically lets you see how much the AI values various things, so that you can get a "fair" deal every time. You can do this to some extent in Civ with what do you want for X/what would you give me for X, but not exactly.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

If there is nothing useful to be achieved by selecting an option or launching a new dialog window then disable that option. This is just saving you the time of going into the dialog and being rejected by letting you know the result preemptively

I agree with you, but this isn't even being questioned and you've totally missed the point.

The main problem is when you are offering 30,000 gold and many many resources, technologies and whatever for a simple exchange, LIKE OPEN BORDERS, you just cant do it because the AI simply will not discuss it over because they have a silly little grudge that an overwhelming amount of tribute cannot over come.

It's too much about how much the civ "likes you" (but even that is not accurate) and not at all about what you're offering.

These civs woun't even capitulate when they are down to their last city because the they woun't bother talking to you. Come on, why does the game have to be slanted in the much less fun & satisfying direction when it could be slanted towards something so much more enjoyable?

And it's even worse when asking for open borders. I've never been able to sign a late game open borders agreement. I play very long, modern era games with small & proxy wars.

Look how Russia just strong armed a whole country into accepting their demands. Russia owned Ukraine not through tanks, but through threat of war, economic incentives, and probably a tremendous amount of bribery.

 

[mjs0]

I agree with you, but this isn't even being questioned and you've totally missed the point.

The main problem is when you are offering 30,000 gold and many many resources, technologies and whatever for a simple exchange, LIKE OPEN BORDERS, you just cant do it because the AI simply will not discuss it over because they have a silly little grudge that an overwhelming amount of tribute cannot over come.

It's too much about how much the civ "likes you" (but even that is not accurate) and not at all about what you're offering.

These civs woun't even capitulate when they are down to their last city because the they woun't bother talking to you. Come on, why does the game have to be slanted in the much less fun & satisfying direction when it could be slanted towards something so much more enjoyable?

And it's even worse when asking for open borders. I've never been able to sign a late game open borders agreement. I play very long, modern era games with small & proxy wars.

Look how Russia just strong armed a whole country into accepting their demands. Russia owned Ukraine not through tanks, but through threat of war, economic incentives, and probably a tremendous amount of bribery.

If you had read to the bottom of my post you would have found this sentence:

Now if you think the requests the AI makes are unreasonable, or that it should be more open to talking and making certain deals then perhaps the way the AI sets its expectations and evaluates what requests to make and allow should be modified, but the UI for the interaction is not at fault.

which acknowledges exactly what you say so maybe 'totally missed the point' is a bit harsh eh.

My initial point obviously was that you shouldn't fault a well designed UI for faithfully representing the poor decisions of the underlying AI, but I did go on to imply that the underlying AI decision making process is what should be questioned. Given the current AI implementation the blocking is entirely sensible and desirable, indeed even if the AI is given better judgement this UI will still have a role.

To restate...There are two issues: having options blocked because the AI doesn't want to trade with you makes perfect sense and is good UI design; whether the AI should want to trade with you is a different question. The original short paragraph was sufficiently ambiguous to support both interpretations, if the meaning was the latter then I agree that complaint does indeed have merit. (I guess I had seen too many posts on too many threads that advocate the former to let this opportunity to comment pass).

The AI really does lose its way when calculating the value of some assets and agreements and having a hard cut off where it doesn't even want to evaluate an offer no matter how extravagant only makes sense in a few extreme situations such as the first few turns of a war. Even so, it would make sense to have a visual cue (maybe highlight items in yellow) to indicate that an item is available but the cost will be extortionate.