1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The problem with Diplomacy in ciV

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by SalmonSoil, Oct 28, 2010.

  1. SalmonSoil

    SalmonSoil Prince

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    358
    I think really I just want to monitor what diplomacy has occured recently easily. If a lot of agreements are canceled with me all at once I tend to miss who did what and when.
     
  2. Ighten

    Ighten Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    Two moves ago she was my best mate trading one on one.. We're seperated by an Ocean.. I hate her. Its at this point we need a button to see whats happening

     
  3. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,450
    Location:
    Pakistan
    :yup: If Firaxis improve diplomacy & add the concept of casus belli system it would be asesome. :D
    I've already started a thread about it HERE.
     
  4. Snapp

    Snapp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    I actually think there a lot of aspects of the diplomacy that people don't understand yet.

    We are so used to Civ 4 diplomacy where you could basically choose to be peaceful with any civ you wanted by gifting them, agreeing their proposals etc...

    In Civ 5 it seems that the major aspects of diplomacy are almost out of our control, IE expanding, pacts of secrecy etc...

    I think thats why its fairly important to include some concrete info provided to the player on what your reputation is and why.

    I think that if the diplomacy was actually visible to us you wouldnt need to change a whole lot. People would then realize that the AI is not random, it is just basing its decisions more so on things you hadn't considered, like where you placed your last base, or the size of your army.

    Part of the problem right now is people need to get away from the ideas of what Civ 4 diplomacy was, that style of gaining reputation with Civs in Civ 5 doesnt work.

    Although I do really agree that the AI needs to be able to pick up on offensive or defensive war, and your aggressive expansion vs their own aggressive expansion.
     
  5. GenericPlayer

    GenericPlayer Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    117
    The diplomacy system in Civ 5 is the worst I have seen. I really hate the taunts, and its a waste of time and computing resources between turns. I wish there was a way to turn it off. Knowing if someone is hostile to me through the overview is enough.

    The AI manifesting this dislike of you by insisting on unrealistic exchange deals is also, in my opinion, stupid. I am offering the AI a luxury I know it does not have, and by insisting on an impossible deal it is cutting off its nose to spite its face. If the AI does not like you then this should manifest itself in terms of not wanting to do an RA with you, Open Borders, Defense Pacts. If they are trying to emulate trade disputes or trade wars between countries (e.g. China de-evaluating its currency or the Oil Price wars of the 80's), then the implementation is poor, and the current game mechanics don't help.

    Also, the whole Open Borders mechanic is broken. The AI uses this to spy on you and evaluate your defenses. You cannot cancel it without waiting for it to expire or going to war. This is a real problem because of 1upt and loitering or squatting AI units. If you reject the Open Borders then the AI gets angry with you. It would have been better, and more realistic, if instead of Open Borders you had 'Rights of Passage'. In such an agreement, you would specify exactly which tiles the AI is allowed to move through. You would also get the option to expel loitering units (e.g. one that has not moved in 3-5 turns).

    Finally, I really wish I had some sort of 'block' or 'ignore' option. Some AI leaders are so annoying and keep coming to me with the same demands, or keep taunting me every other turn. It would be nice to be able to place them on an ignore list and I stop receiving them and stop having to listen to their babble. From the point of game mechanics, the game can auto-reject all their proposals while they are on the ignore list.
     
  6. Eberon

    Eberon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    I do not believe this is true.
     
  7. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Man, those defending the lame Civ5 Diplomacy have *NO IDEA* what they're talking about-let me see if I can explain:

    1) Major Civilizations: (a) In Civ4, after the 1st few games, I *never* looked at the +/- that made up the AI's attitude towards me, but *boy* was it a comfort knowing it was there. I simply don't get that sense now-it feels much more like the random AI of Civ3-which I *hated*.
    (b) Although I didn't look at the +/-, I did make a point of looking at the AI's attitude towards me-& it was a *very* good way of assessing which civs I could & couldn't trust (up to a point). Now I feel like I'm flying totally blind.

    (c) Because Civ4 had such an excellent event tracking system, it was very easy to keep track of the things you'd done for or against an AI to make them feel the way they did towards you-that system isn't replicated in Civ5, which again leaves you in the dark.

    The single, *biggest* problem with the Civ5 AI is that its *cut-throat*-which I believe is a MASSIVE step BACKWARDS from Civ4. I loved the immersion that was created by dealing with what felt like rational, real Civilizations-instead of people just trying to win the game. I would rather they abandoned this rather pointless attempt to make the AI more "cut-throat", & instead impose a system that strongly encourages the human to role-play more. So if your Civilizations attitude towards an AI civilization is Pleased or Friendly, then declaring war on them for no good reason should cause you a significant happiness penalty!

    2) City-States: These guys suffer from the *opposite* problem-the system is far, far too transparent for words, & is far more easy to manipulate than the AI's Civs were in Civ4. I initially enjoyed the whole City-State concept but, after just a few games, I now find the whole system boring, repetitive & *gamey*!!!! I do love, though, how those that apparently disliked the "transparent" AI's of Civ4 are apparently perfectly fine with the even more ludicrously transparent City-State AI's. I guess its easy to accept these obvious contradictions if it makes defending Civ5 easier!

    Aussie.
     
  8. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Well, that's because I seem to recall that you have had very few expectations when it comes to this game, whereas most of us actually expect the game to be a *worthy successor* to Civ4. As it stands, Civ5 is very, very far away from even being *equal to*-let alone better than-Civ4.

    Aussie.
     
  9. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Couldn't agree more. You can have a quantitative system for diplomatic relations (Hostile, Angry, Suspicious, Neutral, Pleased, Happy, Friendly) without the need for players to *see* all the +/- that contribute to these feelings. However, what I would like is a system that tells you what the 3 most important things (good or bad) you've done towards that AI so far-in its opinion. So, for example, if the AI Civ in this game has a strong Commerce flavor in this game, then canceling a trade deal early should be listed as a *bad* thing you've done to that Civ-especially if you've done it more than once!

    If anything, what I feel they need is to find a common mid-point between the uber-simplistic City-State diplomacy mechanics & the utterly dense diplomacy mechanics of the major Civs-I think that can only help both of them!

    Aussie.
     
  10. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    In truth, the whole Open Borders system only works when you have a system of Foreign Trade like the one which existed in Civ4. I don't think it would be feasible, though, to dictate which tiles you could allow a Civs units to pass through.

    That said, though, I'd like to see Open Borders exist only as a precursor to an "Establish Foreign Trade Route" mission-a situation that will boost the Civs attitude towards you the longer it exists, but which only allows for settlers & workers to enter your borders. We should then have a 2nd tier "Right of Passage" agreement that will allow for military units to pass through your territory. Obviously such an agreement would only exist between Civs who *truly* trust one another!

    Aussie.
     
  11. KahunaGod

    KahunaGod Warlord

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    TEXAS - Born and Bred Thank God!
    I decided to give Civ5 another go-round tonight to just maybe see if all my issues with this game were just in my head.

    Germany just proved to me they arent:
    1. Germany says - (and I paraphrase for simplicity) Japan is bad bad, we no trade-no give secrets, okey dokey?
    2. Me - Okey Dokey, they look threatening to me as well.
    3. "Next Turn"
    4. Beep Beep - new research agreement - Japan and Germany
    5. Me- WTF Hey! I call Germany and he opens with - Careful, we cant trust those darn Japanese!
    6. End of me caring.

    Now I will just click whatever the bottom button in diplomacy is, just to make the screen go away. I wish there was a way to go turtle/isolationist so I didnt have to waste time with the damn useless screens. I think that diplomacy from the AI should work like MP diplomacy, ie a notification that so-and-so wants to talk to you or has proposed an agreement, etc. I literally am SICK and TIRED of wasted time fast clicking away useless diplomacy.
     
  12. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Couldn't agree more-this is exactly why Civ5 diplomacy *sucks* big-time. Your example highlights the fact that Civ5 & Civ3 diplomacy are exactly the same.

    Aussie.
     
  13. Eberon

    Eberon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    This.
     
  14. Pantastic

    Pantastic King

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    922
    What planning did Civ4 diplomacy need? Switch to the right religion? Plan to hit 'OK' on all of that civ's demands/requests? It seems like a lot of people on here had a completely different Civ4 than I got!
     
  15. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    A lot more than that. Sure if all you wanted to do was please *one* Civilization, then what you're saying is at least *partly* accurate (though I never recall it being *that* simple). Sure you can switch to their religion, but what if you've already got a religion that you're currently benefiting from? What if changing your religion ticks off a Civ whose religion you already share? Oftentimes you'll be asked to break trade deals with your neighbours, or go to war with them-but would you automatically do it, or do you consider the ramifications of doing so? In Civ5, what you do doesn't seem to have any long-term impact on any of the major civs, & only ever seems to have an impact on the City-State you're currently engaged with. Indeed, given sufficient cash, its entirely possible to spam a boat-load of City-State allies with virtually *no* negative impacts whatsoever.

    Aussie.
     
  16. GenericPlayer

    GenericPlayer Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    117
    There is a huge loss of immersion from the previous games. I first noticed it when I saw rankings for "people who like shiny things the most" or "people with the pointiest sticks"

    In my latest game I had a pact of cooperation with Russia very early on. True to my word, I helped her fend off several invaders, even liberated her capital city and gave her the capital of one of her enemies (I did not want a puppet or new city at that point in the game). This continued against new enemies and it reached a point where I built a road between my empire and hers so I could rapidly deploy units there during a crisis. There were also RAs and gifts of whales and gold (the resource, not money). The result of this carefully nurtured relationship? While she is friendly, she ended the pact of cooperation and still refuses to sign a mutual defense pact.

    The city states are another bag. City states have thrived in the modern era because they have a resource to sell (e.g. Kuwait, Brunei...etc), strategic location for foreign troops (Djibouti, Bahrain) and tax havens like Monaco, Lechtenstein (sp), and the Caymans. Instead in Civ 5 we see city states as a bunch of selfish ******** looking for handouts.
     
  17. GenericPlayer

    GenericPlayer Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    117
    Then they can add a toll system. They would have to pay a certain amount of money per unit that ends a turn on one of your tiles. I am hoping this would compel the AI to take the shortest route through my territory and get on with it, instead of squatting or loitering about to have a peek.

    I would also like to be able to tell an AI, when demanding something, that I will go to war over the issue (cassus belli as has been mentioned here). In one game Haroun Al-Rashids cultural influence closed off the mouth of a bay where I had a city optimized for building ships. So my navy could not leave the bay (not even submarines). I did not want to go to war with him, but his continued refusal to all my incentives to allow open borders gave me no choice.
     
  18. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    You know, this brings to mind a couple of things: (a) why can't you set your tone in diplomacy & (b) why isn't there an AI separation of "Like" & "Respect" towards other Civilizations?

    To (a), how hard could it be to allow the human player to set the tone for their negotiations? The default would be "Neutral", but on one side of the ledger you could have "Kind"; "Friendly" or "Fawning". On the other side you could have "Insulting"; "Demanding" or "Threatening". Depending on what you're asking for, & what you can back it up with, will determine how likely you are to get it & how it impacts on both how much they like you & respect you.

    (b) like & respect are two entirely different things, & need to be treated as such. A Civilization might hate your guts, but might still be prepared to do your bidding if they respect you enough. More to the point, a Civ that Respects you (even if its a respect born of fear) might not be prepared to retaliate against you if you do something they don't like. The tone you use in diplomacy might directly impact on one, both or neither. For example, adopting a Fawning tone in negotiations might make the other Civ like you-but it will lead to them not respecting you. This means they might be more likely to break agreements with you down the track-even if they do like you. By contrast, adopting a threatening tone might make a civ dislike you, but it will increase their respect for you (especially if they know you can back it up). It means that, even if they hate you, they might be too scared to break that trade agreement with you-for fear of retaliation!

    Aussie.
     
  19. LDiCesare

    LDiCesare Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    France
    Absolutely not.
    I hate city states while I liked Civ 4 diplomacy.
    I hate them for one reason: You can't interact with them like you interact with other players. Thus they totally break immersion in the game and verisimilitude as far as I am concerned. (The maritime city state bonuses are also so ridiculous that they look like blinking "gamey" neon signs to boot.)
    It's also not possible to do any significant diplomacy with city states.
    You can do exactly 3 things:
    -Attack them
    -Give them money
    -Do their quest
    If you ignore their quests, it has no side effect. Most quests you end up doing by chance (hey, I wanted the 25 gold and xp from the barb hut, or I already planned to get silver...)
    Pledging to defend them has no effect on the city state at all, only on other civs, and that is not quantifiable.
    Being allied with them doesn't mean you'll be at war if the are attacked and they'll stay happy with you even though you let their neighbour butcher them without lifting a finger.
     

Share This Page