The reason why you get denounced after liberating

[blitzkrieg1980]

LoL. I suppose this is a good way of putting it (with the exception of murdering my childhood friends once reaching college lol).

I was geared up to try this temporary friends theory last night when I started a new game. But then I drew the Mongols from a random setup. Having only 2 wine and 1 marble in my capital's borders, I naturally researched AH first and low and behold, I had 4 horses next to the capital and another 4 in a logical second city location.

I wanted to be careful about warring, though. I made sure to denounce the Siamese who started quite close to me and get good relations with Egypt and the Iroquois who also denounced Siam. I was able to DoW, invade, and capture Siam fairly swiftly with chariot archers and a warrior.

However, I forgot about the major increase in warmonger points that you get from capturing a civ's final city. This really should be removed or severely nerfed. I really don't think I should get a diplo-hit from civs that I am allied in a war with just b/c I captured the last city. It is really REALLY annoying to have to leave 1 last city to continually get denounced from (along with other minor annoyances).

Also, the warmonger threshold should be reworked, IMO. In the same game, Monty DoW (as expected) and so did his CS ally. Unfortunately (for him) I completely obliterated his invading army and was able to capture his entire civilization. I decided to capture the CS, as well, since they had TWO lux resources that I didn't have yet and were a coastal city (something that I lacked on that side of the continent).

Of course, between the Siamese war (for which my friends were allied with me), the Aztecs (who declared war on ME), and the CS capture, I lost my friends. This is slightly unrealistic, since it all happened LONG before game winning thresholds would be reached and all my capturing was either allied with friends or a result of the captured civ being the DoW aggressor.

Although, I do suppose that I would be quite weary of a civ on my border that ballooned up to 10 cities vs. my 3 before getting halfway through the medieval era, no matter what the circumstances. Guess I'll just have to gear up for another domination victory this game

 

[qemist]

LoL. I suppose this is a good way of putting it (with the exception of murdering my childhood friends once reaching college lol).

I was geared up to try this temporary friends theory last night when I started a new game. But then I drew the Mongols from a random setup. Having only 2 wine and 1 marble in my capital's borders, I naturally researched AH first and low and behold, I had 4 horses next to the capital and another 4 in a logical second city location.

I wanted to be careful about warring, though. I made sure to denounce the Siamese who started quite close to me and get good relations with Egypt and the Iroquois who also denounced Siam. I was able to DoW, invade, and capture Siam fairly swiftly with chariot archers and a warrior.

Mongols are natural mongers and its sounds like you played them as such. I tend to play passive-aggressive civs and turtle until I'm confident I wont get hurt in a war. Art imitates life.

However, I forgot about the major increase in warmonger points that you get from capturing a civ's final city. This really should be removed or severely nerfed. I really don't think I should get a diplo-hit from civs that I am allied in a war with just b/c I captured the last city. It is really REALLY annoying to have to leave 1 last city to continually get denounced from (along with other minor annoyances).

Sometimes they get over it and you can sign RAs. This would be much more likely if you didn't capture their OC. Often they are friendly the turn you make peace then denounce the next. A sploity alternative is to never agree to peace. Put a melee unit next to their last city and bombard it with a ranged unit sitting behind. Every turn you get xp for the ranged unit plus what you get from the city bombard. When one redlines, just swap in another unit.

Although its not realistic I wouldn't get rid of the last city diplo penalty. It's mad that you get a penalty with allies (or is it? were the Allies really happy when the Soviets took Berlin?) for doing what they want though.

Also, the warmonger threshold should be reworked, IMO. In the same game, Monty DoW (as expected) and so did his CS ally. Unfortunately (for him) I completely obliterated his invading army and was able to capture his entire civilization. I decided to capture the CS, as well, since they had TWO lux resources that I didn't have yet and were a coastal city (something that I lacked on that side of the continent).

Of course, between the Siamese war (for which my friends were allied with me), the Aztecs (who declared war on ME), and the CS capture, I lost my friends. This is slightly unrealistic, since it all happened LONG before game winning thresholds would be reached and all my capturing was either allied with friends or a result of the captured civ being the DoW aggressor.

Buddy. Two civs and a CS? you had it coming.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, that was a huge, sudden power gain achieved through warfare against multiple enemies. That's precisely the warmonger penalty is designed to address.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It's too simplified. I eliminated 2 threats to my ally block (one of which was a war in which both allies were involved). The capturing of a city state was a result of Monty and their war declaration against ME, not the reverse.
There should be more detailed breakdowns of such penalties. Would my allies not be happy with the elimination of an enemy?

Then again, I'm thinking in Civ4 terms of diplomacy, again. I forget that all diplomacy in civ5 is temporary. This is what I feel needs to be reworked... big time.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Thinking temporary might help. Think Rome and Carthage after Phyrrus (hint: They were allied while fighting him, I think their history after that point is fairly well known).

For gameplay, just don't go around annexing cities. Fight them to a standstill and get some cash for peace, but no need to annex cities. Treat it like Europe for most of history (small changes nobody cares about).

 

[Haig]

I agree with the above post, if you get attacked and you don't want a warmonger diplo hit, just defeat the invading army and make peace and maybe punish by annexing a single city.

If you grind an entire civilization and it's city-state allies to dust, yeah that might be considered a bit over the top by other big powers..

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I agree with the above post, if you get attacked and you don't want a warmonger diplo hit, just defeat the invading army and make peace and maybe punish by annexing a single city.

If you grind an entire civilization and it's city-state allies to dust, yeah that might be considered a bit over the top by other big powers..

And what are you suposed to do if someone is dead set on destroying you ?
It happened several times to me that a civ sued for peace and attacks me ten turns later after the peace treaty has expired. And if I beath them again they'll again sue for peace and after ten turns...
Basically you end up in an eternal war with occasional peacen periods that last for ten turns and not a turn longer and you don't really want the other guy to stick around until he develops nukes.

 

[basta]

^GS is absolutely right here. If you've been DoWed by another civ, you had better cripple them (take their capital and best cities ASAP) and only take a peace treaty if you need to regroup militarily or have another DoW more urgent to attend to.

That civ will usually attack again given the chance, and there is no "Mr Nice Guy" positive diplo modifier to be had from such misguided restraint; in fact, you are only letting the other civ rebuild its forces (more quickly than you at higher levels) and needlessly hobbling your own growth and advancement.

Puppeting your neighboring civ(s) early on is almost an obligatory part of winning the game under any VC--it gives you population/science, resources, massive gold, and frees production in your core cities. (I always think they're actually doing you a favor by DoWing on you: they're showing you who you have to get rid of, and not giving you the diplo hit of having to DoW them.)

Getting an early-game DoW is so common that you can even plan for it and go about settling 2 or 3 cities with the intention to annex your warmongering neighbor's capital instead of founding a 3rd or 4th. You get a production powerhouse for the price of a courthouse (600g). That's a heck of a deal.

 

[SomethingCronic]

In addition to what's been discussed, has anyone noticed that if you sign (say) a research agreement with a Civ, and that Civ is conquered within the next 30 turns you are not told about them being conquered unless it's their Capital. All you get it an alert saying "You research agreement with CIV has been cancelled because you are both now at war".

This made me think that if you liberated the Civ later, it would think you were at war earlier and that's the reason for the hostility.

However, since then I've liberated Civs that I've never met before and they are still hostile (if set to 'Emotionless' status) as per this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=438987

 

[dexters]

However, since then I've liberated Civs that I've never met before and they are still hostile (if set to 'Emotionless' status) as per this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=438987

What's emotionless status? you modded the xml?

 

[SomethingCronic]

No mods at all. Check the thread.

 

[dexters]

No mods at all. Check the thread.

Yeah it's been clarified. It's a bugged state. Cause I was checking the xml and there is nothing on emotionless as being in the game.

 

[headcase]

And what are you suposed to do if someone is dead set on destroying you ?

It doesn't always work, but if possible, I like to stomp the hell out of all of their tiles, ruining their growth and production.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's too simplified. I eliminated 2 threats to my ally block (one of which was a war in which both allies were involved). The capturing of a city state was a result of Monty and their war declaration against ME, not the reverse.
There should be more detailed breakdowns of such penalties. Would my allies not be happy with the elimination of an enemy?

Then again, I'm thinking in Civ4 terms of diplomacy, again. I forget that all diplomacy in civ5 is temporary. This is what I feel needs to be reworked... big time.

You simply *can not* rework that unless you rework game rules. We're talking about a system where there is only one winner, EVER. Of COURSE diplo is "temporary" when only one person can win! Any collaboration is only fundamentally beneficial if it raises one's chance at victory, and even then each side is trying to make it so that they get closer than the person they deal with.

Temporary diplo in a game where sides must someday screw each other to have a win chance is GOOD STRATEGY. Unfortunately, the AI gold-feeding the human, squandering units, and making self-destructive decisions are not good strategy.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

No, it's not good strategy, it's human strategy. This is the #1 reason why I never played multiplayer in Civ4. Because it would always boil down to a war near the end game.

There are plenty of other options that the developers could have gone with to create more permanent blocks of allies. Computers aren't supposed to think in terms of "winning". Because winning is about achievement and (to a large degree) ego. Computers aren't supposed to espouse these human traits.

For example, there are no Permanent Alliances in civ5. This is a very viable way to actually get some results from diplomacy. If you played the diplo game well enough, you can form a permanent alliance with the computer. Then, your victory would be considered that AI's victory as well, and you could count on an ally in any end game DoWs. THAT would be good strategy. Knowing that just about every game I complete, I will have to build up a relatively large army to defend myself isn't good strategy, it's BAD development.

This all ties into the fact that diplomacy is basically absent in this game. Sell lux resource, sell lux resource, sell open borders, accept DoF, buy RA, sell borders, sell lux resource, upgrade units, win game. It's been posted elsewhere and it applies here as well. There's no excuse for the lack of engaging, fun, and useful gameplay with regards to diplomacy and it is underlined in this discussion perfectly.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No, it's not good strategy, it's human strategy. This is the #1 reason why I never played multiplayer in Civ4. Because it would always boil down to a war near the end game.

There are plenty of other options that the developers could have gone with to create more permanent blocks of allies. Computers aren't supposed to think in terms of "winning". Because winning is about achievement and (to a large degree) ego. Computers aren't supposed to espouse these human traits.

For example, there are no Permanent Alliances in civ5. This is a very viable way to actually get some results from diplomacy. If you played the diplo game well enough, you can form a permanent alliance with the computer. Then, your victory would be considered that AI's victory as well, and you could count on an ally in any end game DoWs. THAT would be good strategy. Knowing that just about every game I complete, I will have to build up a relatively large army to defend myself isn't good strategy, it's BAD development.

This all ties into the fact that diplomacy is basically absent in this game. Sell lux resource, sell lux resource, sell open borders, accept DoF, buy RA, sell borders, sell lux resource, upgrade units, win game. It's been posted elsewhere and it applies here as well. There's no excuse for the lack of engaging, fun, and useful gameplay with regards to diplomacy and it is underlined in this discussion perfectly.

Diplomacy is absent because the the AI is NOT acting like a human (ie how often would you spend 240 gold on a luxury Item if you had 30 excess happiness?)

Permanent Alliances would be a fundamental (and good for diplomacy) change in the game mechanics. But until that point ALL allies SHOULD backstab you at some point.

The AI Should act like humans (that's why they added City-States so you could have manipulatable AIs). The issues are
1)the AI makes poor decisions [AI only issue, the AI Should act more like a human player]
2) the gameplay does not support joint victories [Gameplay issue, that would change what an ideal AI strategy would be]... indeed that would be a fundamental, interesting change allowing Diplomatic Victory = Conquest Victory (ie only one "player" left)

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Diplomacy is absent because the the AI is NOT acting like a human (ie how often would you spend 240 gold on a luxury Item if you had 30 excess happiness?)

Permanent Alliances would be a fundamental (and good for diplomacy) change in the game mechanics. But until that point ALL allies SHOULD backstab you at some point.

The AI Should act like humans (that's why they added City-States so you could have manipulatable AIs). The issues are
1)the AI makes poor decisions [AI only issue, the AI Should act more like a human player]
2) the gameplay does not support joint victories [Gameplay issue, that would change what an ideal AI strategy would be]... indeed that would be a fundamental, interesting change allowing Diplomatic Victory = Conquest Victory (ie only one "player" left)

Diplomacy is absent because it was oversimplified by design. AI is weak because it trades too much gold for resources when it already has enough excess happiness. Also, the AI is flawed for not utilizing the excess happiness (ie faster growth vertically or horizontally). There are some flaws in the AI logic, but it is not indicative of how poorly implemented DIPLOMACY is.

The problems with diplomacy go far beyond the AI's illogical trade decisions. The problems are the lack of any sort of engaging diplomatic system. As posted before: sell resources, sell borders, get RA, denounce, DoF, and, of course, war are the only real diplomatic options.

Bad diplomacy != bad AI. Bad AI is not a direct result of poorly programmed diplomacy. However, the two do play off each other because they are interlocked. However, fixing the AI's illogical trade decisions will not make the diplomacy in Civ5 any more engaging.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No, it's not good strategy, it's human strategy. This is the #1 reason why I never played multiplayer in Civ4. Because it would always boil down to a war near the end game.

There's a reason I don't see a convincing argument differentiating human strategy and good strategy here. That's because in this case, they're the same thing. That's how both IV and V are modeled; good human players recognize this and play to win the game that they've chosen to play. At the highest level of play (and that IS MP), diplo is typically temporary in IV, just like V and all the other mainline civ games. A lot of people don't like this and avoid that venue, but that doesn't change the reality presented by the rules.

There are plenty of other options that the developers could have gone with to create more permanent blocks of allies.

There is ONE other option. ONE. That would be to allow multiple civilizations to win the game. Only under those circumstances can permanent diplomacy ever be meaningful or anything beyond abuse of the AI to make the game easier.

Computers aren't supposed to think in terms of "winning". Because winning is about achievement and (to a large degree) ego. Computers aren't supposed to espouse these human traits.

Computers represent a playing faction within the rules of the game. Players should try to win the game. To give an example of just how bad it gets when players don't try to win, I point to call of duty MP. In that game, people would sometimes get on opposite teams with their friend and let their friend kill them. Considering there was a way to win the game instantly at 25 kills in a row, this virtually guaranteed the side with the guy feeding kills loses.

In that community, we call that "boosting". In Black ops, the game put in a mechanic to report players for boosting, and they would be BANNED from MP for doing it for variant periods of time. Why would the developers go to such lengths (and alienate some customers) to ban boosters? Because boosters ruin the game.

How is this relevant? Because AIs that don't try to win ARE boosters. Frequently, the boost another AI, but not always. The less the AI play like a legit faction in the game, the more it cheapens the single player experience. I don't want boosters in both SP and MP! Screw that.

For example, there are no Permanent Alliances in civ5. This is a very viable way to actually get some results from diplomacy. If you played the diplo game well enough, you can form a permanent alliance with the computer. Then, your victory would be considered that AI's victory as well, and you could count on an ally in any end game DoWs. THAT would be good strategy. Knowing that just about every game I complete, I will have to build up a relatively large army to defend myself isn't good strategy, it's BAD development.

IMO PA should be brought back, and probably used by default in non-MP. But that's not around.

Military represents a significant % of your build options in this game and military survival is very much a key and consistent concern. Considering this is a history/strategy game, and the importance military survival has had historically, I don't see a true reason for griping over AI war declaration behavior. I do see an issue with its evaluation of the best timing and actual use of those pieces though.

This all ties into the fact that diplomacy is basically absent in this game. Sell lux resource, sell lux resource, sell open borders, accept DoF, buy RA, sell borders, sell lux resource, upgrade units, win game. It's been posted elsewhere and it applies here as well. There's no excuse for the lack of engaging, fun, and useful gameplay with regards to diplomacy and it is underlined in this discussion perfectly.

It's unfortunately wrong. The solution, if you want a game with such cooperation, is *not* to change the AI into boosters, but rather to change the gameplay rules themselves. If you attempt to get the devs to realize this, I wish you the best of luck. No sarcasm; I mean it. I do think diplo is a minimal element in this game, and would like a game where it is more meaningful. However, the AI handling of it within the current model is reasonable. If you want a good game with that behavior, you HAVE to change the model.

For one last emphasis:

The problems with diplomacy go far beyond the AI's illogical trade decisions. The problems are the lack of any sort of engaging diplomatic system.

No, the problem is the lack of incentive to behave in engaging diplo transactions, because diplo is meaningless by design.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I went into the GlobalAIDefines xml and for liberate AI capital you get -80 relation, which is a good thing. (-50 or lower is "ally" threshold). However, when you liberate the capital you also captured it, so you get the capture capital penalty which is +80. The 2 cancel each other out and next turn AI denounces you based on previous events, which are usually bad things like "wonder coveting" and "aggressive land grabber". >_> Is this right?

Well that explains a lot.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

@TheMeInTeam

You've made incredibly valid points. I actually have to say that I change my position on this. Well put, man. It does cheapen the experience when the AI doesn't try to win. The only thing I have to disagree with is this one:

No, the problem is the lack of incentive to behave in engaging diplo transactions, because diplo is meaningless by design.

There really aren't many options for actual diplomacy building in this game. The only options we have to actively take part in positive diplomacy is DoF and accepting requests for gifts. Almost all positive diplomatic modifiers stem from DoF.