Unrealistic diplomacy because of victory conditions

[Aneurism]

I've always thought you should win if you get a victory condition or just the highest score at the end of the time limit, and you should lose ONLY if your civilization is destroyed. If you survive to the end of the game with a well built empire does it make any sense that your civilization is lost in the sands of time as if you have been destroyed?

Instead of either Victory or Defeat there should be a winning term for each victory type in the hall of fame, and defeat only when you are knocked out of the game. A non game winning condition could be called something like 'Average State'. At the end of the game the narration could say something to the effect of this:

"Your empire has survived and thrived throughout the ages. It has stood in the shadow of giants, but found its foothold in the cast of successful world states".

It just makes a lot more sense then growing a vast empire and then seeing the ruinous defeat screen just because some other empire launched their spaceship 2 years before yours.

One other thing I find the diplomacy win to be rather annoying because 9 times out of 10 the game is over 10 rounds after someone builds the united nations. It bugs me even when I get it because I wanted to build all the cool modern units and battle with my giant death robots 'n stuff.

 

[Aneurism]

Does anyone know what happens at the end of a game if you uncheck all victory conditions?

 

[FireStorm5]

Nope. Try playing the game or something if you want to tell us what it's all about. I know this has been offered as an explanation, but there are lots of examples of the AI engaging in behavior that simply doesn't fit. I have many times completed a space or diplomatic victory in games where AI civilizations were still viable enough to at least try to attack me. In some cases diplomatic relations soured. In others the AI, particularly AI on other land masses in the few continents games I've played, stayed friendly as I won the game. That is not playing to win.

I actually think there is no overarching philosophy for how the AI should behave. That's why it so frequently seems crazy.

Yeah, I didn't word my post very well. I didn't mean to make it sound so negative.

Short version. I like Empire building, diplomacy, trade, and an AI that at least tries to roleplay a bit. Everything that I've read, seen, and heard about Civ5 tells me that all those things I listed are not nearly as viable or needed in Civ5 as they were in past civ games, which just doesn't interest me.

I'm sure Civ5 is a fine game in its own right, but it seems to me that the developers took a different direction for this version, and if what almost everyone says is true, then its just not for me.

 

[Adrenaline15]

they brought it to be competitive instead of fun.

 

[MkLh]

I think if you look back at the message boards from CIV4 you'll see the opposite comment. Countries used to respect their allies, build friendships, then players would attack them anyway because it was a game and they wanted to win. The players made it 'gamey' even when the AI didn't, and then complained about themselves doing it. This is presumably why the diplomacy was changed in CIV5.

I don't think that was a reason why Civ4 AI was criticized. It was mocked for its general "stupidity" but I don't remember anybody actually complaining about Gandhi not declaring war when it would help him to win. Everybody knew that was the nature of the game. Schafer probably "fixed" a thing that wasn't broken.

 

[lightsedge]

Well, I guess I'm still unsure about what I feel would be ideal, so I will just list things I like:

• For the game to reflect reality in its core concepts. This means that nations should have goals and behavior like a real nation would.
• Victory conditions that end the game
• Meaningful victory conditions
• A challenge

Actually, I think the way it is conceptually is not bad. The problem may just be in the implementation:

• From what markusbeutel said, it seems like the general direction goes too much towards war. There needs to be more support for alliances.
• Everyone shouldn't hate you just because you're ahead. I can definitely understand the #2 guy feeling competitive (US vs China/USSR), or someone hating your culture (clash of civilizations). However, it shouldn't be across the board.
• In general just need richer diplomatic interaction. I think Civ4 was actually nice in that civics and religion influenced diplomacy.
• Move away from the model where someone that dislikes you will never deal with you. It's not the way the world works. Often countries will work together if there's mutual benefit, even if they dislike each other.

 

[lightsedge]

they brought it to be competitive instead of fun.

I do think competitive is fun to many people though. I think it would be great to have multiple modes:

• Normal victory conditions with AI that acts like a real nation
• Normal victory conditions with AI that acts like a competitive player in a winner-takes-all backstabbing battle (like in a multiplayer match) - would be kinda funny to see everyone DoW the leader
• Global victory conditions (and AI acts like a real nation), where you try to influence the world to a favorable end.

 

[lightsedge]

I've always thought you should win if you get a victory condition or just the highest score at the end of the time limit, and you should lose ONLY if your civilization is destroyed. If you survive to the end of the game with a well built empire does it make any sense that your civilization is lost in the sands of time as if you have been destroyed?

Instead of either Victory or Defeat there should be a winning term for each victory type in the hall of fame, and defeat only when you are knocked out of the game. A non game winning condition could be called something like 'Average State'. At the end of the game the narration could say something to the effect of this:

"Your empire has survived and thrived throughout the ages. It has stood in the shadow of giants, but found its foothold in the cast of successful world states".

It just makes a lot more sense then growing a vast empire and then seeing the ruinous defeat screen just because some other empire launched their spaceship 2 years before yours.

One other thing I find the diplomacy win to be rather annoying because 9 times out of 10 the game is over 10 rounds after someone builds the united nations. It bugs me even when I get it because I wanted to build all the cool modern units and battle with my giant death robots 'n stuff.

Haha, yeah defeat seems a bit odd.

I think maybe diplomatic victory is a bit broken right now, mostly because diplomacy is a bit broken.

 

[jtb1127]

I so agree. This has had me upset since the game came out.

 

[lepruk86]

The thing is the current A.I does try to act like a human player. It tries to win to the best of it's ability even if that includes going all out against the score leader etc.

But yeah I would kind of like more *realistic* options in terms of being able to maintain good relations.

But even Civ IV had these problems to some extent. The A.I even there would randomly attack if you didn't have a good military to protect yourself.

Ultimately the Civ series is being pulled in too many directions and it is struggling to find it's own foot at the moment. If you want a tactical empire wargame then Civ fits; but if you want something more of the diplo / culture / science style then it can in some cases fall a bit flat.

As a side note; I do hate how cultural and diplomatic victories work in Civ V as they make science seem needless in the current design/

 

[MkLh]

But even Civ IV had these problems to some extent. The A.I even there would randomly attack if you didn't have a good military to protect yourself.

War declarations were always random, but their likeliness was based on relations and some other factors, not military power of the target. Only if the targets military was much bigger than the AIs then it did not consider war.