Wait, what?
- Thread starter Tamed
- Start date
Shafi-is-back
Prince
*facepalm* X 2
lemmy101
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,064
Are you kidding?
DOWing two poor small city states and taking over one of them and it's somehow inappropriate that other nations should be wary of you?? 
It's funny, a lot of the time the AI / Diplomacy sounds like it's working fine, and people's expectations of how nation leaders should behave is way off. Do any of us remember Kuwait? Saddam was a real popular guy after strolling in there, wasn't he?
Dimplomacy suck, and I still think that in your example the city state did right. One thing is complaining about random behavior, no personalities of leaders, few options... and another is complaining that they declare and you get a bad reputation because you "only" were capturing their civilians
jjkrause84
King
OK, but you're leaving out all of the context.
Prussia declared war on Austria largely out of tensions with the post-1864 settlement (and out of a cynical desire to remove Austrian influence from what would soon become 'Germany'). Austria and Germany were estranged for some time afterwards (Austria was prepared to declare against Prussia in 1870 if the French had done better) but they eventually banded together when both found themselves essentially friendless (Austria, i nparticular, felt very isolated and threatened in the 1870s/1880s).
France DID NOT ally with Prussia in 1866 and was firmly opposed to 'Germany' (using the term very loosely) from 1870 - 1945 at which point united Germany ceased to exist. It would take another 44+ years before France and a united Germany began the process which eventually resulted in their close relationship today (I'm simplifying here, but yo uget the picture...obviously relations with W. Germany helped A LOT).
This of course is to not even begin to go backwards in time through the Napoleonic wars, the Seven Years war, etc. etc.
France and Prussia/Germany simply DID NOT get along (it was that "-2, our borders cause tension" and "-4, You declared war on us!")
Shafi-is-back
Prince
Are you kidding?
It's funny, a lot of the time the AI / Diplomacy sounds like it's working fine, and people's expectations of how nation leaders should behave is way off. Do any of us remember Kuwait? Saddam was a real popular guy after strolling in there, wasn't he?
ok, but doesnt it count for anything that two of the other AI's Egypt & the Songhai were also at war with one of the CS's and later they act all cold towards me, now its fine that the other AI dont like me, but these two as well? shouldnt i be there friend cos we went to war against a common enemy or something?
Wow! You are really trying to bend this poorly done work in a positive way. I respect that and I hope it works for ya... It sure does not for me. sigh
But why am I "The bloodthirsty one"?!
Ha. Sulieman calls me that now in my current game because I destroyed the English. nevermind that elizabeth was attacking Monaco for pure conquest.
I had Arabia call me bloodthirsty after we had been friends for a long time.
I started upgrading all my older military units and suddenly we went back to being friends. I think Rome gave me a similar reaction.
Elizabeth started hating me for no apparent reason and was marked as "Hostile" on the diplomacy screen for the remainder of the game. I assumed she didn't like me having the no. 1 spot in points, but I don't really know what tipped the scale.
I started upgrading all my older military units and suddenly we went back to being friends. I think Rome gave me a similar reaction.
Elizabeth started hating me for no apparent reason and was marked as "Hostile" on the diplomacy screen for the remainder of the game. I assumed she didn't like me having the no. 1 spot in points, but I don't really know what tipped the scale.
Hmm, these personalities all sound okay to me.
Just wished I knew a little bit more of what was going on. Perhaps the foreign advisor telling me what her spies caught of information from the other states. Like: "Sir, I have recieved reports from Egypt that Ramesses doesn't like that we build so many wonders. If we continue we might destroy the relationship as it is now". Or "Alexander disrespects us when our military is so weak. If we get a stronger military, perhaps we would gain his respect (or fear) and will be able get some better trading agreements with him".
Then we have a choice of our play: 'screw Ram, I'm building whatever I please' or 'hmmm, perhaps I should skip a couple of wonders, can't afford him cancelling our pearl and gold trading'. And in the other example we could decide whether or not we wanted to earn some more of Alex' respect.
We'd still get some guidelines for what we can or should do, but we're not able to completely manipulate the AI to our comfort.
Right now AI's just get mad as us without us knowing why. Kinda frustrating
Just wished I knew a little bit more of what was going on. Perhaps the foreign advisor telling me what her spies caught of information from the other states. Like: "Sir, I have recieved reports from Egypt that Ramesses doesn't like that we build so many wonders. If we continue we might destroy the relationship as it is now". Or "Alexander disrespects us when our military is so weak. If we get a stronger military, perhaps we would gain his respect (or fear) and will be able get some better trading agreements with him".
Then we have a choice of our play: 'screw Ram, I'm building whatever I please' or 'hmmm, perhaps I should skip a couple of wonders, can't afford him cancelling our pearl and gold trading'. And in the other example we could decide whether or not we wanted to earn some more of Alex' respect.
We'd still get some guidelines for what we can or should do, but we're not able to completely manipulate the AI to our comfort.
Right now AI's just get mad as us without us knowing why. Kinda frustrating
I feel like the real problem may be the fact that the AI simply doesn't have enough phrases.
For example, when Ramses declares war on you over some small slight you committed over a random city-state, but his real reason is because you have a wonder advantage on him, he should mention the wonders instead of just the few generic "You will pay!" phrases or whatever it is all the AI's say when they DoW you.
Whereas Elizabeth, or whoever, will mention the fact that you don't appreciate commerce enough so obviously your two empires have to come to blows over this (or whatever) when she Dec's you.
I guess what I mean is, the AI clearly is reacting/responding to something, but because all we have are a variety of stock phrases for various (broad) categories of reactions we cannot tell why this particular civ, at this particular moment is actually enraged with us.
I can partially understand where the problem comes from, I think. The designers wanted to move away from having too "gamey" a diplomacy system, where the negotiation screen is more reminiscent of a D&D character sheet than a bargaining table between two leaders, so they wanted to have the leaders "speak" to you. The problem is, they only taught the AI's how to say the same things, rather than properly express themselves.
The upside is, I don't think this would be particularly difficult to solve. You could still have the leaders be "speaking" while having them explain, at least a little, why they feel the way they do now. It would just require a few hundred more lines of stock phrases to be added to the XML (a dozen specific to each leader or so) and/or some LAU scripts to piece together meaningful sentences.
Thoughts?
For example, when Ramses declares war on you over some small slight you committed over a random city-state, but his real reason is because you have a wonder advantage on him, he should mention the wonders instead of just the few generic "You will pay!" phrases or whatever it is all the AI's say when they DoW you.
Whereas Elizabeth, or whoever, will mention the fact that you don't appreciate commerce enough so obviously your two empires have to come to blows over this (or whatever) when she Dec's you.
I guess what I mean is, the AI clearly is reacting/responding to something, but because all we have are a variety of stock phrases for various (broad) categories of reactions we cannot tell why this particular civ, at this particular moment is actually enraged with us.
I can partially understand where the problem comes from, I think. The designers wanted to move away from having too "gamey" a diplomacy system, where the negotiation screen is more reminiscent of a D&D character sheet than a bargaining table between two leaders, so they wanted to have the leaders "speak" to you. The problem is, they only taught the AI's how to say the same things, rather than properly express themselves.
The upside is, I don't think this would be particularly difficult to solve. You could still have the leaders be "speaking" while having them explain, at least a little, why they feel the way they do now. It would just require a few hundred more lines of stock phrases to be added to the XML (a dozen specific to each leader or so) and/or some LAU scripts to piece together meaningful sentences.
Thoughts?
THIS. This is what I want.
wapamingo
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2006
- Messages
- 399
I do like how the AI is programmed to win, but it is not programmed to survive. which is a big difference.
For example, in one game Askia (Shongai) and Wu (China) declared war on me at the same time (they had a pact against me, which was very good!!) I beat both down, but I had no desire to conquer them. So I made peace with them after I appeared at their city gates.
OK, after 30 turns the peace expired. Askia only has 1 city compared to my 5, has no military that anyone can speak of. And yet, I get a message where he insults me. Insults me! I mean common, the disparity in power is immense and I get insulted.
If it were a human player that player would do everything to be on the good side of the power and build up until you can challenge them again.
In short, great that the AI is programed to win, but it continues to behave the same when its defeated but left to rot so in effect it does not know how to behave in order to survive.
For example, in one game Askia (Shongai) and Wu (China) declared war on me at the same time (they had a pact against me, which was very good!!) I beat both down, but I had no desire to conquer them. So I made peace with them after I appeared at their city gates.
OK, after 30 turns the peace expired. Askia only has 1 city compared to my 5, has no military that anyone can speak of. And yet, I get a message where he insults me. Insults me! I mean common, the disparity in power is immense and I get insulted.
If it were a human player that player would do everything to be on the good side of the power and build up until you can challenge them again.
In short, great that the AI is programed to win, but it continues to behave the same when its defeated but left to rot so in effect it does not know how to behave in order to survive.
Are you kidding?
It's funny, a lot of the time the AI / Diplomacy sounds like it's working fine, and people's expectations of how nation leaders should behave is way off. Do any of us remember Kuwait? Saddam was a real popular guy after strolling in there, wasn't he?
People seem to be reminiscing back to Civ IV, where you could do a couple easy things (pick the right religion) and half the civs in the game would never ever be hostile to you pretty much unless you DoWed them directly... and in some cases they liked you so much that you could DoW them, take a couple cities, make peace and they'd go back to liking you (albeit less).
It's nostalgia for the way it used to be, ignoring the fact that the way it used to be was the extreme weak point of an otherwise awesome game.
hunhau
Chieftain
So far I don't think I've seen anything completely strange in my games, but I think this approach would be a nice compromise between (what I think they attemped with) CiV diplomacy (make it more "human"), and the modifiers that were available in CIV, and it'd give me a reason to check the advisors from time to time, right now I basically ignore them.
In my experience so far with the diplomacy in CiV... it kinda works, but some extra information on stuff that you pretty much have no way to see would be nice.
there may be different reasons for them doing that.
1.) He knows you are in a big lead so he realises he's not going to be any better than you later in any aspect of wining and might as well try the last option he has. To attack you and hope for the best.
2.) He might consider the fact that if he attacks you with other civs, he has on paper an advantage over you but that advantage is easily overthrown on the battle field where he suicides his army becouse he doesn't have any strategy at all, and he forgot to consider his lack of common sence, when he waged the war on you.
And even if he knew you would beat him even with 2 times weaker army the AI would then never ever attack you and it would be a lot more boring than what it is right now.
I think that's exactly what it needs. It needs transparency. You need to see somewhere (possibly from your advisor) that Alexander hates you because you violated a promise that your massing troops weren't going to invade someone, or because your army is too weak, etc. It's not that that stuff doesn't occur, it's that without some messaging, it might as well not occur for most players.
There are also some weird bugs to sort out, and lord knows the tactical AI is just awful, but as far as the grand overview/diplomacy stuff, that's the main thing.
I really miss the handy Civ IV excel sheet.
Similar threads
