What's the use of cooperation and secrecy in diplomacy?
- Thread starter dickens
- Start date
Hawaiian
Sage
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 174
I think it just means that you are making this agreement with them to either be friendly or secretly work against another nation.
The way I think it works is that if you make a secret pact against someone else, and that nation comes to you asking for something (i.e. open borders or tech agreement), you should deny the offer or else risk pissing off the nation you made the secret pact with.
Regarding cooperation, I dunno, I guess it's kinda like meeting someone at a bar and getting their number. Maybe in the future we can "trade?" Haha, not really sure on the cooperation other than it seems like starting to get warm with them.
The way I think it works is that if you make a secret pact against someone else, and that nation comes to you asking for something (i.e. open borders or tech agreement), you should deny the offer or else risk pissing off the nation you made the secret pact with.
Regarding cooperation, I dunno, I guess it's kinda like meeting someone at a bar and getting their number. Maybe in the future we can "trade?" Haha, not really sure on the cooperation other than it seems like starting to get warm with them.
Abraxis
☮
go to discuss with a leader in diplomacy and hover over the coop and secrecy pact buttons, a tooltip will explain it.
The Leviathan
Warlord
but ignoring this kid
Secrecy is a pact that negatively influences the civilizations that signed it against the civ it's regarding (making them more prone to war and negative relations). However the person you signed it with expects that you do not actively trade or cooperate with the person you signed it against.
Cooperation is just a boost to your relationships with that ruler making them more proned to be friendly towards you and trade.
they're both very easy to understand.
digitalcraft
Warlord
Wow, that's pretty secret.
Whatever. Easy to understand and also pointless for the game. I've signed secret pacts with opposite sides in a war and it amounts to nothing. It's a useless feature that provides nothing.
The Leviathan
Warlord
It's not pointless
The AI doesn't know when you sign a pact of *GASP* secrecy against them. However if you sign a pact of secrecy with somebody and after signing it, start actively trading with the person you signed it against or sign a pact of cooperation with them, then the AI you signed it with will start to dislike you.
To make the claim that they do nothing for the game or it's diplomacy is simply you crying plain and simple. Simply because you don't see the spreadsheet excel numbers on the exact details of everything does not mean it has no meaning
Fact is still there is no way to tell if your reputation goes up or down.
Noone knows exactly what a pact of secrecy against a certain AI does and how much impact it have to trade with with that AI.
You try to explain what the pacts does but you are simply assuming stuff now. You say the AI starts to dislike you. Well thats nice but its not worth anything unless you can tell me how much my reputation suffers, from it.
Though i am enjoyng the game thorougly, I do miss having the detailed data on why another civ's attitude is the way it is.Also miss the diplomacy graphic with the lines connecting all the leaders. Just as important when making deals is not only knowing who likes/dislikes you but also who likes/dislikes the civ you're about to trade with.
Cosnidering Civ outputs no proof at all about the matter I like a lot you explanation and I would put it inside the civilopedia. Lights years better than nothing
salaminizer
Colorado Internacional
they're... modifiers
He didn't ask what they are suposed to do, but what they actually do.
And The Snug gave the right answer.
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
They don't have no effect at all, but civs are still likely to attack you if they think you can be beaten. I think they may have *too little* influence in situations where the numbers are in favour of war.
If you had a pact of cooperation going for 4000 years, the other side should not just drop it the instant it wants your stuff because that increases the output of some internal valuation function by 0.1.
If you had a pact of cooperation going for 4000 years, the other side should not just drop it the instant it wants your stuff because that increases the output of some internal valuation function by 0.1.
Tavenier
King
I don't know the exact effects of them, but I do know that if a nation is thinking of declaring war on you they will cancel one agreement every turn.
I notices a couple of times that a would be enemy cancelled a Pact of Secrecy on turn 1, on turn 2 they cancelled the Cooperation Pact and on turn 3 declared war.
So next to any immediate effects I find them useful to gather for a war that could be imminent.
I notices a couple of times that a would be enemy cancelled a Pact of Secrecy on turn 1, on turn 2 they cancelled the Cooperation Pact and on turn 3 declared war.
So next to any immediate effects I find them useful to gather for a war that could be imminent.
Sure there is - pay attention to their tone when you talk to them, or whether they are massing troops near you or not.
Yes, you can notice if their tone is friendly or angry. But an angry leader is as likely to attack you as a friendly one. It doesn't matter what you do.
GoaGalneGbilski
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 12
They aim for the ai in diplomacy to be a bit more human, seeing as humans very often say useless fluff that sounds pointless out of context. The AI will actually say, than you for seeing the pact of secrecy through all these years after a while (not certain how long) meaning that their relation goes up. But not by an arbitrary number like in civ 4 where everything is statistics.
The cooperation I have seen no effect of, but it is in general asked for by civs who already want to trade with you, and ask if it is mutual. A real trade has a lot more weight, but probing with a pact of cooperation might make the AI agree to trade.
The cooperation I have seen no effect of, but it is in general asked for by civs who already want to trade with you, and ask if it is mutual. A real trade has a lot more weight, but probing with a pact of cooperation might make the AI agree to trade.
I like the diplomacy model in Civ IV. It was counter-intuitive and extremely mechanical, but it did make sense it its own terms, and it allowed the player who understood it to manipulate it in interesting ways.
I'd have been very happy to have seen it carried over into Civ V. That said, I think people who are dismiss the new model as empty or pointless are jumping the gun.
The truth is we don't understand the diplomacy model yet, and I think to conclude that it is empty at this point is silly. You get regular players of Civ IV who never really figured out diplomacy, and complain that "all the AIs attack me for no reason". And they have been playing Civ IV for much longer than we have been playing Civ V, AND they had access to all the modifiers and "worst enemy" stuff right out there in the open.
In short, from what we know now, it is possible that the diplomacy model is shallow and flawed. But equally it is possible that it is highly subtle and will reward a skilled player who understands it. I'm withholding judgement, I'm hopeful since they already had a good diplomacy system, so since they chose to replace it I'm hoping it was for a good reason.
I'd have been very happy to have seen it carried over into Civ V. That said, I think people who are dismiss the new model as empty or pointless are jumping the gun.
The truth is we don't understand the diplomacy model yet, and I think to conclude that it is empty at this point is silly. You get regular players of Civ IV who never really figured out diplomacy, and complain that "all the AIs attack me for no reason". And they have been playing Civ IV for much longer than we have been playing Civ V, AND they had access to all the modifiers and "worst enemy" stuff right out there in the open.
In short, from what we know now, it is possible that the diplomacy model is shallow and flawed. But equally it is possible that it is highly subtle and will reward a skilled player who understands it. I'm withholding judgement, I'm hopeful since they already had a good diplomacy system, so since they chose to replace it I'm hoping it was for a good reason.
You don't know that. You know that you have been attacked by a friendly Civ. That is useful data - it shows that friendliness does not overrule all other reasons when deciding whether to go to war - but it doesn't say anything about the chances of this happening.
There do seem to be other stances apart from just friendly/hostile. I Jaguar rushed Germany at the beginning of a game, and Arabia talked to me soon afterwards and told me that they had heard of my military prowess, and thought that evildoers throughout the world should fear me. I suspect they wouldn't have attacked me no matter what other reasons they had.
Similar threads
