What's the use of cooperation and secrecy in diplomacy?

[JLoZeppeli]

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

Not true. I'm sorry but i traded with a civ after a pact agaist it... The civ which propose the pact was always in peace with me and also in the end attacked a civ other than the first, claiming for help.... In another game with a pact of cooperation i was attacked the turn after i made it by the same civ that proposed.... So i think, as they aren't displayed in the Diplomatic windows, that thse pacts are only a rolegaming experience...

 

[Zechnophobe]

Leader AI works a lot more like Civ3 AI which is nice. I think people are just spoiled rotten by the 'same religion' crutch in Civ4, which made it super easy to avoid certian civs from declaring war.

That is off the table, but to say friendly civs are just as likely to DOW on you is ridiculous. AI is pretty astute, it knowns how strong you are. If you're strong enough, even the warmongers try to be diplomatic.

8/10 times that AI has DOW on me, I can trace it back to something I did. Either I refused their advances for closer partnership or I was on the receiving end of a plot (one AI got another to DOW on me).

And pacts of secrecy make the AI more likely to DOW and dogpile on the same Civ if the other Civ goes to war

Tracing back isn't what we want. We want to predict how they will react based off our actions. Prediction instead of retrodiction.

If you claim it makes sense because there is a refused advance somewhere in your history, that basically means that whenever you refuse something, you are risking war. That's just ludicrous!

I want to trade incense for whales. NO? DIE SCUM!

 

[JudgeDeath]

Don't get started on trading. You trade incense for whales fine. 30 turns later with no noticeable change, and apparently friendly relations and you can't trade incense + silk + gold for whales. And they tell you to make a fair offer! Extremely annoying.

 

[oddtail]

No - I'd like to have the AI be able to compete in the peaceful victory conditions. Some of us like empire building, and there are plenty of examples in the real world of nations not attacking their neighbors because they're "winning". Or I'd like to be able to make an AI an ally, in effect sharing in my victory, if I'm so inclined. Instead you have a bunch of incompetent schemers, and the game actively penalizes you unless you start by wiping out anyone near you before you build your empire.

This.

People defend the AI because "it should play to win". It should. But currently "win" equals "smash everyone else in the game". Sure, it's a game, but this game is called "Civilization". This should mean something. There were certainly great military campaigns in the history of civilizations, but this is not a game of Risk. Real-life empires fought each other, conquered each other, but they also traded, progressed peacefully, ended their wars when war was no longer economically viable... honestly, how many wars in history ended with the eradication of one party? Even in the years leading up to World War 1, there were several superpowers in Europe, and when they fought, they didn't magically wipe each other out entirely. I don't want to Godwin the thread, but honestly - I can think of only one guy in recent history who thought "attacking everyone in rapid succession" was the way to go and didn't seem to stop ever.

I'm fine with the AI playing to win, but the AI completely ignores past relations, circumstances, alliances, trade, EVERYTHING if they can take a couple of cities. Even the more military-minded rulers in history maintained peaceful relations with their neighbours more often than not. Civilization 5 has the potential to be a great game, but its AI makes it less a "Civilization 5" and more a "Global Warfare 5".

Granted, one reason for this is that it is too easy to destroy another civilization entirely. I remember it being much trickier to take more than just a few cities in Civilization 4, especially on larger maps.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

This.

People defend the AI because "it should play to win". It should. But currently "win" equals "smash everyone else in the game". Sure, it's a game, but this game is called "Civilization". This should mean something. There were certainly great military campaigns in the history of civilizations, but this is not a game of Risk. Real-life empires fought each other, conquered each other, but they also traded, progressed peacefully, ended their wars when war was no longer economically viable... honestly, how many wars in history ended with the eradication of one party? Even in the years leading up to World War 1, there were several superpowers in Europe, and when they fought, they didn't magically wipe each other out entirely. I don't want to Godwin the thread, but honestly - I can think of only one guy in recent history who thought "attacking everyone in rapid succession" was the way to go and didn't seem to stop ever.

I'm fine with the AI playing to win, but the AI completely ignores past relations, circumstances, alliances, trade, EVERYTHING if they can take a couple of cities. Even the more military-minded rulers in history maintained peaceful relations with their neighbours more often than not. Civilization 5 has the potential to be a great game, but its AI makes it less a "Civilization 5" and more a "Global Warfare 5".

Granted, one reason for this is that it is too easy to destroy another civilization entirely. I remember it being much trickier to take more than just a few cities in Civilization 4, especially on larger maps.

Yes indeed. This is why I like huge maps. It seems easier to win domination in Civ5 than in Civ4 on a huge map - with only capturing capitals and setting up puppet cities. But it's still a huge chore. Which militates towards the sort of realism you're talking about. Plan wars by all means, but make sure they are 'Bismarckian', tightly plotted, with precise goals - because there is another big civ on the other side of the world who you will lose to in science, culture, money etc if you commit to total non-stop war.

But - sadly, as far as I can see, none of the AIs in Civ5 ever seem to realise that maybe they've done enough conquering and should just calm down and compete on other fronts. This was certainly possible, though not inevitable, in Civ4.

 

[Warspite2]

I was confused as to what those pacts do too, but its starting to make more sense. As far as those who say diplomacy is useless, that is far from true. Think about all the advantages... research agreements, defensive pacts, open borders, and resources! Then the city states advantages like getting free units, bonuses and resources. Try diplomatic approaches to several CS and some civs and it makes a huge difference especially if you can keep them allied or at least friends. Of course CS costs a lot of gold for diplomacy actions but you can move ahead quick with having some as allies.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

I was confused as to what those pacts do too, but its starting to make more sense. As far as those who say diplomacy is useless, that is far from true. Think about all the advantages... research agreements, defensive pacts, open borders, and resources! Then the city states advantages like getting free units, bonuses and resources. Try diplomatic approaches to several CS and some civs and it makes a huge difference especially if you can keep them allied or at least friends. Of course CS costs a lot of gold for diplomacy actions but you can move ahead quick with having some as allies.

Not the same thing. CS 'diplomacy' is simply bribery and is quite straightforward and predictable. It's also an essential strategy element - though the main criticism I have of it is that CSs are overpowered. Anyway, I don't think that's what's being discussed here.

 

[DalekDavros]

Pact of Secrecy has no purpose, but I think most people are missing the purpose of the Pact of Cooperation. Indeed, the Pact of Cooperation is very important: it's there to make it more ironic when the civ you've been cooperating with for thousands of years decides to attack you for no reason.

Another is missing options: i.e. to ask for piece with a city state etc.

If you're talking about you asking a CS to make peace, the option is on the CS screen (unless they're allied with someone you're at war with, in which case they won't make peace with you until you make peace with their ally). If you're talking about asking another civ to make peace with a CS, it's in the diplo options under "Other Players."

 

[pazmacats]

Posted this in anpther thread, but here's the proof that diplomacy does not exist.

my points:1300
rome 2nd (700)
aztec 3rd (600)

I have a pact of cooperation with rome, been trading lux for many turns.
I bribe rome into a war with the aztecs
Rome declares war
I demand (somewhat accidentially) that rome does not settle new cities near my borders.
Next turn: Rome declares war.
I have biggger military than rome
I have lux trades with rome
I have a pact of cooperation with rome
Rome is at war with the Aztecs.

In Civ5 the AIs are basically barb camps. With a couple of different colours.