Why I think the diplomacy is good

[krunsh]

I played one or two game after the patch and was quite angry about some of the reaction from the AI. No one wanted to trade with me, they were getting angry because of a war, when it was actualy some else who was attacking me... the list goes on.

Now I just started a new game, standard size, marathon (to try the speed). The more I played, the more I realized that maybe I was just getting pissed because the AI was not acting the way I wanted them to act.

So in this game I started with arabia, mongolia and babylone on my two front (babylone was quickly crushed by arabia and now stand at one city). I have a very bad relationship with both of them because of close border and other stuff, but I kept being very friendly with the americans on the other side of mongolia.

Opend border, Defensive pact, research agreement. I go to war with them when they ask. I'm now at the industrial age and we are still good friend and we protect each other. Defensive pact realy seems to be the closest thing to an alliance and I realy think it's making a difference (at first I didn't wanted to be forced to war because of them... but then I realised this was a good reason for them not wanting to be friend with me ).

As for the general diplomaty in the world. I found out that, if someone is invading me... But then get is ass kicked by my army and ask for peace, refusing is not well taken by everyone else. Of course you wanna take this chance to capture a few city or even elimate the player since you've crushed is army... But if you do it, other people will start saying you are a violent leader and cancel treaty.

Obviously it's harder to be friend with an expentionist sitting right at our border... But that's not bad gameplay, they just don't want to be friend. And I have no doubt that the american will turn their back on me if I get too close to victory, but I would do the same on multiplayer.

People are getting angry because the AI don't wanna trade luxuries with them. I have no problem trading luxuries with the american in this game and even india wich are good friend too. So again, I was getting angrey because I needed luxuries but couldn't get it, but that's not bad AI...

In this game I took cities from mongolia and arabia when they declared war on me, but stopped when they offered peace and no one is angry about it. Instead, everyone hates arabia and mongolia wich are the to main warmonger in this game.

So yeah, I think the diplomaty is fun and harder than civ 4 since they now seems to care more about every action you make. I just think that the AI has plan of it's own, and if you try to be friend (or just take advantage.) with an AI that have other plan then chances are good it will not work.


Now is the time to tell me how stupid you all think I am: ... !

 

[charon2112]

...Now is the time to tell me how stupid you all think I am: ... !

Unfortunately, I'm sure it's coming.

 

[krunsh]

Unfortunately, I'm sure it's coming.

I can almost smell it.

EDIT: to add something to my argument, I just read something from somwhere else. Someone wase saying that he ''rage quitted'' (his word) his game because 3 AI player declared war on him for no reason, when he add only a few military unit and was focusing on building (again, his word)...

So yeah he got beaten by an offensive AI who knew when to take an opportunity so it's a bad game?

 

[jagdtigerciv]

I can certainly agree with you, the AI is working on it's own agenda. I think the biggest problem is the lack of options when dealing with the AI. In most cases, since everybody is playing to win, there is very little reason to conduct diplomacy period.

Though, there is no doubt most of the complaints on these forums are exaggerated.

 

[charon2112]

I definitely think that the different AI's should have their own flavor and goals. Some should strive for peace and be builders, some should try to slaughter you. I don't like that they all just flatly play to win.

 

[cf_nz]

But then get is ass kicked by my army and ask for peace, refusing is not well taken by everyone else.

That's interesting, I hadn't made that association.

 

[halyavin]

Sometimes civilizations demand something for peace. Is turning that peace down hurts the relations? And what if other civilizations turn down your even peace?

 

[Harald]

But then get is ass kicked by my army and ask for peace, refusing is not well taken by everyone else.

Hmm, does this include when you beat the AIs army with minimal losses, nothing has happen for a while and then you refuse the offer for peace where it demands all you resources, gold, GPT and an one way open border.

 

[Thunderclap]

But，I find a phenomenon:no matter how well I serve AI,such as help them become strong to be my ally against the other emeries,like '1+1>2',it would fire to me sooner or later.Because everone is developing,it maybe cause some contradictions(sorry,my english is poor) which cannot avoid.The AI cannot stand,it becomes angry,forgets anything I did before.

 

[biohazard72]

Diplomacy isn't bad now. People might not like not seeing their status with other AIs, but give it a little experience and you'll be able to tell with good accuracy their intentions (Open Borders/luxury selling price, their comments to you). The only fault I find is a lack of interesting options at the moment. But the buying of opponents into wars works very well, as I will attest to in the following anecdote.

I played a Deity game twice (won both times by tech - turn 245 and 229). Standard continents, and I had a 1 tile choke point with a city state as added buffer. First game, I got declared on by 2 AIs and had to put a lot of effort fighting one off (it paid off well when I won the war and got 170GPT in peace), so I decided to replay the game to see if I could win faster (I didn't play well the first time).

The second time, I used gold/luxuries to constantly buy my neighbours into wars with each other and NEVER got declared on, despite having only my starting warrior and a scout until building a lone Cannon (which I never needed) and an exploratory Caravel. I think I started every war on my continent the whole game.

The buy into war mechanic works extremely well. It's like "Hey, I know you see me as weak, but if I give you this, would you go attack him?" The AI for this decision is very good - the price is higher as the civ of your choice is stronger, or if they seriously hate you. You also can't seem to get weaker civs to attack stronger ones easily. IMO it's the best working diplo mechanic.

 

[krunsh]

Sometimes civilizations demand something for peace. Is turning that peace down hurts the relations? And what if other civilizations turn down your even peace?

I think it may be more related to the fact that you completly destroy the ennemy civilization, that's never well seen by the other civ and it's pretty sure that by that time they will have asked you for peace and offer to give you something.

Now I don't know if the act of refusing peace actualy change what others think about you (opposed a just as capturing more city), but if it does, I'm pretty sure refusing a bad peace offer is not considered ''evil'' since they are actualy bullying you. (Like when you make a ridiculus demand to them.).

I'm sure (well almost sure) that taking a few city to the AI who declared war on you won't affect anything, it's realy when you go to far and you become the rutless invader. Same goes for taking a city states. You can do it and it may help you getting friend with another city state... But never do that if you actualy want good relation with everyone else... It's considered to be evil... and it should.

I definitely think that the different AI's should have their own flavor and goals. Some should strive for peace and be builders, some should try to slaughter you. I don't like that they all just flatly play to win.

I'm pretty sure they already do have their own flavor and goal. For exemple, in my last game india is very peaceful and don't expend much even though they could while arabia is expending insanly and agressivly while going for a tech victory. I do agree that it could be improved though (like many other thing, including diplomacy.).

But，I find a phenomenon:no matter how well I serve AI,such as help them become strong to be my ally against the other emeries,like '1+1>2',it would fire to me sooner or later.Because everone is developing,it maybe cause some contradictions(sorry,my english is poor) which cannot avoid.The AI cannot stand,it becomes angry,forgets anything I did before.

Again, getting to war to help will get you bonus to your relationship with them (and malus with everyone else), but going for total annihilation will still result in a bad relation even with the once allied (who probably already ended the war on his side). I Agree that this is confusing and could work better, but as long as you remember that going to far will always hurt your relation, you should be better. Hope they improve that though...

Diplomacy isn't bad now. People might not like not seeing their status with other AIs, but give it a little experience and you'll be able to tell with good accuracy their intentions (Open Borders/luxury selling price, their comments to you). The only fault I find is a lack of interesting options at the moment. But the buying of opponents into wars works very well, as I will attest to in the following anecdote.

I played a Deity game twice (won both times by tech - turn 245 and 229). Standard continents, and I had a 1 tile choke point with a city state as added buffer. First game, I got declared on by 2 AIs and had to put a lot of effort fighting one off (it paid off well when I won the war and got 170GPT in peace), so I decided to replay the game to see if I could win faster (I didn't play well the first time).

The second time, I used gold/luxuries to constantly buy my neighbours into wars with each other and NEVER got declared on, despite having only my starting warrior and a scout until building a lone Cannon (which I never needed) and an exploratory Caravel. I think I started every war on my continent the whole game.

The buy into war mechanic works extremely well. It's like "Hey, I know you see me as weak, but if I give you this, would you go attack him?" The AI for this decision is very good - the price is higher as the civ of your choice is stronger, or if they seriously hate you. You also can't seem to get weaker civs to attack stronger ones easily. IMO it's the best working diplo mechanic.

I agree with everything. I beleive that they have a very good structure to work on with the futur patches (And no it's nowhere near an alpha release...) just like they did with civ 4.

I was surprise to see how respectful all the answer have been... thanks!

 

[Kyroshill]

I'm ok with the diplo system as far as an initial release goes....

I would like to see many more options:

1 - The ability to request that an ally not crowd you with cities, as opposed to a demand made to hostile neighbors
2 - The ability to publicly praise or denounce another civ (coming in new patch)
3 - A new set of agreements available when a PoC is in place
4 - The possibility of PoS to become known to the targeted civ hurting relations with the other two
5 - Trade embargoes (don't trade with this civ or we'll consider it an act of aggression)
6 - The ability to insult AI leaders as they insult you
7 - The ability to tell the AI to stop messing with CS in your area of influence (as they sometimes do to you)

Of course even cosmetic changes would improve the feel...

Many times the text just doesn't fit the situation, and this is many cases may be able to be fixed by changing out some of the phrases that appear on the screen.

But in general, I like that many times it is unclear exactly why another nation is happy with or angry at you... I like judging AI views of me based on trade negotiations, comments made, etc... after all... SOMETHING has to be slightly more complex than doing the math to see if it "makes sense" to build that wonder/unit/building/city

 

[timmey_o_tool]

I agree, "not only math" diplomacy is better.

But I miss two things :

-First, human are often completely irrationnal, so should also the leaders in civ be. One two examples : Somebody attacks you without any reason (should happen very rarely). Or, sometimes, I just don't attack some civs because I like their color, or their name, or whatever which has noting to do with the game or winning...Or I absolutely want to destroy Alex because I don't like his face... But to be fun, it should not be the norm, be some randomness in the game.

-Second : Why the hell should close borders make the other civ angry ? Sure it is somtimes the case, but as often close borders means best friends : look at Europe now, or USA and Canada. Close borders can aswell be a matter of tension (danger of invasion) or of friendship (cooperation, culture, trade)...

So, Civ5 diplomacy is for me compared to Civ4 a step in the right direction, but with still some huge incompletness to make for the first time in the Civ series some very nice diplo.

 

[Helmling]

That's interesting, I hadn't made that association.

I did. I think they also react poorly to eliminating a Civ. I had never experienced the belligerent AI so many complain about until my last game when I wiped China off the map (by accident--the hadn't taken peace and I didn't realize their capital was their last city).

 

[Helmling]

I agree, "not only math" diplomacy is better.

But I miss two things :

-First, human are often completely irrationnal, so should also the leaders in civ be. One two examples : Somebody attacks you without any reason (should happen very rarely). Or, sometimes, I just don't attack some civs because I like their color, or their name, or whatever which has noting to do with the game or winning...Or I absolutely want to destroy Alex because I don't like his face... But to be fun, it should not be the norm, be some randomness in the game.

-Second : Why the hell should close borders make the other civ angry ? Sure it is somtimes the case, but as often close borders means best friends : look at Europe now, or USA and Canada. Close borders can aswell be a matter of tension (danger of invasion) or of friendship (cooperation, culture, trade)...

So, Civ5 diplomacy is for me compared to Civ4 a step in the right direction, but with still some huge incompletness to make for the first time in the Civ series some very nice diplo.

Look at Europe two hundred years ago...and for hundreds of years before. Remember also that in 1812, the U.S. was at war with Canada and that 150 years ago the U.S. went to war with Mexico, after which--in Civ terms--they essentially became a vassal state.

 

[Clement]

As for the general diplomaty in the world. I found out that, if someone is invading me... But then get is ass kicked by my army and ask for peace, refusing is not well taken by everyone else. Of course you wanna take this chance to capture a few city or even elimate the player since you've crushed is army... But if you do it, other people will start saying you are a violent leader and cancel treaty.

How could you tell that's the reason they were getting angry? and if we do get a penalty for refusing a peace offer after we were attacked is'nt that really unfair? where's their penalty for attacking?

Obviously it's harder to be friend with an expentionist sitting right at our border... But that's not bad gameplay, they just don't want to be friend. And I have no doubt that the american will turn their back on me if I get too close to victory, but I would do the same on multiplayer.

I only really play single player, i'm not a big fan of multi-player.

Now is the time to tell me how stupid you all think I am: ... !

Not at all, you have your opinion and i respect it.

 

[timmey_o_tool]

Look at Europe two hundred years ago...and for hundreds of years before. Remember also that in 1812, the U.S. was at war with Canada and that 150 years ago the U.S. went to war with Mexico, after which--in Civ terms--they essentially became a vassal state.

Yes you are correct, but I still do not agree that close borders = enemies, but also friends ...

 

[eric_]

I love diplomacy in this game. I'm almost disappointed that things will be made more explicit. Very excited about the additional options, though (public denouncement, public support, etc).

 

[krunsh]

Yes you are correct, but I still do not agree that close borders = enemies, but also friends ...

Friend is a possibily with closed border in some case (mostly if the to nation are very alike in their culture). But I do think that most of the time, it's a good representation to have it create a tension between the to nation since msot of the time that's how in was in history pretty much where ever you look at on the globe.

And in term of actualy winning the game, of course it's interesting for a player to expend it's border rather than getting new territory from far away.

How could you tell that's the reason they were getting angry? and if we do get a penalty for refusing a peace offer after we were attacked is'nt that really unfair? where's their penalty for attacking?

I'm pretty sure they do have a penalty in diplomacy themself for attacking. Most of the time AI warmonger will be hated and many other civ will ask your help in destroying them.

 

[Aristos]

Unfortunately, I'm sure it's coming.

No, it's not. He may have a point there.

IF the OP is right, then maybe we can track the problem to the complete lack of feedback regarding diplo... maybe it was not a good idea to "eliminate" (hide?) all "modifiers" or whatever the name may be, maybe the player needs some information regarding WHY the AI has the attitude it has... I know I know, the patch is coming... seeing is believing.