Why the AI is Hostile:

Bradicus said:
I absolutely could not agree more with you! I mean... really... if you can get dinged for doing something wrong/bad... you should be rewarded for doing something right/good!

On a related note: Why is it the computer can demand things as a friend and when it is refused it does not like you, yet when you request/demand something as a friend they also do not like you? It's not a 2-way street!

Also, how does backstabbing work??? In my current game I look at my diplomatic relations (nice addition btw) and notice that almost every other Civ has backstabbed ME! :lol:What gives!? Hahaha seems to me that this whole DoF thing isn't working as intended. To me it just seems like another "Pact of Secrecy" mechanism the AI doesn't seem to put much thought into, only use as a pretext to war.
Click to expand...

Second'

In my last game, after I had a super god-damn powerful empire as Japan, I liberated the Romans, and then a few turns later I get a threat through diplomacy. WTH?
 
Yeah me too.

When I liberated a city from japan, that leader (i don't know his name), he appeared like I woke him from his good-night sleep.

Yeah, really rewarding. You immolate a city from yourself just to have an annoying prick hating you instead.

Yeah I bet everyone does that.
 
deanej said:
Not so. If the AI tells you not to settle in certain areas, you ignore it, and they DOW you, you can't be mad at them. But if you claim some land as yours, the AI settles there, and you DOW, they will be mad. Does that make any sense to you?
Click to expand...

Why can't you be mad at them? Are you emotionally incapable of such feelings? When the AI tells me not to settle land, my friends will often hear me telling it to **** off (often rather amusingly in the middle of a conversation, the AI are tricksy like that), and when the AI declares war on me, settles near me, denounces me or otherwise annoys me, similar words will be uttered (I like to swear a lot when I play civ :p)

If the AI declares war on me, for any reason, even if I feel that it was truly deserved, I am likely to be annoyed at them, or at least 'annoyed' at them in the sense that I'd much rather they hadn't declared war.

I don't see how people can assume we don't have diplomatic modifiers when the entire basis of diplomacy is human interaction. Next people will be saying that it's not fair that we don't get to use military in the same way as the AI - we can confine ourselves to such simple things, we just don't.

And yes, the AI does receive backlash for doing things which you would receive backlash for yourself. Perhaps it's just better at gaming the system, or perhaps ignoring the system is simply the best way to win the game. Either way, don't imagine that the AI can get away with these things
 
The lack of benefits for liberating an AI civ is really galling. There should be big diplomatic bonuses - at least with the civ in question, possibly with others - for doing so. As it is, playing the liberator role is just as likely to make you lose diplomatic standing because of the warmonger penalties.

I like the "casus belli" idea another poster mentioned; the diplomatic system should take into account some context when applying the warmonger penalties. For example, if you warned an AI not to settle near you, and they did anyway, or if AI #1 was beating up AI #2 (with whom you had trade relations or Open Borders, etc.) and you attacked AI #1 to take the pressure off. Even without a Defensive Pact with the AI it should be possible to fight a defensive war without penalty if the conditions are right.

Just starting a war without justification, on the other hand, should carry larger diplomatic penalties. As it is, you can do that a couple times during the game without a significant hit to your standing.
 
Roto-Router said:
There should be big diplomatic bonuses
Click to expand...
The lack of diplomatic bonuses in general is galling. Worse is being completely unable to engage in substantial triangle diplomacy. I really want to see better mechanics for developing positive relationships with AIs, and better mechanics for manipulating the AIs once you've buddied up.
 
I would my self also remove (or modify, modifying in [brackets]) the following:

-They covet land of yours (apparently they covet anything they can see)
-They covet wonders you built (Completely stupid. Makes building wonders far too risky for anyone who wants diplomacy)
-You're expanding to agressively [Modify: Towards land they where going to settle]
-You refused a request after making a DoF [Modify: If they can ask anything, so should we]
-You demanded the not settle near you (Completely stupid, if you don't have the right to counteract in their oppinion if they settle too near)
-You're a warmonger [Modify: There should be sence in the "GTFO WARMONGER" moaning. For example, if you help an ally, you should not be denounced by that ally for helping him. In my oppinion, the warmonger "title" should only be given after defeating a whole civ or many city states, and only by those that didn't have the destroyed civs/cs's as enemies. Then it would make sence.]

What do you think?
 
Roto-Router said:
The lack of benefits for liberating an AI civ is really galling. There should be big diplomatic bonuses - at least with the civ in question, possibly with others - for doing so. As it is, playing the liberator role is just as likely to make you lose diplomatic standing because of the warmonger penalties.
Click to expand...

I brought Ghandi back from the dead in one game, gifted him 3 cities to lighten my happiness burden, and 15 turns later he DoWed me! :crazyeye:

Even though it was immortal and I was leading, this just shouldn't happen. This is nothing more than sloppy programming and needs to be patched.

Ghandi/Lazarus should kiss my feet and be my best bud from there on in, and vote for me at the UN. But no. I was so annoyed I killed him off a second time, and that time he stayed dead.:nuke:

Also, how on earth can a weak civ refuse a defensive pact from the points leader (me)? This is a no-brainer, yet I've never once been able to get one from a weak civ which I wanted to defend as a way of attacking a stronger civ without getting the "war-monger" moniker. Another basic, broken/non-existant diplo mechanic.

And let's be frank here--there ain't that much diplomacy left in this game. the goofball, one-way diplomacy that remains is just one aspect of the "penalize the player" mentality that is rife in CiV. Build a road--you gotta, but it'll cost you 1 gpt. Annex a city, but build that courthouse, because winning a war should bring unhappiness with it.:crazyeye:

In the end, how fun is it to be constantly p-o'ed? It's no longer a strategy game, but a poor cousin to Panzer General with a lot of nerfed/pointless/maintenance-costing buildings to tag along with it (stable, anyone?) so the AI has to constantly engage you in war so that you are distracted and diverted from the tedium and vacuity of peacetime play.
 
You are trying to win similar to us .

When you are trying a diplo win for example and they are trying too . They can see that .
 
The worst part is when Mongolia, etc. (and so many others) get made at me for "trying to win the game similar to them) which I imagine they meant domination simply because I went to war in my own defense. Meanwhile, i'm going for a science victory -- and they're mad too! I buy a single city state for food (for science) -- OH, there goes the diplo victory AI thinking i'm going for diplomacy. It's redunkulous.
 
Catherine denounced me at turn 11! Eleven I tell you! And the only modifier in the tool tip said she didn't like me because I was going for the same victory condition. Seriously? I only have one city with no buildings and the lone warrior you just met, WTH is wrong with you?
 
I think the underlying problem with how the AI conducts diplomacy is that it combines every single one of your interactions into a single list, without regard for who did what to whom. They can't possibly understand why you do bad things to them after they treated you like trash, because everything bad that's ever been done by either side is equally your and their faults (although they won't acknowledge their part in it in the actual UI).

So here's an idea. The game automatically creates a list of good and bad things justifying the AI's attitude toward you... so how about it does the same for you? In the Diplomacy Overview, lists of things each AI did to you on the left, lists of things you did to each AI on the right. This system could solve a myriad of problems, and this new source of information could even let the AI act in more nuanced and creative ways.

  • AI denounces you? It shows up on the left list as an offense on their part. You denounce the AI? It shows up on the right as your offense. You denounce each other? It shows up on both sides. The AI sees matching offenses on the lists and computes the feeling to be mutual.
  • The AI demands something from you. You comply. He demands something else. You comply again. The AI demands yet again, and this time you decline. At this point, the AI looks at the list of things it did to you, and sees that it already demanded from you twice, looks at military standings, and then either apologizes ("Forgive me. I suppose I have been asking too much of you lately.") or insists more forcefully ("Perhaps you don't understand the terms of our friendship. You give me gifts, and I accept them. Got that?") How he reacts is recorded on his list for future reference by yourself and the AI.
  • Flipping the last point around, you manage to squeeze out a few things from the AI, and this is listed on his side as acts of good will on his part. But after enough such acts are accumulated on his part, he stops complying to your requests. At this point, you can apologize or threaten him, and your reaction will be recorded on your list.
  • Now let's say you've managed to do a bunch of good things for an AI (let's say Cathy), with her not returning the favor so equally. Suddenly, Cathy DoWs you and gloats about how you were a fool to trust her. But luckily for you, you have the power of diplomacy on your side! You immediately denounce Cathy, bringing to the other AIs' immediate attention both yours and Cathy's lists. Using the internal weights set for each act of kindness/evil, they are able to come to the conclusion that you've been nice while Cathy has been naughty, and will react by denouncing her as well, labeling her as a bully and straining her relationship with the rest of the world.
  • Of course, denouncements won't always work so cleanly. Let's say that this time, Gandhi declares war on you, but unlike Cathy has good reasons for it (meaning your list is showing a lot of bad things you've done to him in the past, and he's not going to lie down and take it anymore.) So before you start sending your soldiers to the front lines, you denounce Gandhi. But wait, what's this? They're all denouncing you! Turns out that wasn't such a good idea; they're looking at both your lists, and despite Gandhi declaring on you, your bad acts far outweigh his. They see you as the villain you really are. And worse, you tried to feign innocence by playing the victim! They'll distrust you even more than if you had simply let Gandhi denounce you.

These are just a handful of scenarios that are made possible using this double-list system. If you can program an AI to handle information presented in this way, you've got an AI that is far more analytical, empathic, and most importantly, capable.
 
Just another comment: you should never get a warmonger penalty if you were the one declared on, even if you wipe out the enemy civilization. After all, you were just defending your homeland and then preemptively removing a future threat by eliminating the leader.
 
The AI is always hostile because it was violently abused as a child. All we have to do is reach out and show we care, find out what it wants.:p
 
Ramesses said:
I think the underlying problem with how the AI conducts diplomacy is that it combines every single one of your interactions into a single list, without regard for who did what to whom. They can't possibly understand why you do bad things to them after they treated you like trash, because everything bad that's ever been done by either side is equally your and their faults (although they won't acknowledge their part in it in the actual UI).

So here's an idea. The game automatically creates a list of good and bad things justifying the AI's attitude toward you... so how about it does the same for you? In the Diplomacy Overview, lists of things each AI did to you on the left, lists of things you did to each AI on the right. This system could solve a myriad of problems, and this new source of information could even let the AI act in more nuanced and creative ways.

  • AI denounces you? It shows up on the left list as an offense on their part. You denounce the AI? It shows up on the right as your offense. You denounce each other? It shows up on both sides. The AI sees matching offenses on the lists and computes the feeling to be mutual.
  • The AI demands something from you. You comply. He demands something else. You comply again. The AI demands yet again, and this time you decline. At this point, the AI looks at the list of things it did to you, and sees that it already demanded from you twice, looks at military standings, and then either apologizes ("Forgive me. I suppose I have been asking too much of you lately.") or insists more forcefully ("Perhaps you don't understand the terms of our friendship. You give me gifts, and I accept them. Got that?") How he reacts is recorded on his list for future reference by yourself and the AI.
  • Flipping the last point around, you manage to squeeze out a few things from the AI, and this is listed on his side as acts of good will on his part. But after enough such acts are accumulated on his part, he stops complying to your requests. At this point, you can apologize or threaten him, and your reaction will be recorded on your list.
  • Now let's say you've managed to do a bunch of good things for an AI (let's say Cathy), with her not returning the favor so equally. Suddenly, Cathy DoWs you and gloats about how you were a fool to trust her. But luckily for you, you have the power of diplomacy on your side! You immediately denounce Cathy, bringing to the other AIs' immediate attention both yours and Cathy's lists. Using the internal weights set for each act of kindness/evil, they are able to come to the conclusion that you've been nice while Cathy has been naughty, and will react by denouncing her as well, labeling her as a bully and straining her relationship with the rest of the world.
  • Of course, denouncements won't always work so cleanly. Let's say that this time, Gandhi declares war on you, but unlike Cathy has good reasons for it (meaning your list is showing a lot of bad things you've done to him in the past, and he's not going to lie down and take it anymore.) So before you start sending your soldiers to the front lines, you denounce Gandhi. But wait, what's this? They're all denouncing you! Turns out that wasn't such a good idea; they're looking at both your lists, and despite Gandhi declaring on you, your bad acts far outweigh his. They see you as the villain you really are. And worse, you tried to feign innocence by playing the victim! They'll distrust you even more than if you had simply let Gandhi denounce you.

These are just a handful of scenarios that are made possible using this double-list system. If you can program an AI to handle information presented in this way, you've got an AI that is far more analytical, empathic, and most importantly, capable.
Click to expand...

I love this idea, it's brilliant, and stops people complaining that they don't get to treat the AI the same way that it treats them. Everyone has an in-game way of announcing feelings that they have outside of the game.

Obviously the one potential flaw is that they might mess up again what the AI thinks is 'good' or 'bad', or the AI may just randomly mess around like it does at the moment with what it thinks, but overall, this would feel like a step in the right direction, allowing diplomacy to be effected by the past, and also effect the future, as should be the case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
[BNW] why AIs feel to be inconsistent?
Replies
5
Views
786
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
Taefin
Taefin's More AI Cheats
Replies
2
Views
666
Taefin
Taefin
Naokaukodem
Why the map generator is bad
Replies
0
Views
323
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
T
Explorer stacking.
Replies
0
Views
254
tsuneomai
T
K
The AI Is Still Bad?
7 8 9
Replies
174
Views
12K
Kwami
K
Back
Top Bottom