As you should? Seriously?
Surely you are not arguing that, absent other factors, DOWing during a DOF should be okay?
There is no choice about DOWing where you have a DP.
Right, which is why a player should almost never sign a DP. Have you ever seen an AI offer a DP out of the blue? (They will ask about renewing a DP. But that is usually an equally bad deal for the player.)
And no warning that I could see that entering into a DP could lead to a diplo hit.
That is a fair complaint. Most of these diplomatic mistakes one has to make in a game or two before understanding how they work exactly. There is some (game) logic to them.
A DP should trump a DoF in terms of global politics.
That is real-world logic, but actually would not work as well for in-game play mechanics. It would be too easy to exploit.
Or the game should offer the option for you to remain neutral.
Nah, too exploitable. Since the AIs do not use the DP mechanic themselves, it needs pretty severe limitations IMHO.
Or at least warn you about the diplo hit.
Agreed. The in-game explanation and civlopedia entries really warrants more exposition about diplomacy. It is pretty straightforward once you accept it for what it is. (And after you have been caught by surprise once or twice.)
Since the game doesn't have that option, and doesn't warn you, there should NOT be a diplo hit.
I strongly disagree. First, your argument is a non sequitur. Secondly, the in-game diplomacy works better as-is than what you describe (which would be pretty much make DP risk free).
And as for the other diplo hit, if it didn't happen, how am I suffering a diplo hit when I never promised France to move from their borders, but never invaded Rome, while Rome was the nation I assured I wouldn't DoW?
Well, you did DOW France, correct? There is, of course, a diplo hit (with every AI) for that. The mouse-over text explaining the penalty for DOWing after agreeing to move is very specific. I can only assume that you are seeing red modifiers, but you are not certain where they came from, and you are misattributing a penalty.
Personally, I think V has all kinds of diplo bugs and mistakes.
No. You (and many, many others) might disagree with them. You might think them arbitrary. But they are consistent and quite predictable.
I can't tell you how many times I've told a Civ to piss off, only to later be told I broke my promise not to expand towards them.
Ah, this is a big clue as to why you are struggling! The dialogs are phrased as requests, but they are actually demands. (1) Not acquiescing to the demand is a big diplomatic hit with that AI. (2) Doing what prompted the demand is a big diplo hit with that AI. (3) Agreeing to the demand but then doing what prompted the demand is a separate big diplo hit for being a liar -- and I think it effects every AI. Note that (1), (2), and (3) are each separate from each other!
I gave up on trying to play diplomatically in Civ 5 BNW, I used to play as Rome because of the production bonuses for extra cities, but when I had to deal with all the backstabbing and the fact they were expecting me to shamelessly give up on my own interests for theirs every time and all my exclusive luxuries being banned at WC by 'allies'
There is a poorly documented “rapid expander” penalty. Even as Rome you will often want to stay at four cities for the early part of the game. If you trade away all copies of your exclusive lux, and are not getting other diplo hits, your trading partners will vote against banning your lux.
Giving up on diplomacy, because it feels arbitrary, is not an uncommon response. Kind of a shame really, since the diplomacy (such as it is) adds another layer of depth.