Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 77

Thread: Civ V Diplomacy in action: Yes it works.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    235

    Civ V Diplomacy in action: Yes it works.

    So I'm constantly reading people complaining about how it's impossible to have diplomatic relations with the computer in Civ V. I'm here to tell you you're wrong. It's not impossible to live peacefully with your neighbors, you just can't do it the way you did in Civ IV. In my second game on Prince difficulty I won a cultural victory and only got into two short wars of my choosing. Not once was I attacked, but the key was that I ALWAYS had enough military to effectively defend myself.

    Here's the first thing you have to realize about Civ V. The AI leaders now simulate another player, not an AI ruler. They play to win. Granted, they play poorly, but they play to win.

    In Civ IV the AI leaders were simulations of another government. If you got your relation up to a high enough positive number, they wouldn't attack you cause hey, you're friends. Now the AI leaders just want to win. If you want to build to a cultural or diplomatic victory, you still need a military strong enough to convince the AI you're not worth attacking, because attacking counters every other strategy to win the game. It doesn't matter how high your culture, technology, or diplomatic relations are if you can't effectively protect your cities, and the AI adheres to this philosophy (admittedly too much imo). Imagine what a human player would do if he saw you had no military and five wonders =p

    Now for my own personal experiences. In my last game, my immediate neighbors were Rameses, Catherine, Suleiman, and Napoleon. My wars were against Rameses to take his capital on my border and its wonders, and Suleiman to save a cultural city state. I didn't take any of Suleiman's cities, just pillaged hundreds of gold from his tiles.

    I formed early Pacts of Secrecy against Rameses and Suleiman, because Catherine didn't like them. Other than that, I refused mostly any pact of secrecy against the other 5 rulers and was constantly in pacts of cooperation with them. I occasionally donated excess luxury resources to my neighbors when they asked, was constantly making 1 for 1 luxury resource trade agreements with all the other civs, and was constantly in research agreements with the other nations.

    A few highlights regarding Catherine in particular. Part of my strategy was to keep a monopoly on gems and wine to trade to other rulers to keep my relations up. There was one good settlement spot left with access to two wine, and I was about to settle it when I saw Catherine had moved a settler into the exact spot I wanted. I asked her not to settle new cities near me, and she actually agreed and withdrew her settler. The next time I spoke to her she was still smiling. A few turns later I saw her martialing an army at my borders, and thought I was about to meet the famous bipolar AI. But no, she just asked for open borders and went to war against Napoleon, along with the rest of the world. It's worth noting Napoleon had just conquered Rome completely.

    Now I'm not saying diplomacy doesn't need some work, because it certainly does. I think the biggest problem is that AI players over-react to conquering other nations' cities. However, I believe the problem most people are having is that they're trying to work the system the way they did in Civ IV, and that's just not how it works anymore. Now maybe circumstances were just right in my game, but it still proves that it is possible to play peacefully.

    I'd love to hear if anyone else has played games this peaceful, and would be happy to answer any questions about my game in particular.

    tl;dr: Diplomacy works, but you have to have the military to back it up. The AI plays to win now, not to simulate.
    Last edited by trainzebra; 09-27-2010 at 12:05 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    40
    Well now that I read it perhaps you are right - I managed to get to 1500 A.D without going to war once. I was on an island on my own so no border issues to manage and I avoided secrecy pacts except for one person. It worked out really well until I killed some barbarians outside my border and then the **** hit the fan and the Bismark and Catherine cancelled all deals and trades with me because of my warmongering.

  3. #3
    Nice post.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Fubuki79 View Post
    It worked out really well until I killed some barbarians outside my border and then the **** hit the fan and the Bismark and Catherine cancelled all deals and trades with me because of my warmongering.
    I think that sentence says it all. That's the reason we all dislike the ridiculous AI.

    One of my favorite instances came from a game I was playing. Darius was my best friend for 2000+ years. I even declared war on Napoleon when he was fighting with him. After he took over everybody except Napoleon and myself, he declared war on me.

    Once I crushed Darius worse than Alexander ever could have (with Napoleon's help this time), he suddenly calls ME to warmonger and continually chides me for my "greedy" landgrabbing. Montezuma--whom I had liberated BACK INTO THE GAME from Darius--also accused me of being a militant thug.

    Worst of all--I was playing Ghandi and going for a cultural victory! Yeah, the AI makes NO sense.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20
    Outstanding.

    So far in my game I've been playing peacefully with everyone. I almost went to war with the Ottomans because he attacked a city-state I was allied with, but the city-state held its own. Haha.

    The only time I have gone to war thus far was to stop Washington from I think building a city near my capital. I asked him not to and he said no, so I attacked him and took his settler. That was it, I did not press towards him as I just did not want that settler building near me.

    A few turns later, he asked me for peace and offered me a bunch of gold.

    Game is going good so far.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4
    Ahh, thanks Trainzebra. I'll try your suggestions tonight and will be very excited if they work I was beginning to lose hope!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3
    Try telling me that on a marathon difficulty at prince or above. The AI makes monumentally stupid decisions, and its almost entirely based off of how large your military is. It doesnt matter one nation is being reamed into the dirt by another, or that you offer alliances etc to try and help - if your military is x amount smaller than theirs, they hate you. Period.

    I had a game where about 800 turns in, bismarck had something like 80 cities ( a retarded amount), and literally 100 units. He declared war but I used tactics and my 8 or so units to smash his army. I build up my military to about 20 units, and what happens? The guy surrounded by bismarck wars me, my ally on another continent suddenly is hostile, and eventually wars me as well.

    What the hell man. AI diplomacy choices are made by some bipolar mentalist rolling a die.

  8. #8
    yes, but this method of winning at every cost does not take into consideration basic ethical behaviour - which even human players would have.


    for instance, asking and receiving and open boarders agreement only to position your troops well inside your neighbours boarders and attacking him.


    thats just bad form, and if allowed to happen, serious consequences for the perpetrator should take place.


    additionally, weaker states seem to lack common sense and if you are way ahead they will prioritise putting obstacles in your path before their own survival.

    for example, if i am a weaker state neighboring a powerful civ, i will need to find ways to survive. how? giving them tribute when they demand it, or resources even if i have just one; in the meantime trying to scheme with other civs my neighbours downfall.

    as it is, it seems impossible to reason with some civs as they will prefer you razer their cities one after the other before they give you their aluminium.

    so the problem is that "winning" cannot be the only goal. there needs to be a winning mentality, but if winning becomes a difficult achievement, the civ should turn to surviving as their #1 priority (minding their closest neighbours more than the ones on the other side of the map), and, backstabbing needs to be penalised by all the civs - so do it at your own peril .,

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by wilm0chimp View Post
    Try telling me that on a marathon difficulty at prince or above. The AI makes monumentally stupid decisions, and its almost entirely based off of how large your military is. It doesnt matter one nation is being reamed into the dirt by another, or that you offer alliances etc to try and help - if your military is x amount smaller than theirs, they hate you. Period.

    I had a game where about 800 turns in, bismarck had something like 80 cities ( a retarded amount), and literally 100 units. He declared war but I used tactics and my 8 or so units to smash his army. I build up my military to about 20 units, and what happens? The guy surrounded by bismarck wars me, my ally on another continent suddenly is hostile, and eventually wars me as well.

    What the hell man. AI diplomacy choices are made by some bipolar mentalist rolling a die.
    ive seen this happen with the AI too, and i think its actually quite clever.


    it seems the AI takes advantage of other players in wars to pursue their own agenda.


    i was playing as rome, and germany and egypt were in my continent. egypt attacked a CS i had pledged to protect, so i go into war with egypt. at that time, germany was piling his troops on my borders and i was expecting them to attack me at any moment.

    yet, and to my surprise, they attacked egypt a few turns after all the damage was done.

    they conquered a few of wgyptian cities (i was not interested in expansion) and when i made peace with egypt, they made peace with egypt.

    a few turns later they declared war on me.


    so there are no "allies" in this game, they are set out to win and if you put yourself in a position of vulnerability, expect to mercy.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    235
    This is actually in line with what I would expect from the current AI. Note I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good implementation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Old School Role-Player View Post
    I think that sentence says it all. That's the reason we all dislike the ridiculous AI.

    One of my favorite instances came from a game I was playing. Darius was my best friend for 2000+ years. I even declared war on Napoleon when he was fighting with him. After he took over everybody except Napoleon and myself, he declared war on me.
    This is what I would expect from the "plays to win" AI. If Darius has conquered everyone in the world except for you and Napoleon, then he still has to take you down to win. If he had conquered Paris then you were literally all that was left, and he attacked you as he well should.

    Once I crushed Darius worse than Alexander ever could have (with Napoleon's help this time), he suddenly calls ME to warmonger and continually chides me for my "greedy" landgrabbing. Montezuma--whom I had liberated BACK INTO THE GAME from Darius--also accused me of being a militant thug.

    Worst of all--I was playing Ghandi and going for a cultural victory! Yeah, the AI makes NO sense.
    This reflects what I was saying about the AI over-reacting to conquering cities. I assume that by crush you mean you conquered a big block of his cities. In the eyes of the AI, this is warmongering. Likewise after you freed Montezuma, the AI's total disdain for conquering cities outweighs his gratitude of being liberated. You can further see this reflected in the late game as the AI players constantly go to war with each other, conquering each other's cities, further causing their neighbors to hate them, causing them to go to war, and the cycle continues.

    Again, I'm not saying that this is a good implementation, but it is how it is right now. My point was only to say that you -can- play peacefully if you play your cards right.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    25
    well in civ4 you could win with your allies, in conquest you could make alliances and youa nd your allies would take out every one elese and you and yoru allies would win.

    they removed this abilty so they had to make AI less friendly.

    thats what people are mostly upset about this abilty to make allies and have them become allies of your freinds and then have faction style world wars they took this all out of the game pretty much.
    Last edited by midn8t; 09-27-2010 at 12:57 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Remmo View Post
    Ahh, thanks Trainzebra. I'll try your suggestions tonight and will be very excited if they work I was beginning to lose hope!
    If you want to try and repeat my results I'd also suggest playing a pangaea map. Makes sure the computer has people to fight that aren't you =p

    Though I'd be interested to see if it's possible to peacefully share a continent with the computer as it's only neighbor. I'm inclined to think that it isn't, as eventually you would have something the computer wants, but I think I'll give it a try tonight.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    124
    Great post, I agree with the a.i over reacting to other wars... i had been peaceful for over 400 game turns... i rejected all offers of going to war with other Civs... then i decide to take Edinburgh... so i invade and conquer them... next turn my best friend (Arabia) allies with its hated neighbour(Rome, who it had been asking me to help destroy for ages) both declare war on me and utterly destroy my army as i was not ready nor expecting to fight the two most powerful empires on my northern border.

    1 City State conquered and war with another absolutely angered every Civ in the game... most of which had conquered at least 2 them selves!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    301
    thank god for this, people who actually understand that the ai in civ 5 is simply different to civ 4 not worse. i think once i get used to the new ai it will be interesting to try and suss them out and try to understand what they're "thinking"

    ...sure would help if they tightened up the way the ai wages war though. i'm sure they will in time, i'm playing on much higher difficulty levels than i used to in civ 4, i hope that ai fixes will put me back in my place

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by wurrble182 View Post
    thank god for this, people who actually understand that the ai in civ 5 is simply different to civ 4 not worse. i think once i get used to the new ai it will be interesting to try and suss them out and try to understand what they're "thinking"

    ...sure would help if they tightened up the way the ai wages war though. i'm sure they will in time, i'm playing on much higher difficulty levels than i used to in civ 4, i hope that ai fixes will put me back in my place
    Actually I wouldn't entirely agree with that. The ideas behind the Diplomacy AI in Civ V are different, not worse than Civ IV. The way that those ideas are currently implemented is definitely worse than Civ IV's AI as it exists now. As has been pointed out, Civ V's AI's severely over-react to conquering other empire's cities. Fix that and I think the AI would react much more logically to events.

    The point of my post was to point out the ideas behind Civ V's AI and how it is possible interact with them peacefully (in some situations at least). Once the AI is patched a little it should be a lot more fun to interact with.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by trainzebra View Post
    The AI plays to win now, not to simulate.
    Agreed. Everything about Civ V is more game, less simulation.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9
    I have to agree with OP. I dedicated some time over the weekend after swearing I was giving civ5 up.

    Experience playing egypt on Emp was that the AI diplomacy actually does work. I was fairly nice with most neighbours, and could form trade deals that were fair. Also didnt have any issues with random wars. (befriended 2 city states that were donating military units for all my military production until approx 1000ad.)

    That said.... who cares when my cannons get to 1 shot kill every rifleman coming into my borders all game long until the modern age...

    Has anyone had an experience where the AI actually does manage to rampage their civ even on harder difficulty settings? I find that 5 units on a front is always enough as long as you stay near a natural defensive spot and have range units do the legwork.

    Also could be just me, but i was tech leagues behind because it was on EMP, but by befriending two militaristic city states, I was getting state of the art troops I would have had no chance of getting otherwise.... which made me feel cheap, for example I was only able to build spearmen, they were gifting me pikemen.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    109
    Diplomacy is currently working during my 3 city India Emperor game. I started next to Japan & made nice with them. How? Give him open borders & a pact of cooperation and actually cooperate. When he asked me to go to war I did it. When he asked me for a research agreement, I did it. We were best buds... Until America stepped in & totally wasted him.

    This showed the diplomacy was even more in depth because afterwards America became my best buds despite me going to war with him for Japans sake. Because I was an honourable ally to Japan, America had no problem allying with a former enemy.

    However I've kinda screwed up later into the game, I was put into an impossible situation. The two big super powers are America & England. America asked me to join them in the war & I said I needed ten turns to prepare. I soon realised when I actually looked at the terrain that it would be impossible for me to defend my two sources of iron against England... So 10 turns later I changed me mind. Since then, relations with America have soured & he's just taken my one city state ally.

    Hopefully Lizzy will keep him busy long enough for me to get a cultural victory or I'm screwed. He has a million riflemen to my 10 medieval units & 2 pieces of artillery. My cities do have like 40+ defense though.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    235
    This points out something else that I've noticed. The AI highly prizes honesty. In my current game I'm playing Alexander going for a diplo victory. At one point, Catherine attacked one of my allies. At this point and time, Catherine and I were friends. When she apologized to me I told her she would pay for this, because I fully intended on protecting my city state. After beating her back (I only killed her attackers, didn't push into her territory), I opened her diplomacy screen and was surprised to see her smiling and greeting me as friend. Unfortunately, Montezuma attacked my city state a few turns later, and when I went to war with him it soured my relationship with Catherine.

    Later on Rameses was attacking the same city state (I later sailed over to Japan and conquered the city state that had the hit out on my ally =p). I had a few of my units in position to defend, but not enough to fight him off without taking losses. When he asked what I was doing I told him I was passing through, then once my army was in position I attacked. He told me the world would know of my treachery, and lo and behold nearly every other Civ greeted me with a negative reaction. I've since repaired my relations with some of them, but it was a lesson worth noting.

    In humorous related news, my relationship with Florence is currently 600/60 =p

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    138
    Sorry to sound mean, but it gets old hearing strategy tips from people playing on easy (yeah prince is easy) beat the game on emperor+ and then give out advice, the game changes hugely from king +. For example, I was having trouble with happiness in my first game (played my first on king) and came to read others opinions... I saw people posting about having 30+ happiness and my jaw hit the floor... I must really suck! then I keep reading... oh chieftin.. well ok then, that explained that.

    Honestly, start up your next game on emperor, and see if you can still get the AI to never attack. the AI attacked me even though we had a research agreement that hadn't completed, and I had a more advanced army, and he got his ass kicked in the attack... doesn't seem like logic to me, attacking riflemen with musketmen. The only reasoning was we shared a boarder.

    To BruceB, I have had the same thing happen, I just position a few infantry and cannon/arty on my boarder and the AI just comes to die, quickly ranking up my troops. They need to improve the AI in this game or I think I'm gonna be done with it till a mod or expansion pretty quick.
    Last edited by Jtc3400; 09-27-2010 at 03:13 AM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9
    I read some of these posts and just scratch my head. (not this one) I was honestly a B player at best in CIV4 and I feel like a hero every EMP/Diety game ive played CIV5.

    The other big thing I notice is even on harder difficulty settings, my ships are the only ones to hit the sea..... I wish i could post a screenshot I was egypt again and I had an inland sea that was also border for the greeks and persians...

    They would embark troops to go to their cities they had colonized near my borders..... and not send a single ship to protect... I had 2 frigates.... I cried everytime I moved them onto an embarked rifleman.... thinking why oh why dont they send an escort...

    Everything else feels okish... while slightly dumbed down but the military AI... god

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    144
    I am placed next to Napoleon 100% of the time, and 100% of the time he wars me, no matter our relationship, lol.

  23. #23
    nice
    but for me its not so good
    because I play with alot of war
    this means if I want something i will get it xD
    i played only one game on prince
    with greece
    I started to attack rome the first time i met them
    I wanted to have war with bismark all the time but I dindt came to it because japan got to big and i had to take some cities
    I have many times war because i want some cities that i like(new york, rome, tokio....)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtc3400 View Post
    Sorry to sound mean, but it gets old hearing strategy tips from people playing on easy (yeah prince is easy) beat the game on emperor+ and then give out advice, the game changes hugely from king +. For example, I was having trouble with happiness in my first game (played my first on king) and came to read others opinions... I saw people posting about having 30+ happiness and my jaw hit the floor... I must really suck! then I keep reading... oh chieftin.. well ok then, that explained that.

    Honestly, start up your next game on emperor, and see if you can still get the AI to never attack. the AI attacked me even though we had a research agreement that hadn't completed, and I had a more advanced army, and he got his ass kicked in the attack... doesn't seem like logic to me, attacking riflemen with musketmen. The only reasoning was we shared a boarder.

    To BruceB, I have had the same thing happen, I just position a few infantry and cannon/arty on my boarder and the AI just comes to die, quickly ranking up my troops. They need to improve the AI in this game or I think I'm gonna be done with it till a mod or expansion pretty quick.
    I wasn't trying to offer wise, sagely advice (I highly doubt I'm good enough for that). My goal was to share the fact that I played a game without ever being attacked once, and how I did it.

    I realize that the AI is going to be more aggressive on higher difficulty levels. In fact, I more or less point out that this is true in the OP. As I said, if you don't have a sufficient military to protect yourself, you WILL be attacked. On Emperor+, when the AI has huge production advantages over you, the AI will always have a military advantage over you according to its own logic. The AI is too horrible at combat for it to be a real advantage, but that's beside the point.

    The point of this topic was to point out the "rules" the AI abides by when it comes to war and peace as I understand them, and to see what other players' experience indicates. On "Normal" difficulty (where the AI has no production advantage over you), this is how I played a full game without being attacked, something I haven't seen anyone post doing yet. I apologize if I offended you

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by trainzebra View Post
    So I'm constantly reading people complaining about how it's impossible to have diplomatic relations with the computer in Civ V. I'm here to tell you you're wrong. It's not impossible to live peacefully with your neighbors, you just can't do it the way you did in Civ IV. In my second game on Prince difficulty I won a cultural victory and only got into two short wars of my choosing. Not once was I attacked, but the key was that I ALWAYS had enough military to effectively defend myself.

    Here's the first thing you have to realize about Civ V. The AI leaders now simulate another player, not an AI ruler. They play to win. Granted, they play poorly, but they play to win.

    In Civ IV the AI leaders were simulations of another government. If you got your relation up to a high enough positive number, they wouldn't attack you cause hey, you're friends. Now the AI leaders just want to win. If you want to build to a cultural or diplomatic victory, you still need a military strong enough to convince the AI you're not worth attacking, because attacking counters every other strategy to win the game. It doesn't matter how high your culture, technology, or diplomatic relations are if you can't effectively protect your cities, and the AI adheres to this philosophy (admittedly too much imo). Imagine what a human player would do if he saw you had no military and five wonders =p

    Now for my own personal experiences. In my last game, my immediate neighbors were Rameses, Catherine, Suleiman, and Napoleon. My wars were against Rameses to take his capital on my border and its wonders, and Suleiman to save a cultural city state. I didn't take any of Suleiman's cities, just pillaged hundreds of gold from his tiles.

    I formed early Pacts of Secrecy against Rameses and Suleiman, because Catherine didn't like them. Other than that, I refused mostly any pact of secrecy against the other 5 rulers and was constantly in pacts of cooperation with them. I occasionally donated excess luxury resources to my neighbors when they asked, was constantly making 1 for 1 luxury resource trade agreements with all the other civs, and was constantly in research agreements with the other nations.

    A few highlights regarding Catherine in particular. Part of my strategy was to keep a monopoly on gems and wine to trade to other rulers to keep my relations up. There was one good settlement spot left with access to two wine, and I was about to settle it when I saw Catherine had moved a settler into the exact spot I wanted. I asked her not to settle new cities near me, and she actually agreed and withdrew her settler. The next time I spoke to her she was still smiling. A few turns later I saw her martialing an army at my borders, and thought I was about to meet the famous bipolar AI. But no, she just asked for open borders and went to war against Napoleon, along with the rest of the world. It's worth noting Napoleon had just conquered Rome completely.

    Now I'm not saying diplomacy doesn't need some work, because it certainly does. I think the biggest problem is that AI players over-react to conquering other nations' cities. However, I believe the problem most people are having is that they're trying to work the system the way they did in Civ IV, and that's just not how it works anymore. Now maybe circumstances were just right in my game, but it still proves that it is possible to play peacefully.

    I'd love to hear if anyone else has played games this peaceful, and would be happy to answer any questions about my game in particular.

    tl;dr: Diplomacy works, but you have to have the military to back it up. The AI plays to win now, not to simulate.
    you playing anything above prince?
    Gues what the nemy will always out number and out tech you for at least 75 if not more % of the game, they will always see you as weak and want to exploit you.

    Constant conastnat war. no matter what you offer them for peace.
    on top of that, when you win a war and crus htheir military in the field and surround there cities- they won't give you ☺☺☺☺. not one lousy coin ( I actaully tried asking for just one coin).

    AI sucks... Diplo sucks...
    Game has potiential but to say it "can" work has nothing to do with reality...


    I can give you 5 straight examples of the 5 games I played where diplo was so god aweful it made me cringe.

    stupid AI is stupid.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    146

    Wink too much work ...

    Meh Diplomacy is just too much hassle.
    It's much easier just to roll over the map with Ships of the line/ Repeating crossbows / Samurai / Overpowered unit of your choice.
    For some reason, since score is Dependant on population the best way to win with a high score is to kill everything. If a opponent sue for peace, kill him anyway.
    If you are not at war ... you are doing it wrong. (j.k.)
    Last edited by Nerdfish; 09-27-2010 at 05:37 AM.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by trainzebra View Post
    This is what I would expect from the "plays to win" AI. If Darius has conquered everyone in the world except for you and Napoleon, then he still has to take you down to win. If he had conquered Paris then you were literally all that was left, and he attacked you as he well should.
    I disagree. Turning on your best friend doesn't help you win the game. Remember, you can win on score as well. Considering my cultural victory came 27 turns before 2050, it's entirely feasible. Seeing as how he was way ahead in score at that point in time--until we met the Ottomans, who also conquered his entire continent.

    Having a large empire doesn't mean you can't still win a spaceship victory or even a diplomatic victory for that matter. I just think it's ridiculous that the AI is programmed to single-mindedly to achieve a conquest victory.

    Quote Originally Posted by trainzebra View Post
    Again, I'm not saying that this is a good implementation, but it is how it is right now. My point was only to say that you -can- play peacefully if you play your cards right.
    I would think that your statement here just contradicts what you've said before. Like I said, I played the diplomacy game with Darius and he attacked me anyway. Later, I noticed that Napoleon had a terribly massive military buildup on his borders. By this time, my 4 "real" cities were built up enough so I could afford to pay for a more modern military. It was my massive military buildup along my borders that dissuaded Napoleon from attacking me (he stabbed all his allies in the back as well).

    Because I had such a huge military, he attacked a city state I was protecting. He contacted me and apologized for attacking. I demanded that he sue for peace (and offered nothing in return)--he accepted. Two turns later, he attacked the city state again. I demanded that he stop attacking them again, and again, he stopped without me having to offer anything in return. By the third or fourth time, the city state declared a perpetual war on him, but my borders had completely enveloped him and I no longer offered him open borders.

    So basically, the only way to keep a civilization from declaring war on you is to expend all of your resources building up a massive military that you can't do anything with because you're trying to avoid war in the first place? Sorry, but that sucks big time, and completely prevents any opportunity to play an entire game peacefully and still win.

    And if any player stabbed everybody in the back all the time, I can bet that people will remember him and nobody will play with him anymore. Problem is, you can't do that in Civ V when 80% of the leaders do the same thing. I'd really like to see AI's that I can feel comfortable sharing a border with.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    146

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Old School Role-Player View Post
    I disagree. Turning on your best friend doesn't help you win the game. Remember, you can win on score as well. Considering my cultural victory came 27 turns before 2050, it's entirely feasible. Seeing as how he was way ahead in score at that point in time--until we met the Ottomans, who also conquered his entire continent.

    Having a large empire doesn't mean you can't still win a spaceship victory or even a diplomatic victory for that matter. I just think it's ridiculous that the AI is programmed to single-mindedly to achieve a conquest victory.



    I would think that your statement here just contradicts what you've said before. Like I said, I played the diplomacy game with Darius and he attacked me anyway. Later, I noticed that Napoleon had a terribly massive military buildup on his borders. By this time, my 4 "real" cities were built up enough so I could afford to pay for a more modern military. It was my massive military buildup along my borders that dissuaded Napoleon from attacking me (he stabbed all his allies in the back as well).

    Because I had such a huge military, he attacked a city state I was protecting. He contacted me and apologized for attacking. I demanded that he sue for peace (and offered nothing in return)--he accepted. Two turns later, he attacked the city state again. I demanded that he stop attacking them again, and again, he stopped without me having to offer anything in return. By the third or fourth time, the city state declared a perpetual war on him, but my borders had completely enveloped him and I no longer offered him open borders.

    So basically, the only way to keep a civilization from declaring war on you is to expend all of your resources building up a massive military that you can't do anything with because you're trying to avoid war in the first place? Sorry, but that sucks big time, and completely prevents any opportunity to play an entire game peacefully and still win.

    And if any player stabbed everybody in the back all the time, I can bet that people will remember him and nobody will play with him anymore. Problem is, you can't do that in Civ V when 80% of the leaders do the same thing. I'd really like to see AI's that I can feel comfortable sharing a border with.
    You need a lot of defense to avoid wars even if you are not on the offensive.
    Now if you have the Kremlin, your city could have godlike defenses (99-107) with all the fortifications built. if you garrison a rocket artillery and a fighters in each, nobody will be bothered to waste units attacking them

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    23
    I'd also like to mention that I think it's possible to kill barbarians without the other civs hating you. In one of my games, I chose to try something new with the barbarians. In the early game, I would only kill the barbarians if no other civ's units were around to see it. After doing so, I got several requests from the other civs for cooporation, secrecy, etc. So they did not seem to think of me as war-mongering.

    Thus, I think that secrecy could be used differently than I was expecting. I wonder if it would be beneficial to create a pact of secrecy with a civ who can see me before engaging the barbarians.

    I'm not sure, but one thing seems certain. Earlier comments about the diplomacy being different and the fact that everyone seems to want to deal with it like they did in Civ IV seems accurate. In Civ V, the AI definitely seems to care more about winning than making friends. Sure improvements should be made, but I think largely, people need to just experiment and figure out the stuff we don't know about it yet. We might be making assumptions that are entirely off target.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    147
    Uh huh. Well, when the AI stops refusing requests for a cooperation pact only to ask me on the next turn if I want a cooperation pact, I'll be impressed. For that matter, when pacts appear to have even the slightest actual impact on the game, I'll be impressed.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by trainzebra View Post
    If you want to try and repeat my results I'd also suggest playing a pangaea map. Makes sure the computer has people to fight that aren't you =p

    Though I'd be interested to see if it's possible to peacefully share a continent with the computer as it's only neighbor. I'm inclined to think that it isn't, as eventually you would have something the computer wants, but I think I'll give it a try tonight.
    I'm actually in a game right now in that position. There are only 3 civs left in the game. Japan owns one continent and the Iroquois own the one that I'm on. I only have 3 cities and no army whatsoever. The Iroquois and Japan are in the modern age and I'm still in the medieval. We've been at peace for a while now and I happen to have the most wonders and only 2 policy trees left for a culture victory. The Iroquois just asked me to declare war against Japan so I think I might be able to survive a little longer.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    This thread is very interesting as I have been reading about how stupid the AI is in Civ 5; however, when I play the game it is not that simple. Clearly the AIís tactics need to be worked on; however, the change in philosophy to have the AI play the game to win instead of simulating a historic leader is genius and makes for very fun and interesting games. The current game I am playing (my first King level) show cases the fact that the computer knows how to play very well strategically.

    I am playing on continents and by the mid game have conquered my continent (wiped out America and India). Babylon is on his own continent finishing up his war with England and Persia along with a number of city states. We are the two super powers of the world and will be going for the win.

    I have been very friendly with Babylon since I am not interested in a war because they have a much higher score, more cities, more production capacity, much bigger army and much better tech. Looking at this situation I will most likely loss a score victory since he well ahead of me in points plus I was struggling to pull myself out of unhappiness so there is little hope of catching up. I was doing ok with culture but no way either Babylon nor I would be able to finish a culture victory before 2050. Space race would be another option but the same factors that ruled out the score victory make a space race even harder. I could try to for a conquest victory by going straight for the Babylonís capital city but after some scouting, it is located in the center of his continent with lots of hills and forest for good defense. Since the AI is really bad a tactics I could still potentially win with conquest but I would need to build up an economy and an army to take him on. The last solution would be to go for a diplomatic victory which I chose to do by boosting my research and making a beeline for Globalization to get the UN.

    Babylon seems perfectly content with his position in the world, with the top score, so he coasts to victory. He seems to know we both cannot win through culture and seem to not be concerned with the space race and I also have my capital in the center of my continent and is not interested in messing up his score victory by declaring war so we become good friends, form trade agreements, open boards, research tech, etc. I have little interested in war at this point since I am going for a diplomatic victory and want to show Babylon the error in its ways for conquering so many city states.

    When I get to a couple techs away from Globalization, the AI seems like it figured out what I was doing and it still wanted to win. Neither of us wanted an open war so instead Babylon declares war on all the city states to try to conquer them to prevent the diplomacy victory. I start gifting key military units to the city states to keep them from falling to the Babylonís while the Babylonís are trying desperately to conquer them to keep me from a diplomatic victory. We remain good friends the whole time but there is a massive cold war going on all over the world. Due to an oversight on my part, Babylon is finally able to conquer one more city state on his continent that I had not allied with but Babylonís aggression die down and I am very close to winning diplomatic, there was no way he could kill off all the city states. (As a bonus, it was cool to see one of the city states conquer a Babylon city with my help, proxy wars can be fun. )

    So I build the UN and 10 turns later everyone minus Babylon votes for me (minus Babylons) and I win, right??? Well, I should have reread the manual since I was still 1 vote shy of victory. I was playing with 6 civilizations so that includes 12 city states so 18 votes total. To win diplomatic victory requires 9 votes and I had 8. The Babylonianís war against the city states denied me the diplomatic victory. Once he saw that I could not win on score, culture, space race or diplomacy then he sat back building up his army to coast to a score victory.
    Once I realized my major blunder, I started massing a liberation army. I donít need to take his capital since I can still win diplomatically but it will be close since I only have 20 turns left. I have a decent fleet with a couple destroyers and battleships with a loaded carrier. For ground assault I have a tank with 4 mech inf with artillery and AT cannons for support off the coast of 2 conquered city states. The plan is to declare open war on Babylon, liberate at least one if not two city states, hold on for the UN vote to come around and win the game. It does not appear that Babylon is prepare for this war but he has to spread himself thin because he needs to protect all the city states he conquered since I could be going for any one of them or his capital. I have to worry about him taking additional city states once open war is declared. It should make for an interesting final battle to win (or lose) the game tonight.

    My point in all this is that in my opinion the computer now fun to play against because the AI thinks like another player (albeit a stupid tactician) and does things to win the game. He will be your friend if it helps him win the game, he will declare war on you if it helps him win the game, he will help you screw over a friend if it helps him win the game, or he will screw you over if it helps him win the game. Even if the odds are against him and you back him into a corner and he has no other choose he will still choose to go for the most viable option to win the game or lose trying. By comparison, the AI in Civ IV was really stupid because it showed little interested in winning the game or even understand how to win the game but instead was programmed with historic personality which often hinder them from winning or they had very predictable strategies to always go for the same victory every time. Elizabeth goes for culture victory, Khan goes for conquest, Tokugawa was hard ass who never wanted to make any fair trades even if it was to his own detriment.

    When I read about so many people complaining about the AI (and the tactic do need to be improved) I was worried this game would be boring but I have found it to be a fun and interesting experience and have a hard time imagining going back to Civ IV.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3
    I just made a post detailing my problems with the AI and I wish I had read this one first.

    Your point about the AI playing to win vs simulating a real government is great, and expresses just what I was thinking about the game.

    I just wish they did it better. I was in a game last night on prince, and the Iroquois conquered almost the whole contintent, but grew so large they couldnt maintain their civ and had to raze the puppet cities they had. It was a little frustrating to see all that open space appear when I was hoping for several countries trading blows.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1
    Yeah, I have been confused about all the griping about diplomacy being dumbed down, I have found it quite interesting so far. I really like that I can respond to things either showing that I am pissed about it or that it's not that big of a deal. And I can smooth over rejections of demands or decide to react poorly when they get pissed at my rejection.

    In my current game on my continent there were 2 other civs. I am playing for a cultural victory and want to minimize wars and my standing army, so I made friends with the first civ I found and did my best to keep him happy, only one time did I actually give into a "demand", otherwise our trades have been fair. He proposed secrecy against the other civ on our continent, so I agreed as he was weak and small. He also proposed war eventually on the other civ on the continent with me and since that civ only had 2 cities, the capital with some lucrative wonders, I decided to go for it and took the capital and made peace, leaving the other city.

    He did finally attack one of the city states I was allied with and took them out, but he has not attacked me at all. The 2 civs on the other continent (one took another out before we met) are both friendly to me, though both have tried to bring me into wars with others But yes, I have yet to be attacked and just entered the modern era. Also, I have a small army (been running 1-1.5 units per city the whole game), though I did build a couple more units recently when my neighbor started massing quite a few units on my border and so far that has deterred him.

    Maybe if I had a bigger military or was trading less (I trade with all the AIs as much as possible) it would be different, I will see in my next game how things change with different strategies. It does sound like some tweaks are needed for sure, but overall I do like the diplomacy system.

  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by trainzebra View Post
    Here's the first thing you have to realize about Civ V. The AI leaders now simulate another player, not an AI ruler. They play to win. Granted, they play poorly, but they play to win.
    I've never played an online game of civ nor do I want to because I enjoy building a civilization and working with other civs with an occasional war if needed but not constant. If I wanted to play against a human player I'd play online. I don't want to play against a poor representation of what someone thinks a human player plays like which seems to be warmongering.
    Really you are only really simulating one type of player then - the player who tries to win by starting wars at the drop of a hat.
    There is no use in having any diplomacy if the agreements you make aren't worth anything and the AI just back stabs you the first chance it gets.

    The attraction of civilization is there are several ways to win - warmongering, peaceful, and mixed. You should have that choice or it's just a wargame.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    25
    i want to agree with the original post because i'm trying roughly the same idea. diplomacy works fine as long as you can defend yourself. granted, i steamrollered Hiawatha at the beginning because he was on my chunk of the continent. but otherwise i play peaceful. lots of the same moves: luxury bribes, research agreements. every time i speak to Catherine, she's practically gushing with adoration.

    defencive position seems to help a lot too. my border is a massive mountain range, with a couple fortified passes. and just beyond the border, a pair of city-states who are allies and to whom i give excess military units. i suspect the AI counts those two when it considers whether to attack me or not ó they have some up-to-date military hardware, and provide a large buffer between my civ and opponent's zone-of-control.

    peace works. i'm going to make this one my cultural victory game.

  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Old School Role-Player View Post
    I think that sentence says it all. That's the reason we all dislike the ridiculous AI.

    One of my favorite instances came from a game I was playing. Darius was my best friend for 2000+ years. I even declared war on Napoleon when he was fighting with him. After he took over everybody except Napoleon and myself, he declared war on me.

    Once I crushed Darius worse than Alexander ever could have (with Napoleon's help this time), he suddenly calls ME to warmonger and continually chides me for my "greedy" landgrabbing. Montezuma--whom I had liberated BACK INTO THE GAME from Darius--also accused me of being a militant thug.

    Worst of all--I was playing Ghandi and going for a cultural victory! Yeah, the AI makes NO sense.
    That's a perfect example of the fact that the AI is playing to win the game, not just obstruct you.

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackwatchGuards View Post
    That's a perfect example of the fact that the AI is playing to win the game, not just obstruct you.
    Yeah, except this was in the Medieval Era. There was no way I was even remotely close to winning--in score or close to victory. No, the only reason the computer attacked me was because I looked like his next easy target. I don't know why I have to keep saying this, but the AI doesn't HAVE to win by conquering every capital. It can just as easily win by score. So why the need to conquer? It's because the designers playtested this game on the assumption that everybody's a warmonger.

    If this is the computer trying to win the game, it still sucks. Why don't we just call this a strategy wargame?

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    24
    People seem to be having some pretty varied experiences...

    For those that are saying "it's just war 100% of the time!" how many games have you actually played? Some games end up in total war: it was the same exact way in Civ4. I'm in my first game and it has been extremely peaceful (on king if it matters).

    So far the diplomacy has been fine, if a little opaque (what do the pacts even do...). If the computer is playing to win, that is great.
    Last edited by aimlessgun; 09-28-2010 at 04:10 PM.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by undulatingvomit View Post
    I've never played an online game of civ nor do I want to because I enjoy building a civilization and working with other civs with an occasional war if needed but not constant. If I wanted to play against a human player I'd play online. I don't want to play against a poor representation of what someone thinks a human player plays like which seems to be warmongering.
    Really you are only really simulating one type of player then - the player who tries to win by starting wars at the drop of a hat.
    There is no use in having any diplomacy if the agreements you make aren't worth anything and the AI just back stabs you the first chance it gets.

    The attraction of civilization is there are several ways to win - warmongering, peaceful, and mixed. You should have that choice or it's just a wargame.
    I agree completely. While making the AI play to win isn't necessarily bad from a design point of view, I'd appreciate something between what we have now and what was in Civ IV.

    One thing that I find particularly annoying is how diplomatic victories are handled now. It's a popularity contest with the city states instead of a world-wide election, because everyone votes for themselves. Granted, that is the best way to "win", but it's boring and close to immersion breaking for me. They need to bring back the candidate system from Civ IV with its non-game winning resolutions. This wouldn't even have to break the current design philosophy, as there were benefits to having friends in high places in Civ IV. I'll never forget the time I spent a rather grueling amount of resources to take a single city I wanted from Washington, only to have his good friend at the Apostolic Palace re-assign it to him next turn =p

    Quote Originally Posted by Old School Role-Player View Post
    Yeah, except this was in the Medieval Era. There was no way I was even remotely close to winning--in score or close to victory. No, the only reason the computer attacked me was because I looked like his next easy target. I don't know why I have to keep saying this, but the AI doesn't HAVE to win by conquering every capital. It can just as easily win by score. So why the need to conquer? It's because the designers playtested this game on the assumption that everybody's a warmonger.

    If this is the computer trying to win the game, it still sucks. Why don't we just call this a strategy wargame?
    The AI does need to be less warmonger-y, I agree. If you have to walk on eggshells not to be attacked, that's a problem. However, this was still his best path to victory. What would you do if you're going for a domination victory and you have one country left to conquer (who's still in the Medievil Era at that)? Are you going to wait 50 turns to hit 2050 and win by score or waltz over and conquer him in 5 turns and win the game?

    Again, the computer plays like a player. Even if the AI is too bad at war to actually conquer you, his own internal logic says that he shouldn't have any problem winning and ending the game.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •