The Only Way to Win is to Not Play

[dieffenbachj]

I'm currently in a marathon game, Huge, Terra, and it's only 1400 or so, so there's still quite a way to go. It's been a fun, exciting game so far with this new diplomacy system, I've been enthralled since day 1 with working the politics of this world...

...until lately. Now it's just excessively irritating and I don't care to continue playing until 2K patches the game up to an acceptable state.

Currently, I have a group of Friends--America, Russia and me. The Iroquois used to be a party of the group. But they backstabbed America first and conquered all but Boston and Washington. Then they backstabbed Russia, and stole her colonies. Then they backstabbed me--but were too weak to do anything. Merely denounced me.

Now I have a diplomacy penalty for ALL CIVILIZATIONS because HE backstabbed ME. "Your friends found a reason to denounce you." is utter ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺.

Setting that aside, it would've been nice once I saw that the Iroquois were homicidal, back in like the B.C. era, I could've taken back my Friendship. Oh, I tried, but the only way to do so is to denounce them.

But even though he was a backstabbing jerk, denouncing him would've been backstabbing! And if you backstab a backstabber, everyone on the planet denounces you for not being nice!

Okay, let's set that aside. Rome, China, and France and I have become BFFs as of late. I guess liberating their capitols + destroying their oppressing Alexander and such made them like me!

...or they would have, had destroying Alexander not earned me the tag of 'warmonger.' Warmonger? Really? All I did was sit defensively for about 100 turns before deciding to lash out at his capitol, conquering it, and having him STILL not offer me peace. I waited, and waited, and fended off attacks, and then eventually continued conquering him--until he finally gave up and signed a peace treaty.

I'm such a warmonger! He's an innocent victim!

Okay, set that aside. So, if that wasn't the case, I still can't befriend those guys because I denounced them back when we were still fighting with warriors and archers.

I know the French are haughty, but damn, they can hold a grudge for nearly 5,000 years? Most Civilizations don't even keep _HISTORY BOOKS_ dating that far back.

I do like how some Civz can pretend to be friendly when they're actually hostile. Legitimately, that's kind of cool. Only cool thing I've noticed.

So let's see, where was I... oh, yeah, so, Alexander offered me half his territory if I stopped attacking him. I accepted. Askia offered me a town if I stopped attacking him (I hadn't started yet? Oh wlel, I guess he figured with Alexander gone my guns were going his way). Then the Babylonians offered me _EVERYTHING BUT THEIR CAPITOL_, including their luxury resources, strategic resources, gold, open borders, and their firstborn sons.

Hooray! I'm so big! I mean, it kind of sucks that I'm Ghandi and so everyone's angry, but I'm so big, tons of research and gold!

...wait, why is Napoleon pissed? "We asked you to not settle near our borders and you did it anyway?" I didn't settle your borders, I conquered the person who's been at war with you for millenia!

Oh, hey China, I liberated your capital. What's that? Stop settling near you? Move my army away from your capital? Stop being a warmonger? All of these things have translated into being hostile, and you immediatly denounce me? f*** you, China, f*** you. I don't need your U.N. vote anyway.

What's up, Russia, how's it... oh, you're mad at me because one of my friends found cause to backstab me? You mean, Hiawatha, the guy who's been making your life a living hell ever since he backstabbed you, you are upset that he backstabbed me?

This has made me sad. I can't play the game anymore, because e veryone is cascading into one massive coallation against me. What did I do? I made a few declarations back in the old days and had them haunt me into the modern era. That's stupid. "The only way to win is to not play" is true here because the only way I can win this game, is to wait until it's patched to make sense.

2K Games, please make the following items appear as they are, on your next patch notes. And by 'next patch notes' I mean 'By Friday, at the latest, downloading onto my PC.'

* Friendship and Denouncement declarations now last for 90 turns.
* Civilizations receiving a backstabbing diplo penalty from more than one source (as in, they backstabbed multiple allies) will now no longer provide a backstabbed Civ with the "you got backstabbed!" negative diplomatic trait
* Pacts of secrecy and pacts of cooperation have been reintegrated into the game.
* You can now demand friendship or denouncement between two other parties through the diplomacy screen
* Conquering a town near a border no longer applies the "don't settle near us" penalty.
* The 'don't settle near us' request fades after 90 turns. This is to prevent a Civilization from making the request in 3,900 B.C. and then getting angry when you violate it in 1,400 A.D.
* You can cancel a declaration of friendship or a denouncement for a minor, appropriate diplomacy penalty, which fades after 45 turns.
* Liberating a civilization's capitol, or resurrecting a civilization by liberating ANY of its towns, resets its diplomacy modifiers for all civilizations and grants you a unique "You liberated us!" bonus.

Also, things which would have saved me a lot of trouble:
* Clicking on a puppet state gives you the option of liberating it. In addition to restoring a fallen Civilization or City-State, this removes the "you conquered a city-state" diplomacy penalty in relation to that city state.

Feature requests that would have been really, really, REALLY cool:
* The ability to secede territory to a new civilization has been added. For instance, if you want to create a neutral buffer nation out of unwanted cities, you can cede them to create any of the Civilizations who were not loaded with the map. The best town is chosen and renamed as that nation's capitol.

Oh, and also should be in the patch, unrelated:

* Researching Astronomy allows map trading.
* Researching Satellites reveals the world map.
* Trade routes can be established to foreign capitols, for a substantially lower (but still significant) gold bonus. Foreign states attempt to build roads to your capitol when they can.

Those would be great. Because even with the horrible diplomacy system screwing up, at least it's still somewhat immersive, unlike a 1990 civilization not knowing what's beyond its borders, at all, and foreign trade outside of fur and wine being COMPLETLY nonexistent. Yeah, those make sense.

[Taciturn Scot]

When a game such as Europa Euniversalis 3 has a simple 'Bad Boy' points system that influences how other nations react to you, you've got to wonder why such a simple system can't find its way into Civ V. There are so many simple ways to influence other nations in EU3. Obviously, I don't expect them to rip off another game's mechanism for diplomacy but it does offer some pointers on how it can be done.

Hell, I'd settle for something like we already have in place with the CSs. You have to buy, earn their friendship which erodes over the course of time. You can keep track of this yourself. The greater your influence is, the more you have to pay to increase it. Likewise, over the course of time your relations with them steadily improve as long as you don't do anything further to erode them. And CSs have different 'personalities' too so it's not a universal 'one fit for all sizes' either.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Yup, yet another experience in the same way - initial impressions: diplomacy has been fixed, yay!.... a little later after the denouncement-dominos start to fall.... diplomacy is broken.

[SilentWulf]

Yes, I had about the same experience.
At first I was very happy about the diplomacy system. For the first time I was able to make some closer friends and alliances with declarations of friendship, but then something strange happened that shows that there are still mechanics going on that make
a) no sense or
b) I simply don't get.

I had declarations of friendship with the Americans as well as the Spanish. Both asked me to go to war with Russia with them. I told them yes, but to wait for 10 turns.
After 6 turns I had placed my cannons in a good position and decided to attack. At this moment the Americans as well as the Spanish denounced me. What did I do except fulfilling their request 4 turns early? I didn't even take a city, but only bombarded Russian units at the border.

All in all I do think that Diplomacy post patch is way better than pre patch, but still needs improvement. The lack of ways to positively influence the AI and friendships that are only really useful in war (I am often asked to give gifts to my friends, but have never really seen a positive effect for me) make Civ V feel more like a war game.
Either you don't care that sooner or later you have to face everyone, or you don't play at all, like the OP said.

[SirMaru]

The AI players will NEVER be programmed to be human. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Thus, don't expect any of them to react like humans. For me multiple AI's are just a waste of my time. Playing MP with humans, on the other had, will bring real HUMAN variations to the game. However, even there, if some humans gang up on another, then the lone human will be toast. Thus, evern there one must encounter unpleasant complications.

I find the best use of the Civ V package is to play it as a simple war game: ONE AI versus me. Then its all strategy and tactics. I play without barbarians or city states and only use one AI.

[Kevik]

This is really funny but the same thing happens to me all the time. It sucks, I think after so many turns bad relations should lower agaist each other, so it is possible to become freinds later on. I mean England and France fought for hundreds of years and today they are best of pals. So Civilization is suppose to make you feel like you are biulding an acual Civilization but instead its really just another war game.

[krooner]

True, the AI will never think like a human player. It can still be programmed to have a more reasonable system of judging relations and interacting though. There are good suggestions in this thread.

[SamBC]

I agree; relations should be a little elastic. Further, warmongering is applied too easily and lasts too long. And there really ought to be a much bigger plus to your relations with a civ when you resurrect it.

I also thought of the idea of giving a group of cities "independence" by spawning a new civ from them. Would be really handy sometimes, but possibly open to abuse. Not sure how, just a feeling.

[amenus]

Oh, hey China, I liberated your capital. What's that? Stop settling near you? Move my army away from your capital? Stop being a warmonger? All of these things have translated into being hostile, and you immediatly denounce me? f*** you, China, f*** you. I don't need your U.N. vote anyway.

LOL!!!!!!!! I know that the poor diplomacy design is a very serious issue to you(it is to me also), but this iteration really gave me a good laugh! Thanks!

That aside, I agree with all of your points on how to improve the diplomacy rating system.

Sure, the AI is never going to exhibit the myriad of human perspectives and personalities, but it can certainly be programmed to reflect a reasonable sampling of them.

I wouldn't suggest though that ALL irrational, ungrateful, even traitorous responses to acts of goodwill toward your neighbors, allies and/or liberated opponents be removed from the game, as it would remove a substantial component of realism.

[jcddmdad]

MY GOD I"M NOT THE ONLY ONE....THANK YOU, JESUS!!! Sorry for the caps, guys, but, I got so mad yesturday, I chucked my game disk across the room. I've had it with this game...and yet, I come back for more. Anyone know how to un patch the patch? Have the same thing happen to me, also...Got a "help, we're being attacked!" from a Civ, and went to their aid, conquered our mutual enemies, now my wayward weaker ally is complaining that I'm too close to their borders. Another instance, I was expanding pretty well, staying clear of my nearest neighbor, when, lo and behold, here he comes with a settler, and plants a city right next to mine, and then, on the next turn, complains that I'm too close. Holy smokes.


And, any hints on how to counter balance the way the patch allows AI civs to ignore happiness and build with impunity? I think that's really frustrating, also. I struggle for a milennia with 3 or 4 cities, and they take over the continent, and find ways to mount a massive army that I have NO way of counterbalancing. Way past frustrated.

This is the address to the "official" patch thread for leaving comments. Maybe you should take your list of things you'd like to add, i.e.: "* Friendship and Denouncement declarations now last for 90 turns.", and post it there.


http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...r-Patch-Thread

[Zenicetus]

This is really funny but the same thing happens to me all the time. It sucks, I think after so many turns bad relations should lower agaist each other, so it is possible to become freinds later on.

The diplomacy system in recent Total War games, while not exactly stellar, did have a nice mechanic where relations were constantly "normalized" towards a neutral stance over time. You could cause another faction to become angry, but every turn that status gradually moved back towards neutral, unless you did something else to move the needle in the other direction. The same thing applied to positive relations -- you had to keep good relations from slowly normalizing to neutral with bribes, or other positive acts. The speed at which relations normalized depended on the difficulty setting (slow for Easy, faster for Hard, etc.).

Civ 5 does use this normalization method for relations with City States: if you trespass they'll get upset, but it gradually slides back to neutral. If you form alliances, you have to keep up the bribes to maintain it. It sounds like the devs aren't applying any kind of relations normalizing over time to the other Civs. Why not? Or maybe it's intended, but it just isn't working right.

[elektrotal]

to be fair, this was a problem in civ 4 too. If i declare war on a dude in 3000 bc, he's still irritated about it in 1992 AD.

that said, you have some fantastic suggestions, and i wish you had labeled this thread with a less inflammatory title so that 2kGreg or someone in production would read it.

[dieffenbachj]

Well, maybe 2kgreg is a fan of WarGames and will get the quote? =P

[MarkAntony]

to be fair, this was a problem in civ 4 too. If i declare war on a dude in 3000 bc, he's still irritated about it in 1992 AD.

that said, you have some fantastic suggestions, and i wish you had labeled this thread with a less inflammatory title so that 2kGreg or someone in production would read it.

To be fair, you won`t get a response to anthing like this. The diplomacy is utterly broken and indefensible, so they won`t attaempt to answer it.

[aeligos]

to be fair, this was a problem in civ 4 too. If i declare war on a dude in 3000 bc, he's still irritated about it in 1992 AD.
that said, you have some fantastic suggestions, and i wish you had labeled this thread with a less inflammatory title so that 2kGreg or someone in production would read it.

o.o

To be fair, you won`t get a response to anthing like this. The diplomacy is utterly broken and indefensible, so they won`t attaempt to answer it.

The 2k gang read everything that is posted on in this forum... And titles with "inflammatory" content get viewed with priority.

-.-

[MarkAntony]

The 2k gang read everything that is posted on in this forum... And titles with "inflammatory" content get viewed with priority.

Which has what to do with what I said?

[secret]

i must say i think the game is now better then the way he was before the patch , but still there are soooo many funny stuff there ...

in my game everything was ok, and from no where everyone started to deannonce everyone... now the whole world is at war , the game really went crazy from nothing....

[dstar]

The diplomacy system in recent Total War games, while not exactly stellar, did have a nice mechanic where relations were constantly "normalized" towards a neutral stance over time. You could cause another faction to become angry, but every turn that status gradually moved back towards neutral, unless you did something else to move the needle in the other direction. The same thing applied to positive relations -- you had to keep good relations from slowly normalizing to neutral with bribes, or other positive acts. The speed at which relations normalized depended on the difficulty setting (slow for Easy, faster for Hard, etc.).

Civ 5 does use this normalization method for relations with City States: if you trespass they'll get upset, but it gradually slides back to neutral. If you form alliances, you have to keep up the bribes to maintain it. It sounds like the devs aren't applying any kind of relations normalizing over time to the other Civs. Why not? Or maybe it's intended, but it just isn't working right.

I certainly hope they're normalizing relations, since this is hardly a new idea -- I remember seeing this sort of thing as far back as the original Master of Orion, in 1994(?). If they've managed to miss every game which used this, they shouldn't be allowed to work on any game with 'Civilization' in the title....

[Kevik]

I created these in another thread and I am now posting them here. This should answer some questions on becoming a warmonger.

You are a warmongerer if
-You declare war on another civ
-Another Civ declares war on you
-You attack a City-State
-You get a civ to declare war on another civ
-You line up troops on another civs borders
-You settle to close to his cities
-You upset him in a trade
-You get others to stop trading with a civ
-He just dosen't like you
-You plan to go to war
-You think about a war
-You build too strong of a military
-They plan to go to war with you
-You have to many resourses they want
-You insulted them by calling them names
-You posted about how stupid they were in these forums
-You looked at him funny
-He dosn't get your sense of humor
-You demand things from him
-He demands things from you
-You don't help him in a war
-You accdiently pissed on an acient burial ground
-You have to much money
-Made secret pacts against him
-He made secret pact against you
-He's just not that into you
-You hate puppies
-You attacked him in another game
-You scouted to close to his boarders
-You live next to him
-You live on the same continent
-You live on the same Planet
-You made deals with his rivals
-Your military is to small
-You have nukes
-You are an era ahead of him
-Your population is bigger
-You have more cities than he does
-You looked at his pet funny
-Your people are too happy
-Your people are too unhappy
-You laughed at him
-He has a brain tumor
-He is crazy
-Your too good at civilization
-You built wonders he was going for
-You denounce him
-He denounced you

Added some more
-If you don't open your boarders for him
-He doesn't know what your land looks like
-If in the real world your civ was at war with his at any time
-You are an era behind him
-You are close to a victory condition other then domination
-He is close to victory condition

[steveg700]

Look at my "Denouncements Chain Reaction" thread. It seems that once you're getting late in the game, civ's just turtle up and decide that friendships need to be put to the wayside.

[p34nk]

I created these in another thread and I am now posting them here. This should answer some questions on becoming a warmonger.

You are a warmongerer if
-You declare war on another civ
-Another Civ declares war on you
-You attack a City-State
-You get a civ to declare war on another civ
-You line up troops on another civs borders
-You settle to close to his cities
-You upset him in a trade
-You get others to stop trading with a civ
-He just dosen't like you
-You plan to go to war
-You think about a war
-You build too strong of a military
-They plan to go to war with you
-You have to many resourses they want
-You insulted them by calling them names
-You posted about how stupid they were in these forums
-You looked at him funny
-He dosn't get your sense of humor
-You demand things from him
-He demands things from you
-You don't help him in a war
-You accdiently pissed on an acient burial ground
-You have to much money
-Made secret pacts against him
-He made secret pact against you
-He's just not that into you
-You hate puppies
-You attacked him in another game
-You scouted to close to his boarders
-You live next to him
-You live on the same continent
-You live on the same Planet
-You made deals with his rivals
-Your military is to small
-You have nukes
-You are an era ahead of him
-Your population is bigger
-You have more cities than he does
-You looked at his pet funny
-Your people are too happy
-Your people are too unhappy
-You laughed at him
-He has a brain tumor
-He is crazy
-Your too good at civilization
-You built wonders he was going for
-You denounce him
-He denounced you

This is awesome..

So by that logic, the only way you are not a warmonger is if:
- You built one city only in the middle of nowhere (maybe on an isolated island)
- Do open borders to anyone
- Purposefully lose the game by being the last civ in everything
- Do not play the game

So, 2k has managed to make this game not winnable with a logical strategy (diplo-wise)

[Kevik]

This is awesome..

So by that logic, the only way you are not a warmonger is if:
- You built one city only in the middle of nowhere (maybe on an isolated island)
- Do open borders to anyone
- Purposefully lose the game by being the last civ in everything
- Do not play the game

So, 2k has managed to make this game not winnable with a logical strategy (diplo-wise)

No, no that won't do I now need to knock out all options so not playing is the only way to win.

-If you don't open your boarders for him
-He doesn't know what your land looks like
-If in the real world your civ was at war with his at any time
-You are an era behind him

BTW city on small island won't save you because you live on the same planet as he does.

[SamBC]

If it looks like you're about to win, they get funny to you - this is because the AI plays to win. This is something of a new thing for Civ, so we're not used to it, and I like the idea. The AIs in IV were mostly like NPCs in RPGs. They provide background, a bit of plot driving, but they weren't really competitors. They just strove for undefined "improvement" of their civs.

However, every AI trying hard to win does tend to make everyone tend to end up hating everyone else, I guess. Maybe it would be better if 1 in 3 AIs were really trying to win, and the others were more like the old-style AIs just being background. CSs can't fill that role because they don't really do anything. Of course, the player shouldn't know which ones are playing to win, and the behaviour should be close enough that it's hard to tell which is which. When it looks like one of the players, AI or human, is heading down the final straight, non-competitive AIs should act in support of whichever competitive player they like most, particularly still acting to sabotage those they don't like.

[harmonic42]

The AI players will NEVER be programmed to be human. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Thus, don't expect any of them to react like humans. For me multiple AI's are just a waste of my time. Playing MP with humans, on the other had, will bring real HUMAN variations to the game. However, even there, if some humans gang up on another, then the lone human will be toast. Thus, evern there one must encounter unpleasant complications.

I find the best use of the Civ V package is to play it as a simple war game: ONE AI versus me. Then its all strategy and tactics. I play without barbarians or city states and only use one AI.

Whaaaaat?

In Civ4 BTS, the AI was much smarter, much more reasonable, much less insane. Civ 5 AI post patch DOES act like humans (bratty teenage girls in cliques conducting their little backstabbing social warfare)

[SilentWulf]

If it looks like you're about to win, they get funny to you - this is because the AI plays to win. This is something of a new thing for Civ, so we're not used to it, and I like the idea.

You have a point here, but I believe that even in Civ IV the AI wanted to win, otherwise the human player should always have won (how can you lose if noone else wants to win).

The difference is that the AI wants to win no matter what and always becomes aggressive.

If many human players play a game, a few soon realize that they won't win, because they have had bad luck or simply because they are not good enough. They don't get overly upset (ok, some do, but you don't like to play with them very much), but play along, perhaps decide for themselves who they want to back / help to win, due to sympathy.

In Civ that would result in at least a few AI Civs still being with you and split the world in a few coalitions. Ok, that happens.

Furthermore I think that the main goal of the game is still for the human player to have fun. Many people do think its fun to resolve the game on the battlefield (I also enjoy some battles in a game) all against all. But I don't think it should be done all the time in Civ. If I want a game focusing on war, I play the Total War Series.

Then again, that's only me. Other people might have another opinion.

[harmonic42]

Yes I agree silentwulf.

The "AI plays to win" argument is used like a trump card on these forums to crush any disagreement or dissent. It is a ridiculous argument. Yes, of course the AI should want to win, but like you said, sometimes a human player will be in a position where there is basically no chance to win, and there is a chance that they're a reasonable enough person to not act like a psychotic child about it.

[Xellor]

bratty teenage girls in cliques conducting their little backstabbing social warfare

Whahaha, brilliant.
This is an exact description of the diplomacy-'mechanism' in the game.

[krooner]

I fully agree that they need to incorporate in a little heavier consideration of good diplomatic relations when considering how far an AI will go to win. Part of the reason this would be good for the game is if you ever want to turn Diplomatic Victory into something other then economic victory via buying CS's, you will need the AI to be able to actually vote for their allies, similar to IV. As long as they always turn on you if you look like you are going to win, it will always come down to CS's.

One way they could refine this a bit is to incorporate it into the AI personalities. Some leaders would be more likely to favor maintaining relationships over turning on friends in order to win, some wouldn't. People would begin to learn which nations could be trusted as game-long friends, and which could only be trusted until that civ thought it had a chance to win by back stabbing you.

And for anyone who thought that makes it too bland, just turn on Random Personalities and you'll have a game where you'll never know exactly who is going to stand with you and who might turn on you late game. But at least you'll know that some of them will, and the entire game shouldn't break down into total war by the end of it. (It would still be possible, but not as likely).

[dieffenbachj]

I'm new to these forums so I've never seen the stupid-ass argument 'the AI plays to win' before. *Removed by Precarious*

Mostly because this isn't a discussion about whether or not the AI should be playing to win. If we were even remotely talking about that, yeah, the only thing you are capable of saying without sounding stupid WOULD be a relevant comment.

But we're not talking about the AI trying to win. So it's still not relevant. Instead, we're talking about the diplomacy system. We're talking about how it doesn't make sense, and how it's neither immersive nor fun--which are the only two reasons a feature should EVER be included in a game.

"You're a warmonger!" should never be applied to the underdog in a conquest invasion.
"Your friends backstabbed you!" shouldn't even be a diplomacy modifier AT ALL. If anything, it should be positive, since people take pity on you!
"You settled near our borders!" shouldn't be a modifier when you conquer a city.
"You're too close!" shouldn't be an angry response given from a leader the same turn as you liberate their capitol, because you're too close to their capitol.

We're not talking about the AI winning or the player losing. We're talking about the underlying mechanics which make that possible.

So, to people who think "The AI plays to win" is a good argument? My retort, with equal legitimacy and relevance to the topic at hand:

"The Pyro is just W+M1".

[SamBC]

I also agree with silentwulf; I wasn't saying it to end the argument, but shed some light. The AI plays to win too determinedly, so it acts psychotically, or even sometimes psychopathically (I'm looking at you, Alexander...)

I've actually been wondering a bit about how the AI makes decisions, and had some thoughts about what might be going "wrong" to make it build dozens of settlers, entire armies of AA guns, etc. I wish I could look at the code... because I understand the general structure of the "flavor" system, and I think I might have an idea where it's going wrong. I may post something later. Possibly tomorrow, late as it is (here in the UK)

[aphthakid]

One I've run into is I'm playing Egypt, the people who build lots of Wonders, and I've been downgraded from "Friendly" to "Guarded" by two other Civs for "Building Wonders they covet." One was China, the first Civ I'd ever met and I've been nothing but friendly with them, including several lopsided trades in their favor since whatever my grave offense was. The other I just met so they actually have no way to know that I built those wonders, but that's beside the point.

My beef is that the game never tells you "Hey, if you build X, civilization Y will get POed at you." Literally, there is no way to avoid this. Unlike previous versions of Civ, there is no mechanic in the game to let you know other Civs have started on a wonder so they shouldn't put in a mechanic that has the AI act like you've deliberately shafted them. And there is certainly nothing that tells you that certain wonders might be special to certain Civs and you'll get a diplomacy penalty for building them.

[dieffenbachj]

So it seems like two more items to add to the list of things that would make this diploamcy system better:

* An announcement is now made when another Civilization reaches 50% completion on a Wonder
* Finishing a Wonder that another Civilization has started only applies a diplomacy penalty if that Civilization had reached 50% completion.

Possibly a way to ask an allied Civ not to befriend/denounce any other nations (lest a domino effect of love/hate occur!) or at least to not befriend/denounce specific nations

[da_Vinci]

Feature requests that would have been really, really, REALLY cool:
* The ability to secede territory to a new civilization has been added. For instance, if you want to create a neutral buffer nation out of unwanted cities, you can cede them to create any of the Civilizations who were not loaded with the map. The best town is chosen and renamed as that nation's capitol.

This is essentially the overseas colony feature of Civ IV BTS, except the colony had to be overseas (different land mass) and it was far from neutral (it was a happy vassal).

Given the current diplo system, no doubt that "neutral buffer" would be mad at you in short order (you are too close ... etc.)

dV

[MaleciteV]

Guys this is hardly surprising.

As Maru has already stated a billion goddamn times: its best to simply view Civ 5 as a military simulator.

While I hardly endorse his assanine settings, I do believe that there is simply no way to even approach the civs as anything other than psychopaths that occasionally give you money/luxuries. In Civ 4 I could "occasionally" count on an allies help, but more importantly I could always count on a stable relationship so long as I didn't declare war outright.

In Civ 5 It seems like Im just waiting for my ally to stab me in the back, which is generally why I avoid making allies. Just trading partners. Thats all your going to get.

[SilentWulf]

In Civ 5 It seems like Im just waiting for my ally to stab me in the back, which is generally why I avoid making allies. Just trading partners. Thats all your going to get.

At the current state of the game this is true. However the devs made the first step to change that in the last patch.

I may be too optimistic about that, but I think that indicates that the devs listen to the the people in this forum and they don't mean Civ V to stay a military game.

It is my hope that the game concept will be changed with further patches and perhaps will get some significant changes with the first expansion. Until then we tell the devs and each other what's not working properly.

If it is not working, I at least know that I am not the only one who isn't completely content with Civ V .

[white commander]

I played it for 1-2 weeks after release. After that time I decided to wait for major patch, which will make game enjoyable, but I have found none. From time to time I'm reading threads on this forum to find that game is still not playable and it saves me much time and nerves. It has potential, but I don't have time to test it - I'm not working in QC department of 2kgames Same happened with CIV4. Why bother with game in alpha stage. You have to wait 1,5 year and they will complete it and make it as it should be from the beginning.

[makeshiftwings]

I think a major part of the problem with the Diplomacy system, both now and then, is that it's very one-sided. The AI is allowed to ask for gifts, end declarations of friendship/cooperation/etc, while the player can't. The AI can backstab you at any point without any apparent effect, while if the player backstabs an AI, all the other AI's get mad. The player has legitimate reasons for wanting friends because he might be trying for a cultural or diplomatic victory and has no interest in expanding. The AI always wants to continually expand and kill everyone even if it's theoretically going for a different victory condition, and it will always attempt to conquer anything that touches its borders, so it has no reason to actually want to avoid backstabbing you. It will always backstab you as soon as your borders get close, because it's hardwired to want to kill you at that point.

I don't know if there's any way to really make the Diplomacy system work without a large overhaul.

[krooner]

Something that would be nice is if you could ask leaders what they thought of other leaders. In IV, you could see this on the spreadsheet that showed everyone's relations. We don't necessarily need the spreadsheet back, but just adding a "What do you think of..." would help you guess what the reactions will be if you trade, make friends, or go to war with another civ.

Granted, that's only a small piece of what's wrong with diplomacy, but it's something.

[Gyrate]

Great post dieffenbachj.

[dieffenbachj]

Addendum:

"Greece, that's the sixth time you've gone to war with me the day your peace treaty expires... you... Goddamnit.

*upgrade all longswordsmen and crossbowmen to riflemen, wipes the floor with Greece's massive empire within 5 turns*

There."

"Greek Civilization destroyed!"
"Catherine is no longer at war with Greece!"
"Washington is no longer at war with Greece!"
"Catherine has denounced YOU!"
"Washington has denounced YOU!"

"....... You're welcome, guys."


Imagine if the real world operated like the current Civilization diplomacy system.

"America has conquered Berlin (Nazi Regime)!"
"Churchill is no longer at war with Nazi Regime!"
"Stalin is no longer at war with Nazi Regime!"
"Daladier has been liberated by America!"
"Churchill has denounced YOU!"
"Stalin has denounced YOU!"
"Daladier has denounced YOU!"

I didn't feel like doing the research on all the victims of Nazi germany (Norway etc) to make a full list, but you get the idea. The concept of your allies backstabbing you because you DARED to destroy your mutual war target is absolutely farking ridiculous. It's unacceptable.

2kGreg said somewhere else that another patch is probably not coming until January thanks to the holidays... I hope someone at 2kGames takes this as a lesson: Don't release patches just before vacations.

Valve used to do this with Team Fortress 2, they would put a patch out on Friday, have the game be broken, and then not be in the office till Monday. And then they might do it over a vacation, which is even worse. Now they try to aim for early week patches.

Hopefully 2kGames starst doing the same..

EDIT

Oh and what's best is that Washington and Catherine both backstabbed me for killing Greece, right? Well, then Washington backstabbed Catherine for being a backstabber.

Now there is literally NOBODY IN THIS GAME who has not denounced EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE GAME.