diplomacy still sucks...

[secret]

after i installed the new patch , i started a new game, i've become a friend of all civ, one started war with me so i destroy him , then i joined forces to all civs againts england and we destroy them together, then greece and egypt , suddenly they called me warmgoing area .. i just joined all of them to war as they asked me to!
one deannounce me and then... as at old games without the patch... one by one... deannounce... some of them i was friend with and even gave them resources for free as they asked me to (i wanted to be their friend) i thought the new patch should solve this ☺☺☺☺...

[Mars83]

lesson is don't help them.

Joey

[Balthazaar]

"warmgoing area" wohaaa

[SamBC]

I'm guessing you made the killing blow to two civs?

Wiping out a civ is a big score on the warmongerometer. Leave behind one city (preferably not the capital).

[SamBC]

Also, the diplomacy fix in this patch was to make AIs actually act positively towards you when they like you, rather than almost never getting above being slightly friendly. Change to the things that act as positive and negative impacts on relationships are to be in the next patch, I believe, and they will then hopefully make it that giving AIs things they ask for actually makes them like you. As it is, it's mostly giving them liberated units, having a declaration of friendship, having friendship with the same third civs, and having denounced the same third civs.

[sectoid]

Well. Im on turn 400+ on my first postpatch game and can honestly say that diplomacy does not 'suck'.

[The Mad Russian]

I learned a while back in this game never to finish off a Civ and to let the AI take care of that. I take a city or two, knock out some units and fall back for defense while consolidating my victories. If I happen to come across a 3rd party unit, most of the time I will liberate them, unless they are from a Civ that I have had problems with in the past. Then, they are all mine!

-Mark

EDIT: I second the post above me by agreeing that diplomacy does not suck

[secret]

i destoyied only the one that attacked me... do i need to stand back and let him finish me off??? its stupid ... or not helping my friends?

the others killing city states like there is no tomorow and fighting each other, and im the bad guy ???

[Machturbo]

Diplo doesn't suck as much as it used to. It HAS improved, but there are only a few more things needed to make it better. I'd like it if open borders after X years gave +. Maybe one if Civ1 declares war on Civ2, you go to war against Civ1 and you get a + with Civ2. But as far as I've seen, there's about 6 (probably more) more - than +. Some of the - are permanent too while only liberating units and maybe if the Civ got conquered are the only perm +. Just need more options too. Warmongering needs to be tweaked too.

[Lopendhoofd]

With every patch the AI seems to get slowly better. I'm noticing that the AI has become less aggressive, almost mellow at times. I have only played one game since the patch, so I might change my opinion after another game.

[inseeisyou]

One huge change I noticed from previous parches at least in the one long game I played is civ will often forgive a war that happened. I've actually had them be "Friendly" a turn after signing a peace treaty from a war. These were all wars they instigated I believe. On the diplo explanation it says in white "they don't seem to care" or something similar.

[Sifer2]

The patches are bringing it up to the point where its not totally broken at least. Though i'm thinking it will take an expansion to really make Diplomacy good again by adding all the options we lost from Civ4. After the next patch it should be possible to keep the AI's in the positive if you want with more ways to generate positive influence.

[SlickSlicer]

Diplo sucks just as much because it's fundamentally flawed. It can't be patched until the core aspects of it are changed.

There should be financial agreements where you can get money by trading with other civilizations. This should give a green (+1)relation status.

Research agreements should give a green (+1) relation status.

Giving somebody a resource they request should give a green (+1) relation status, as should going to war for somebody else or having open borders agreements for a long time.

Liberating a city state should improve your relations with other city states.

Makeshift alliances should give a green +1 relation status with all involved.

Giving somebody a frickin' city should improve your relations with them instead of decreasing your relationship with them when you now share a border.

Denunciations are a decent idea but they get way too out of hand, to the point where once you get denounced once it's basically just an endless wave of denunciations to and fro.

Being on the same page with social policies (i.e. two pious leaders, two great leaders, two consuls, two presidents, etc.) should give a +1 relation bonus. Being on the opposite page (i.e. a communist vs. a fascist, an autocrat vs. a president, a pious leader vs. a rational one) should give -1. All other relations should have no difference.

Positives and negatives should expire after a large amount of turns.

Instead of there being positives and negatives, there are a million ways to piss off the AI and about 2 or three to actually improve your relations with them.

Aside from that, with no positives and a million negatives, there are virtually no differences in AI behavior among different leaders. I've seen Gandhi get into wars just as often as montezuma in my current game, and I had friendly relations with montezuma while developing hostile relations with Gandhi. My civilization is in Africa while Gandhi's is in China. So why is he hostile to me again? This has happened in every game I've played too. All the AI leaders are pretty much the same. This wasn't the case in Civ IV, where you could always count on Montezuma, Shaka, Genghis Khan, Isabelle (if your religion was different) to act more hostile as a general rule.

Addendum: If you have the edge in a war, the AI also shouldn't be so quick to offer you every one of their cities save their capital, 3/4 of their gold, all of their luxury resources and open borders. Give me a break.

Note: This assessment is based on a king level game, which I perceive as being the equivalent of "normal" or "medium."

[Valkrionn]

Everything you listed is simply a new modifier; IE, EXTREMELY patchable.

[SandFli]

I agree SlickSlicer, good ideas.

Since the patch, I have noticed that sharing borders isn't always considered a problem for the AI, providing you remain on good terms with them in other relations. Better yet, the AI declares war on you from half way across the map early on, but they still can't launch an offensive comprising enough units to take out your guard Scout on a hilltop.

[SlickSlicer]

Everything you listed is simply a new modifier; IE, EXTREMELY patchable.

Perhaps so, but if that's the case, I cannot fathom why it hasn't been done. I don't understand why there are a million negative modifiers and about 2-3 positive ones, with 1 "I fear you" one that doesn't exactly fit into either category. I understand that coding and developing a game is very very hard, but they managed to have positive and negative incentives in Civilization 4. What makes Civilization V so different outside of the absence of religion (which wasn't the only positive incentive in Civilization 4)?

[Valkrionn]

Because it takes time that has been spent balancing other aspects of the game, primarily; They have said more diplo modifiers will come in the next patch.

[Hawk]

When are they gonnu fix this? It's been ages, and yet them seem a lot more focused on other aspects of the game - and sure, the game can be improved in those areas too, and I'm glad they are working on them, but diplomacy is so important to the game play, it should definitely be the priority!
We have put so many suggestions in as well, and in more than one thread. Surely they are considering some of them...just when is it that they plan to do something about it?

[SlickSlicer]

Because it takes time that has been spent balancing other aspects of the game, primarily; They have said more diplo modifiers will come in the next patch.

Fair enough. I am a patient person, and I happen to like the core gameplay in Civilization V enough that I think with patches it could become one of the best Civilization games. But as it stands right now, I can't give diplomacy very high marks obviously.

[Furball]

Diplo sucks just as much because it's fundamentally flawed. It can't be patched until the core aspects of it are changed.

There should be financial agreements where you can get money by trading with other civilizations. This should give a green (+1)relation status.

Research agreements should give a green (+1) relation status.

Giving somebody a resource they request should give a green (+1) relation status, as should going to war for somebody else or having open borders agreements for a long time.

Liberating a city state should improve your relations with other city states.

Makeshift alliances should give a green +1 relation status with all involved.

Giving somebody a frickin' city should improve your relations with them instead of decreasing your relationship with them when you now share a border.

Denunciations are a decent idea but they get way too out of hand, to the point where once you get denounced once it's basically just an endless wave of denunciations to and fro.

Being on the same page with social policies (i.e. two pious leaders, two great leaders, two consuls, two presidents, etc.) should give a +1 relation bonus. Being on the opposite page (i.e. a communist vs. a fascist, an autocrat vs. a president, a pious leader vs. a rational one) should give -1. All other relations should have no difference.

Positives and negatives should expire after a large amount of turns.

Instead of there being positives and negatives, there are a million ways to piss off the AI and about 2 or three to actually improve your relations with them.

Aside from that, with no positives and a million negatives, there are virtually no differences in AI behavior among different leaders. I've seen Gandhi get into wars just as often as montezuma in my current game, and I had friendly relations with montezuma while developing hostile relations with Gandhi. My civilization is in Africa while Gandhi's is in China. So why is he hostile to me again? This has happened in every game I've played too. All the AI leaders are pretty much the same. This wasn't the case in Civ IV, where you could always count on Montezuma, Shaka, Genghis Khan, Isabelle (if your religion was different) to act more hostile as a general rule.

Addendum: If you have the edge in a war, the AI also shouldn't be so quick to offer you every one of their cities save their capital, 3/4 of their gold, all of their luxury resources and open borders. Give me a break.

Note: This assessment is based on a king level game, which I perceive as being the equivalent of "normal" or "medium."

All these options would greatly increase diplomacy and make it more realistic/interesting.

Because it takes time that has been spent balancing other aspects of the game, primarily; They have said more diplo modifiers will come in the next patch.

If that is true then that is a sign they really don't know what is wrong with the game as the biggest complaint has always been the terrible diplomacy.
There is no point making the rest of the game more balanced if the core issue from the players perspective which is a main factor in causing them to stop playing is still there.
People will ignore or live with a slightly unbalanced game as long as it is enganging and fun to play. No matter how balanced a game is they will still not play it if it is not fun or engaging to play.

[SamBC]

i destoyied only the one that attacked me... do i need to stand back and let him finish me off??? its stupid ... or not helping my friends?

the others killing city states like there is no tomorow and fighting each other, and im the bad guy ???

Fighting back when attacked isn't problem; razing their cities or finishing them off is, as far as I've been able to gather.

[wingednosering]

I played two complete games yesterday (yeah, I had a lot of free time). I've noticed a couple diplomacy differences, but all of them are wonky. The only true AI changes I've seen are that city states now scout reeeeeaaaalllyyy far with boats and the AI attacks faster through the water, but rarely lands. Basically the attacks are weaker, but faster.

Diplomacy is still very messed up. "They believe you are building new cities too aggressively" shows up when you conquer too many territories, even if you don't actually settle any. "We constructed wonders they desired" (not quite direct quote) also shows up when you capture an enemy city with a wonder. Even if you didn't build a single wonder, capturing a few will cause that to pop up.

The one really good change I noticed was in Diplo victory AI. If you attack their allied city states when they're going for a diplo victory, they rush to the defense and slam you with everything they've got.

The AI also seems more reluctant to attack heavily defended areas. I think this is partially because modern era combat makes it so darn difficult to capture cities, even without other military units.

You also still get situations where an enemy will settle right beside you, but then when you make another city right beside your capital, they think you're in 'their land'. This problem is less common than before, but it still happens.

Also, since the new patch, I'm noticing the situation of incorrect titles has gotten worse. In other words, sometimes it will say somebody is 'friendly' towards you, but they have a million negative modifiers, just went to war with you, gouge you for prices, and insult you in the text window at the bottom of the screen. They're clearly in 'guarded' or 'hostile' mode, but it still says 'friendly'. It can work the other way too...I've had 'guarded' enemies treat me as friendlies. This has gotten worse since the patch, I'm afraid.

SlickSlickers suggestions were mostly good, but I do regularly see a difference between each leader. Maybe I'm just imagining it, but Gandhi always seems to get pushed around and never has a military. Napoleon frequently goes back on alliances, Greece generally goes for diplo victories, Egypt always goes for culture, etc;

His suggestions for more positive/negative diplo modifiers, except for the research agreements. Try reloading an autosave after having somebody go to war with you. Now try signing a research agreement and a luxury resource trade. Quite often, they won't attack you any more. I think it does affect how likely they are to go to war with you, even though they won't be more friendly for it. Also, I don't think ever city-state should become more friendly towards you for liberating another city-state. They regularly ask you to kill their fellows after all.

The whole reason they abandoned religion was because it controlled diplomacy too much before. Your religion basically set out who your allies and enemies were from the beginning in Civ 4. Adding +/- values to policy similarities/discrepancies would just bring that problem back, unless it was really toned down.

A ceasefire option would be nice.

[SlickSlicer]

Quite often, they won't attack you any more. I think it does affect how likely they are to go to war with you, even though they won't be more friendly for it. Also, I don't think ever city-state should become more friendly towards you for liberating another city-state. They regularly ask you to kill their fellows after all.

You might be right about research agreements and luxury trades, but it's not very evident either way. If it does give a bonus, the game should tell you it does with a green positive message. From what I can tell, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, and it definitely doesn't improve your relationship with them in the longrun, which it should (at least for research agreements).

I phrased the thing about liberating city states badly. What I meant to say is that if you liberate a city state, it should count against the counter that makes city states distrust you ("City States Grow Worried," "More City States Join the Alliance," etc.).

[Mr_Ocheye]

What I want to see is more reasons why they want to be your friend (theres lots of reasons why civs dont want to be your friend). Sometimes when i start a new game the AI want to be my friend for no particullare reason. I will be building up my military and Ghandi wants to be my friend, Il try and reach a small cultured civ but big military types like the Aztecs want to be my friend. I defiently aggree that there needs to be more reasons for advancing your relationship with another civ although i still like to have my enimies so not to much that the world is all friendly and happy. Still some sort of "in common" thing should put up positive and "in disaggrement" should put down negitive i like.

Also i have been in many a situation were im in a war with a civ half way across the map, on a diffirent continint, and we wont kill any of each others forces but the AI still want 5000 of my 5500 gold, all my stratigic and luxtury resources and open boarders. I havent even seen any of their forces around me and yet they want me to give up everything? I dont understand.

[circuitrider]

When I first met Catherine on another continent, she was either friendly or neutral as I recall. I made a research agreement with her and a luxury trade. The next turn she turned hostile. The tooltip was she did not want to deal with me any further. She carried through with the trades and research. Nothing else from her for a while. Now, every once and a while she remarks on how puny my empire is. On the demographics screen I am number 1 in everything.

Now, I remember, she may also have had in a later tooltip that I was trying to win the game the same way she was. But, what a quick, unexplained turnaround.