Surprise attack? What a surprise!....AGAIN

[Greasy Dave]

It’s been written already – but I got so frustrated again last night, that I’m writing it again. This is a strategy game, and given that I’m playing against an AI, not a human, I don’t accept “surprise” attack as an AI tactic. “surprise” attack to me, is an excuse from the designer for a badly written diplomacy system.

What’s so frustrating is that a basic workable solution seems so easy.
Just give us more info!

Don’t just write in red or green what the AI likes or doesn’t like. Writing tells us nothing of value. Give us points in the plus or minus so the player can assess the threat!

Take my last game, a huge map, spawned on a continent next to India. Lots of space. My normal tactic, given the state of the AI is military, military, military. However, India wanted to be friends, we had a declaration of friendship. I gave him resources. I went to war against Askia when he asked. Is this a chance for a more peaceful tactic I wondered. I didn’t build my army up, instead I built improvements and settlers. Come medieval I had a choice to make. Rush to the military techs, or go for education and banking. I decided to abandon my usual routine and went for banking. Mistake.

About twenty turns into medieval Ghandi told me he wasn’t happy about my cities close to his borders. I checked our diplomacy screen. We still had many more likes than this single dislike. How seriously should I take the threat? I had no idea. I chose to accept more green writing than red means “still not hostile”. He remained friendly, continued to trade etc. so I went about my business, didn’t build rush an army. Then, you guessed it, 10 turns on, “Surprise! I’m declaring war on you!”

This is so frustrating! It’s a strategy game! I don’t want SURPRISE EVERY SINGLE GAME, EVERY SINGLE CIV! I want to be able to assess realistic threats and prepare for them. Currently the game just doesn’t give us the tools to do this. And yet it’d be so easy to fix! Please, please fix this Firaxis. I love so many things about this game…but this is the one thing that keeps driving me away.

[saksingj]

wut a noob.
if your military is considerably weaker than that of an ai, the ai will attack you. And this is how it has to be. from your story i read like you didnt build absolutely any military at all. Which, of course, could only lead to one outcome.

[marioflag]

As the previous poster said, you just learn to play the game better, you can't expect that Firaxis limit AI capabilities to make it more predictable for you.
If you don't build enough military units you deserve to be punished.

[Greasy Dave]

As the previous poster said, you just learn to play the game better, you can't expect that Firaxis limit AI capabilities to make it more predictable for you.
If you don't build enough military units you deserve to be punished.

Do you juveniles even know how to read? Reread the post before you make such insightful replies. I can only judge that you're underage because more mature forum users don't jump to conclusions about length of time playing and skill sets from single brief posts.

It's completely unimportant and irreleveant to the OP but I beat the game regularly at immortal.

What is relevant, is that to try to play a peaceful route with CIv 5 is impossible although it should be entirely possible theoretically. And yes, I didn't develop my army, and no, that wasn't a noob mistake. That was a concious decision to try something different, given the unique spawn site of acres of space and only INdia a close neighbour. I wanted to see if I could keep India onside and gauge his threat level through the diplomacy system of likes and dislikes, without having my army parked on his border.

Hell parking an army on his border is easy, you two super intellects have worked out that it's the way to win after all.

What is at fault is that it's not possible to get peace WITHOUT parking an army on your neighbour's border.

HAving an undertech army shouldn't be a green light to being bushwhacked by someone who has declared you a friend and who you have three green statements saying likes x, y and z.

True, I don't know if he bushwhacked me because I didn't park an army next to him or because his three likes were not sufficient to offset the single red dislike of my settling cities near him.

I'd like to know.

But either way, the whole thing encapsulates the failing of the diplomacy system (...not a failing of my playing style). To enjoy the game I want to find alternative ways to diplomacy than your " subtle and brilliantly clever" tactic of building an army. I can do that. I do that nomrally. I win at iimmortal level. No problem. What level do you "non noob" kids play at? mature level?

The issue is I shouldn't have to fight or scare EVERY SINGLE Civ! The game should give me strong clues and ways of doing this, like for instance, giving point indicators about how pissed Ghandi was by my city settlement, and clear indicators that those negative points are seriously outwaying the green points. Right now, I'm in the dark. And am forced to play in the way you pair of Einsteins pointed out. Which makes the game a poorer, not a richer experience. I would advise the pair of you to get some experience playing other strategy games. you might start to see what subtleties are possible and instead of flaming down a poster for stating something that goes against your fixed opinion, question whether the poster has something of value to discuss

[muddle77]

I am a turtle-up-and-win-with-culture player. I've never gotten through a game without being attacked. Big army, small army, doesn't matter. I've tried. I play on small maps and there's always war on me, even if I've been friends with my neighbors for centuries and been sweet. If the AI smells weakness, or thinks you're going to win the game, it attacks, even if you're the nicest, most diplomatic Civ in history. There are no Allies in this game.

Unlike you, I don't want more transparency necessarily, if the AI just made sense. But I would like for there to be a mechanic within the game that rewards cooperation... a points system that keeps points over the course of all games, for example, so there's an incentive for the AI to play for second or third rather than betray your 1000 year trust and hack at you because you've almost built a spaceship... or how about a happiness boost on each side for each renewed Declaration of Friendship? I agree that "I shouldn't have to fight or scare EVERY SINGLE Civ!"

Very quickly, my diplomatic pet peeve, chosen from a great many... I ask Egypt, for example, if they'd like to go to war with Rome. "No! That is not in the interest of my empire!" So I try to bribe Egypt with 1000 gold. "I'm sorry, there is no way to make this work." So I give up and change plans. Two turns later, Egypt declares war on Rome. WTF? This happens all the time.

[Mythdracon]

Agreed. The diplomacy system is unworkable, and feedback is poor. Calling out on the OP as somehow weak or a bad player indicates poor judgment based on lacking information. There is NOTHING in the OP's main post to suggest he's a poor player: on the contrary, the fact that he recognized the AI cycles of attacks shows a fairly analytical mindset and he described a valid complaint I've had, and which I know for a fact many people on this forum complained about when Civ V was first released. Most people who've played Civ V for a fair while should realize the AI's thought process and diplomatic reactions are hardly sensible in most situations, and the OP is pointing out one of the major occasions when the AI, for all their beautiful leader screens, act more like prescripted robots than fluid humans weighing pros and cons.

I've been "surprise attacked" by AI too, usually repeatedly. In one game, I beat back Alexander repeatedly. He made peace, then a few turns later would always war on me again. I always won these fights, and when I conquer even ONE city of Alex's, all the other civs whine about it. The heck? What kind of psycho logic do AI play with? "All for one, one for all"? Because even I war with an AI player (i.e. Alexander), I expect AI players who fought Alexander to appreciate it, not condemn it. "You are being attacked by our mutual enemy and you won a city, you must be a war-mongering monster!" said Wu, who had been attacked by Alexander thrice and lost 2 cities to him. Riiiiight. How logical of you to condemn me for helping you out, Wu.

[dukeisaac]

In about 400 hundred hours of gameplay, I have had only a single game where I had not been in war. I played a turtle-up game with Siam, 4 cities going for a cultural victory. My closest neighbour was none other than Napoleon, on ICS mode, attacking everyone except me. By the end, he had nukes and mech infantry, while i had gotten infantry, a significantly smaller army (say a total of 8 units) and still he never attacked me, even when I started building the Utopia project. Kind of weird actually, that he was friendly the whole time...

[SamBC]

I think it's great that we don't get numbers. If you really want them, I think there's a way to get a debug log of the AI diplomacy stuff. With numbers, you can play the AI - almost impossible not to, really, as you can see how bad your deficit is and thus work out exactly what button to push to sort things out as you want them.

Also, there are some positive and negative effects that you don't get told about, IIRC.

[istry555]

The thing is, I'm not sure playing peacefully is even theoretically possible. Unlike pass civs, the AI has a play to win attitude. This means in the end, diplomacy and all the the positive modifiers mean absolutely nothing because the AI will declare war on you if you are near victory.

[saksingj]

The whole point of an opponent is to not be predictable. As i understand of what your writing, you want the AI to be 100% predictable - in such case, whats the point of even playing? I rarely play against AI but if i do, i expect it to behave like a human opponent - to surprise me. Ability to surprise and to not be predictable are the key points of a good AI.

[Varus2319]

The whole point of an opponent is to not be predictable. As i understand of what your writing, you want the AI to be 100% predictable - in such case, whats the point of even playing? I rarely play against AI but if i do, i expect it to behave like a human opponent - to surprise me. Ability to surprise and to not be predictable are the key points of a good AI.

That's not really true. Actually, not at all.

Firstly, nobody said we want the AI to be 100% anything. Please don't put words in anyone's mouth. Next, predictability on some level is necessary for a strategy game. Computer opponents that play chess don't just move randomly all over the place. They have a certain amount of reliability, and good chess players should be able to expect what they do next most of the time.

The occasional surprise is a good thing, but Civ 5 the way it is now does not have that. Civ 5 is just random actions by AI's that have no sense of past actions, unless those actions are bad.

It is already known that the AI keeps track of negative things and not positive ones, and this is something that the upcoming patch is going to fix. Your statement about a 100% predictable AI is not what anyone is asking for, nor would it be a good thing. However, the opposite, 100% random actions, is nonsense as well. At some level you need to be able to tell approximately what the AI is going to do, especially when they seem to indicate that they are friends.

A good example is the current game I'm playing. I managed to avoid war with all the AI opponents for several hundred turns. The age of gunpowder was just on the horizon, and my army consisted of knights and a few trebuchets and crossbowmen. All 3 of my AI opponents had been offering me the circle of friendship screens for the entire game. You know what I'm talking about, that "hey look, we're both friends with Hiawatha!" stuff. Everybody on the continent was getting along great, trading, and having a good time.

Then I attacked a single city state, because I wanted the iron they had. 1 attack, 1 turn, 1 city state. Within the next three turns I was at war with all 3 of my "friends." We had been allies for hundreds of years.

That is the kind of random unpredictable nonsense that we need to avoid, and that threads like this are working to fix.

[Kierkegaard]

In about 400 hundred hours of gameplay, I have had only a single game where I had not been in war. I played a turtle-up game with Siam, 4 cities going for a cultural victory. My closest neighbour was none other than Napoleon, on ICS mode, attacking everyone except me. By the end, he had nukes and mech infantry, while i had gotten infantry, a significantly smaller army (say a total of 8 units) and still he never attacked me, even when I started building the Utopia project. Kind of weird actually, that he was friendly the whole time...

Actually it's even worse

If you don't engage or accept any diplomatic action with any civ; they'll all stay friendly with you. I won a cultural game like that. In all my game; I had never a war. Whilst the rest of the world had wars against eachother.

[dukeisaac]

If you don't engage or accept any diplomatic action with any civ; they'll all stay friendly with you. I won a cultural game like that. In all my game; I had never a war. Whilst the rest of the world had wars against eachother.

Really? wow thats lame... Ill have to verify that myself, but if its true, its a huge fault. It would be pretty easy then to go for cultural victories, just ignore everyone.

[civdiss]

Actually it's even worse

If you don't engage or accept any diplomatic action with any civ; they'll all stay friendly with you. I won a cultural game like that. In all my game; I had never a war. Whilst the rest of the world had wars against eachother.

I had a dipomatic victory with Egypt on immortal in exactly the same way. I just avoided contact and they left me alone all game. In general if you attack a city state or ignore your military then you are asking for trouble and the AI should attack you irrespective of previous alliances. I think they should make the AI more aggressive rather than more passive especially in latter stages of the game. I ve won many games where the AIs could have done something to stop me but they never saw it coming. Good thing is the july patch will add positive points for trades and will hopefully make diplomacy a little bit better. Even though I don't think its as bad as you guys think

[Shiggs713]

Actually it's even worse

If you don't engage or accept any diplomatic action with any civ; they'll all stay friendly with you. I won a cultural game like that. In all my game; I had never a war. Whilst the rest of the world had wars against eachother.

thats actually about spot on with my experience as well. Basically ignore all of them, NEVER become friends with or denounce anyone and they will all respect you and be friendly towards you. Well maybe not all, but definitely most... I've had continent games with several nearby rivals and this tactic worked for basically the entire game. I got invited to all the dogpiles as well, it was pretty sweet being able to swoop in and take cities after the dumb AI had whittled down the defenses for me.

[Rinnero]

thats actually about spot on with my experience as well. Basically ignore all of them, NEVER become friends with or denounce anyone and they will all respect you and be friendly towards you. Well maybe not all, but definitely most... I've had continent games with several nearby rivals and this tactic worked for basically the entire game. I got invited to all the dogpiles as well, it was pretty sweet being able to swoop in and take cities after the dumb AI had whittled down the defenses for me.

Any diplomacy with AI seems to me too random to bother it.

And since Civ IV's religion I think that its better to be neutral. Allies barely help in case of war, and even can easily betray you (read: declare war for almost no reason). Actually players in MP can do the same, but at least that is fun and they are much more usefull as allies.

[stealth_nsk]

Ok, so as I understand, you guys want this. You develop peacefully and act good and want all the AI (even militaristic ones) to just silently allow you to win without attacking you?

That's understandable, I played this type of games very often in previous Civ games, but Civ 5 is not about this. It has the following points different from previous games:
- AI plays to win, so player needs to be ready to defend his/her victory in both military and peaceful way.
- It's doesn't allow using either diplomacy or military - it requires player to master all aspects of the game to win on higher level. As other players pointed, the upcoming patch is going to strengthen this.

I'm not saying the diplomacy is perfect, but I like the more independent Civ 5 AI.

[istry555]

Ok, so as I understand, you guys want this. You develop peacefully and act good and want all the AI (even militaristic ones) to just silently allow you to win without attacking you?

In defense of this thread, the OP is talking about Ghandi doing this...

No one is saying they want EVERY AI to act like this. There are some you accept will always be violent (just like Montezuma and Shaka were in Civ IV). However, every AI shouldn't be like this, especially Ghandi.

[Varus2319]

I don't want everybody to leave me alone. What I do want is to stop seeing this:

AI - ME

Friendship Pact? -Sure!

Friendship Pact? -Sure!

Come war alongside me? -Sure!

Research Pact? -Sure!

Friendship Pact? -Sure!

You attacked my favorite CS! -Oh, sorry.

Denounce you! -Sorry

War and death upon you! -Really?

....Peace? -Sure!

Trade? -Sure!

Friendship Pact? -Sure!

Denounce you!

...Seriously wtf man.

***2000 Years Later***

Friendship Pact? -Sure!

Research Agreement? -Sure!

Come war alongside me again? -Sure!

War and death be upon you scum!


I'm really sick and tired of that being the pattern. And it's not that I want everybody to be nice to me all the time. In fact, I would even enjoy it if the odd AI player totally betrayed me and attacked me when my guard was down. However, this has become the standard for every single opponent during every single game I play.

That, friends, is annoying as hell.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

In defense of this thread, the OP is talking about Ghandi doing this...

No one is saying they want EVERY AI to act like this. There are some you accept will always be violent (just like Montezuma and Shaka were in Civ IV). However, every AI shouldn't be like this, especially Ghandi.

I agree with you that not all leaders should be unconditionally aggressive backstabbers. However, it seems to me at the time that Gandhi declared war on him, their deceleration of friendship has long expired--and in fact, Gandhi has already popped up saying he didn't like his expansion!--in other words, Ghandi had no strong diplomatic ties with the guy that would prevent him from actually going to war, he merely 'appeared' to be friendly. If Gandhi would actually, by the terms of the game, have back-stabbed him, that would've been improper, but a simple war, seeing he had everything to gain?

Against human players, in the situation he was in, would not an attack be deemed the smart thing to do, even if that other player was friendly, both in nature, and both in theirs plans that you knew about? Keeping in mind that the other player never actually promised in any way that he wasn't going to attack. So if it is the logical thing for a human to do, why is it irrational of the AI? I in fact love this because, firstly, it means I actually need to have some kind of defense up in the game if I don't want to get killed, and secondly it means that the AI, for the first time in the series, is actually trying to play to win.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

I don't want everybody to leave me alone. What I do want is to stop seeing this:

...

However, this has become the standard for every single opponent during every single game I play.

I mostly agree with what you are saying: the pattern of the AI have become too predictable. However, the generalization you described is only fitting of the AI with aggressive characteristics like Bismark and Genghis Khan, as Gandhi or Kahmehanka, when I make a declaration of friendship with them, I know it will last trough the game if I pay attention to it (usually)--and at the very least that they won't back-stab me while it is in effect.

In this sense, you have to pay attention to what your opponents do, if they back-stab you once in a game, you know that they will do it again, so however friendly they get, I would recommend keeping your guard up and not making any sacrifices on their behalf. But such will only ever be a handful of civs in a game, and most of them will, to a lesser or greater extent, be a lot more loyal to their word: just be careful who you make long-term friends with, I can't recall a single game where there wasn't at least one civ that I couldn't forge a game-long friendship with, given I wasn't warring all the time.

As for the predictability, maybe there should be a few more patterns that the AI could follow, but keep in mind that even human players, if you play a strategic game with them several times, they will have some general pattern that their games follow, even if there is a level of unpredictability: this is why chess masters, soccer managers, and military generals, when facing off against another, they will spend countless hours studying the techniques of the other, because chances are their opponents will follow a rough pattern that they usually would. In a way this is all that the AI is doing, too: acting like a human player... with thought processes maybe a bit less complex.

Nevertheless, ever since the last two or so patches, I have thoroughly enjoyed diplomacy with the AI because it is more and more starting to take the shape of a human player, and it is in its current form already miles ahead of of the previous versions, despite there still being a lot of ironing out to do.

[istry555]

Against human players, in the situation he was in, would not an attack be deemed the smart thing to do, even if that other player was friendly, both in nature, and both in theirs plans that you knew about? Keeping in mind that the other player never actually promised in any way that he wasn't going to attack. So if it is the logical thing for a human to do, why is it irrational of the AI? I in fact love this because, firstly, it means I actually need to have some kind of defense up in the game if I don't want to get killed, and secondly it means that the AI, for the first time in the series, is actually trying to play to win.

The thing is, I'm not entirely sure if the new AI play to win attitude is not just the AI plays so the human loses. If it was solely play to win, then if the AI was going for a cultural victory then it's not always the logical thing to attack your neighbor or even instigate wars and become a warmonger in the eyes of the world and get more people to declare war on you. It seems it might actually be the AI plays so that the human loses, so that they will attack a weak human no matter what just to stop you, regardless of if it actually helps or perhaps even hinders the preferred type of victory they are going for. Additionally, a true play to win attitude should include the AI realizing if there's no possible way it could defeat a civ significantly ahead of itself and thus not declare war for no reason if that's the human player. Instead, it should focus on getting second or third place (or as high on the list as it could feasibly get).

[Jacsó Benjámin]

The thing is, I'm not entirely sure the new AI play to win attitude is not just the AI plays so the human loses. If it was solely play to win, then if the AI was going for a cultural victory then it's not always the logical thing to attack your neighbor or even instigate wars and become a warmonger in the eyes of the world and get more people to declare war on you. It seems it might actually be the AI plays so that the human loses, so that they will attack a weak human no matter what just to stop you, regardless of if it actually helps or perhaps even hinders the preferred type of victory they are going for. Additionally, a true play to win attitude should include the AI realizing if there's no possible way it could defeat a civ significantly ahead of itself and thus not declare war for no reason if that's the human player. Instead, it should focus on getting second or third place (or as high on the list as it could feasibly get).

Haha, good point, though this is why I said it's trying to play to win; there is still certainly room for improvement. I do agree with most of what you've said, suggestions for improving the AI, except in that the AI always declares war on you, because this isn't quite true. In my experience, only certain, often warmongering AI declared war on me even when I was weak, and not some Raamkamhaeng going for a cultural victory.

[jdog5000]

Then I attacked a single city state, because I wanted the iron they had. 1 attack, 1 turn, 1 city state. Within the next three turns I was at war with all 3 of my "friends." We had been allies for hundreds of years.

That is the kind of random unpredictable nonsense that we need to avoid, and that threads like this are working to fix.

This is neither random nor unpredictable ... it happens every time. Seriously, it's very predictable. If you attack a city state and conquer it, there are several AI personalities who will immediately strongly condemn you for being a warmonger (Gandhi, Washington, Elizabeth, the Siam guy for example). If one of your friends condemns you, then you take a diplo hit in the eyes of every civ who likes them more than you (you get a diplo bonus from civs who like you more).

If you attack a city state that one of your allies was "protecting", then that is the end of your friendship period. They will never really like you again.

Playing a peaceful game is entirely possible, but you have to do three things:

1) Not declare war except maybe once or twice the whole game
2) Never completely conquer a civ or a city state
3) Always renew your DoF immediately when they expire

You may still get attacked by one or two crazies, but never by your friends if you play this way. And by friends I mean civs with which you have a DoF, the "Friendly" thing is hit or miss and some AIs simply can't be trusted.

[harmonic42]

It really drives me nuts whenever people say "Deal with it, it is how humans act, it's a good AI, it's supposed to be unpredictable, it's supposed to try to win. Learn to play."

That is absolute garbage. This is supposed to be a strategy game. In all proper strategy games, you can see the numbers. You can actually make real plans, and make meaningful decisions.

Having an AI that acts like a psychotic 5-year-old with a mean streak is not "Good AI." It is pathetically bad AI that is masked with the excuse that they're "trying to win."

If they were truly trying to win, they would not act psychotically. They would be sensible and smart. They would not play fast-and-loose with going to war with the human player.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

It really drives me nuts whenever people say "Deal with it, it is how humans act, it's a good AI, it's supposed to be unpredictable, it's supposed to try to win. Learn to play."

That is absolute garbage. This is supposed to be a strategy game. In all proper strategy games, you can see the numbers. You can actually make real plans, and make meaningful decisions.

Having an AI that acts like a psychotic 5-year-old with a mean streak is not "Good AI." It is pathetically bad AI that is masked with the excuse that they're "trying to win."

If they were truly trying to win, they would not act psychotically. They would be sensible and smart. They would not play fast-and-loose with going to war with the human player.

No, in most strategy games, you have a rough idea of what your opponent will do, and no crystal-clear image, or abstraction represented to you on a grid chart. You kind of need to calculate with your suspicions--and so much, civ V executes perfectly. Now the intelligence of the AI still needs some work, though it is steadily improving, but this is a whole different topic all together: the war tactics and long-term strategies of them; this has nothing to do with diplomacy. Diplomacy is completely workable and sensible now, and just because some people don't want to spend the time to consider what their opponents are like, many enjoy it, there is nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't need to be "fixed" any further.

It is the strategic and tactical, not the diplomatic AI, that still need work. You no longer get unpredictable denunciations, declarations of war, backstabbing, or whatever--this has all been fixed long ago, and everything the AI does is now foreseeable.

[harmonic42]

No, in most strategy games, you have a rough idea of what your opponent will do, and no crystal-clear image, or abstraction represented to you on a grid chart. You kind of need to calculate with your suspicions--and so much, civ V executes perfectly. Now the intelligence of the AI still needs some work, though it is steadily improving, but this is a whole different topic all together: the war tactics and long-term strategies of them; this has nothing to do with diplomacy. Diplomacy is completely workable and sensible now, and just because some people don't want to spend the time to consider what their opponents are like, many enjoy it, there is nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't need to be "fixed" any further.

It is the strategic and tactical, not the diplomatic AI, that still need work. You no longer get unpredictable denunciations, declarations of war, backstabbing, or whatever--this has all been fixed long ago, and everything the AI does is now foreseeable.

"No" eh? Well I see your "no" and raise you a louder "no."

Try playing any other grand strategy game. Their diplomacy meta-games are actually something that can be played by the player. The diplomacy train-wreck in Civ5 is not something that can be played, it plays you. That is not fun. That's entirely too much randomness and guesswork. What will the psychotic child do next?

The AI needs to act with some rhyme or reason. Hell, they could have some leader personalities be childish and psycho, for instance, if they were to add Kim Jung Il to the game. However, I highly doubt some of the more sound-minded historical leaders deserve to have their representative in-game actions be so completely asinine as they are in civ5.

You're in the minority, sir. Civ5's diplomacy is boring, lifeless, and is the #1 killer of a potentially great game. Look at Europa Universalis 3. A much, MUCH smaller and less prominent game studio, Paradox. EU3 isn't perfect by any means, but look at the vast amount of diplomacy options you have! And you can actually see all the numbers. Is the AI stupid? Yes, a little. Does it still try to win? You bet your ass it does. Will it still kick your ass for being a bad player? Yes, it will.

[muddle77]

"Diplomacy is completely workable and sensible now, and just because some people don't want to spend the time to consider what their opponents are like, many enjoy it, there is nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't need to be "fixed" any further."

Can we just make this statement an Agree or Disagree poll?

[Jacsó Benjámin]

"No" eh? Well I see your "no" and raise you a louder "no."

Try playing any other grand strategy game. Their diplomacy meta-games are actually something that can be played by the player. The diplomacy train-wreck in Civ5 is not something that can be played, it plays you. That is not fun. That's entirely too much randomness and guesswork. What will the psychotic child do next?

The AI needs to act with some rhyme or reason. Hell, they could have some leader personalities be childish and psycho, for instance, if they were to add Kim Jung Il to the game. However, I highly doubt some of the more sound-minded historical leaders deserve to have their representative in-game actions be so completely asinine as they are in civ5.

You're in the minority, sir. Civ5's diplomacy is boring, lifeless, and is the #1 killer of a potentially great game. Look at Europa Universalis 3. A much, MUCH smaller and less prominent game studio, Paradox. EU3 isn't perfect by any means, but look at the vast amount of diplomacy options you have! And you can actually see all the numbers. Is the AI stupid? Yes, a little. Does it still try to win? You bet your ass it does. Will it still kick your ass for being a bad player? Yes, it will.

We could certainly use a few more factors that determine the AIs attitude, and more diplomatic options in general; however, even in its present state, the number of options and everything far surpass what was in IV. The matter of fact is, diplomacy in civ has always been "boring and lifeless", and if anything then the predictable "randomness" of the AI which you and others are complaining about (despite it being rational, as I and others here seem to be able to foresee it, and can even relate to and justify most of their actions) actually makes diplomacy far more interesting than it ever has been before. There are still a few bugs that need to be addressed, but by no means anything that breaks the system or the game like you seem to suggest.

Plus, whether you like it or not, civ V AI try to mimic human behavior and don't just let you win or give you information you couldn't get out of a human opponent like it does in most grand-strategy, sandbox-AI games. It's different than most AI in most games, including its predecessors, but this does not necessarily make it bad; and if you can't get over this, well, then, we have nothing left to discuss. As I have said before, there are still pretty big AI issues that need to be ironed out with the AI, but this mostly isn't with their diplomacy, but rather with their tactical and strategic thinking.

As for the minority, I bet we're in an overwhelming majority, as mostly people that have issues with the game come onto these forums while the rest are happily playing it without ever saying a word, and the opinions of people here are but a small, biased sample of the general opinion.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

"Diplomacy is completely workable and sensible now, and just because some people don't want to spend the time to consider what their opponents are like, many enjoy it, there is nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't need to be "fixed" any further."

Can we just make this statement an Agree or Disagree poll?

Hey, hey, now you're taking what I said out of context. What I meant to say by this is, unlike what many people on this thread are advocating, there is no serious issue with the diplomatic AI that would require a massive overhaul of it. Of course, it could always be made better with more options and more factors in the determination of relationships, but it doesn't act in a random, stupid manner in terms of its diplomatic decisions.

[muddle77]

Then the poll can be "(The AI) doesn't act in a random, stupid manner in terms of its diplomatic decisions." Agree or disagree.

This happened to me recently. I'm friends with Japan, who's on my border. Due to cultural expansion, his borders enlarge by one tile so that now our borders are touching. My friend Japan immediately denounces me. I forgot to look to see if this was because he coveted lands I owned or because the AI thought its own expansion was me expanding. Was Japan's denouncement random? I have to admit, no. Was it stupid? Well, yeah. I didn't DO anything to deserve a denouncement. If I hadn't noticed the expansion, it would have seemed random AND stupid.

Maybe you've cracked the code so you can identify when a Civ will suddenly change from your friend of centuries to your mortal enemy over the span of a turn or two. But identifying those reasons doesn't make those reasons right, or fun, or good for the game. It's not that the AI does things for no reason, it's that it often does them for not good enough reasons. That can be tweaked, but a lot of us -- who come here to learn, actually, not to complain, at least now that Hotseat's coming -- find the current Diplomacy half-baked. I'm not saying throw out the system, but I can't agree with you that the current AI Diplomacy is good enough or fun enough, or playable as is.

And we can agree to disagree, because Firaxis agrees with me. Diplomacy will be different after the coming patch, so they must have thought it still needed work. Hopefully, they'll continue to work on it.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

Then the poll can be "(The AI) doesn't act in a random, stupid manner in terms of its diplomatic decisions." Agree or disagree.

This happened to me recently. I'm friends with Japan, who's on my border. Due to cultural expansion, his borders enlarge by one tile so that now our borders are touching. My friend Japan immediately denounces me. I forgot to look to see if this was because he coveted lands I owned or because the AI thought its own expansion was me expanding. Was Japan's denouncement random? I have to admit, no. Was it stupid? Well, yeah. I didn't DO anything to deserve a denouncement. If I hadn't noticed the expansion, it would have seemed random AND stupid.

Maybe you've cracked the code so you can identify when a Civ will suddenly change from your friend of centuries to your mortal enemy over the span of a turn or two. But identifying those reasons doesn't make those reasons right, or fun, or good for the game. It's not that the AI does things for no reason, it's that it often does them for not good enough reasons. That can be tweaked, but a lot of us -- who come here to learn, actually, not to complain, at least now that Hotseat's coming -- find the current Diplomacy half-baked. I'm not saying throw out the system, but I can't agree with you that the current AI Diplomacy is good enough or fun enough, or playable as is.

And we can agree to disagree, because Firaxis agrees with me. Diplomacy will be different after the coming patch, so they must have thought it still needed work. Hopefully, they'll continue to work on it.

Japan will almost always backstab or betray you if your army isn't huge, despite your past relations with them... this is a part of their fundamental nature in the game, and there a couple of more civs like them. You should pay attention to your opponents during the game and see which are aggressive, trustworthy, etc.; they will play in a similar manner every game, and so you should know what to expect of them eventually, and this is what makes diplomacy in this game so interesting. I've never cracked the code, I just actually payed attention to this stuff during my games, and believe me, if you look at it like this, it makes a lot of sense.

It also isn't stupid, because generally, after someone like Japan denounces me, one or two other civs will also follow suit, and within 15 turns, there will be a joint attack on me, one of the attackers being Japan. At this point, if I let my army lag a little, I could be in huge trouble, and right after the denouements, I just start expanding/upgrading my army. Japan's denouncement on me works very well to cause a division between me and about half the civs in play, however, and thus, it is a very smart strategic move, and even if they were my best friends, sort of expected of them. I am describing what happens on deity here, though.

Also, look at the patch notes on Diplomacy and the AI, non of them address this behavioral 'concern' some of you guys are having, and this is because there is nothing wrong with the way the AI acts in diplomacy in general. Again, more determinants and everything, I am happy with, but the AI doesn't act in a random, stupid manner, and no major fixes are required.

[harmonic42]

We could certainly use a few more factors that determine the AIs attitude, and more diplomatic options in general; however, even in its present state, the number of options and everything far surpass what was in IV. The matter of fact is, diplomacy in civ has always been "boring and lifeless", and if anything then the predictable "randomness" of the AI which you and others are complaining about (despite it being rational, as I and others here seem to be able to foresee it, and can even relate to and justify most of their actions) actually makes diplomacy far more interesting than it ever has been before. There are still a few bugs that need to be addressed, but by no means anything that breaks the system or the game like you seem to suggest.

Plus, whether you like it or not, civ V AI try to mimic human behavior and don't just let you win or give you information you couldn't get out of a human opponent like it does in most grand-strategy, sandbox-AI games. It's different than most AI in most games, including its predecessors, but this does not necessarily make it bad; and if you can't get over this, well, then, we have nothing left to discuss. As I have said before, there are still pretty big AI issues that need to be ironed out with the AI, but this mostly isn't with their diplomacy, but rather with their tactical and strategic thinking.

As for the minority, I bet we're in an overwhelming majority, as mostly people that have issues with the game come onto these forums while the rest are happily playing it without ever saying a word, and the opinions of people here are but a small, biased sample of the general opinion.

You are speaking to me as if you've come to the conclusion that I am butt-hurt about losing or something. For your information, I haven't even come close to losing in Civ5. I happen enjoy strategy games and prefer for my playing experience to be fun and interesting. The Civ5 mechanics are not something for me to "get over." I will never get over a terrible, boring system. I want it changed. And look at the patch notes. So does Firaxis.

Another incorrect assumption you've made is that the Civ 5 AI mimics human behavior. It does not. I would HATE to know the human who acts like the Civ 5 AI.

I can't understand why some players prefer this system of complete randomness and the inability to make meaningful decisions and see actual results of those meaningful decisions. You prefer for your diplomatic strategy to have no correlation to what the AI does. That's weird. And boring. It's just like... why bother? If i can't influence the AI's behavior by my own diplomatic strategy, why bother?

Also, "tactical and strategic thinking"? How can you possibly include that in the same time zone as the Civ 5 AI? What it does is not tactics or strategy. It is not based on reality. It is based on this "lol the AI plays to win noob so get used to it betraying you" failed experiment. Guess what, sometimes it is BENEFICIAL to keep the human player an ally. Sometimes is it BENEFICIAL to not recklessly attack the human player for basically no reason, with no preparation, and with no real plan. Have you ever read AARs from Galactic Civ2? That AI is so much smarter than Civ5's it's absurd.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

You are speaking to me as if you've come to the conclusion that I am butt-hurt about losing or something. For your information, I haven't even come close to losing in Civ5. I happen enjoy strategy games and prefer for my playing experience to be fun and interesting. The Civ5 mechanics are not something for me to "get over." I will never get over a terrible, boring system. I want it changed. And look at the patch notes. So does Firaxis.

Another incorrect assumption you've made is that the Civ 5 AI mimics human behavior. It does not. I would HATE to know the human who acts like the Civ 5 AI.

I can't understand why some players prefer this system of complete randomness and the inability to make meaningful decisions and see actual results of those meaningful decisions. You prefer for your diplomatic strategy to have no correlation to what the AI does. That's weird. And boring. It's just like... why bother? If i can't influence the AI's behavior by my own diplomatic strategy, why bother?

Also, "tactical and strategic thinking"? How can you possibly include that in the same time zone as the Civ 5 AI? What it does is not tactics or strategy. It is not based on reality. It is based on this "lol the AI plays to win noob so get used to it betraying you" failed experiment. Guess what, sometimes it is BENEFICIAL to keep the human player an ally. Sometimes is it BENEFICIAL to not recklessly attack the human player for basically no reason, with no preparation, and with no real plan. Have you ever read AARs from Galactic Civ2? That AI is so much smarter than Civ5's it's absurd.

So we agree upon the strategic and tactical stuff needing some fixing, right? Although I think your exaggerating somewhat because it isn't completely absurd anymore. Or maybe it is on some of the lower levels, I don't know. However, the rest I won't discuss because the diplomatic system simply isn't random and can actually be quite enjoyable, and it seems no kind of sense is able to convince you.

Also, I don't think that you always lose; there are so many levels you are bound to win on one of them, it just seems to me that you are complaining about there not being enough challenges in the game, but at the same time you are condemning the challenges that you are already supposed to face. If the AI were to actually launch a successful invasion of your territory, in other words, have a competent tactical and strategic system, I bet you would be one of the first on here saying it is stupid, random, and that they shouldn't do stuff like it because they made a deceleration of friendship with you 300 turns earlier so you decided to completely neglect your army. I'm pretty sure the guy who started this thread--this was his exact problem, wasn't it?

[harmonic42]

So we agree upon the strategic and tactical stuff needing some fixing, right? Although I think your exaggerating somewhat because it isn't completely absurd anymore. Or maybe it is on some of the lower levels, I don't know. However, the rest I won't discuss because the diplomatic system simply isn't random and can actually be quite enjoyable, and it seems no kind of sense is able to convince you.

Also, I don't think that you always lose; there are so many levels you are bound to win on one of them, it just seems to me that you are complaining about there not being enough challenges in the game, but at the same time you are condemning the challenges that you are already supposed to face. If the AI were to actually launch a successful invasion of your territory, in other words, have a competent tactical and strategic system, I bet you would be one of the first on here saying it is stupid, random, and that they shouldn't do stuff like it because they made a deceleration of friendship with you 300 turns earlier so you decided to completely neglect your army. I'm pretty sure the guy who started this thread--this was his exact problem, wasn't it?

You: "it seems no kind of sense is able to convince you."

Me: You are trying to say that I am unwilling to listen to reason. Wrong. I listened to your reasoning, and I disagree with it.

You: "it just seems to me that you are complaining about there not being enough challenges in the game, but at the same time you are condemning the challenges that you are already supposed to face."

Me: Random, stupid, psychotic AI is not challenge, and I never said it was. It is BORING. Not challenging.

You: "If the AI were to actually launch a successful invasion of your territory, in other words, have a competent tactical and strategic system, I bet you would be one of the first on here saying it is stupid, random, and that they shouldn't do stuff like it because they made a deceleration of friendship with you 300 turns earlier so you decided to completely neglect your army."

Me: You are batting .000 on your assumptions. Stop making assumptions, they're never right.

You: "I'm pretty sure the guy who started this thread--this was his exact problem, wasn't it?"

Me: The OP's problem is that he is sick and tired of feeling like his diplomatic actions have no meaningful effect on what the AI does. And frankly, so am I. And so is Firaxis. Again, check the patch notes.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

Again, check the patch notes.

Really? Show me one goddamn thing in the patch notes that indicates that "surprise" attacks and "random" diplomatic actions will be reworked, because however many times I look trough them, not one indicates anything of the sort.

As for you listening to reason, you listen to reason about as well as a mule. This has been your only argument: the AI is a psychotic, random, stupid child. But just listen, I can darn well understand the AI, and you know why? Because I pay attention to it during the game, and don't just expect that all of the information that I'll ever need to understand it will be given to me in a handy little grid of numbers. It actually works, you should try it. There is no longer, since the last patch or two, anything very psychotic or random about the behavior of the AI.

Since every statement can be disproven by a counterexample, the statement you and the OP have made is false, as to me, the AI is pretty understandable. At this point, you should, really, just let your point go, or bring something new into the argument, but, no, what do you do? You instead repeat the same goddamn line over and over again until my ears bleed:

Having an AI that acts like a psychotic 5-year-old with a mean streak is not "Good AI."

act psychotically

What will the psychotic child do next?

childish and psycho

Random, stupid, psychotic AI

too much randomness

The AI needs to act with some rhyme or reason.

this system of complete randomness

I heard what you said, buddy, its just no longer applicable.

[mwallyn]

Honestly I have to disagree. Although nice and convenient, having exact numbers makes Civ V feel gamey and exploitable, not to mention it makes zero sense in real life. Yes, we know why people are upset with us. For example, Iran does not like the US because we are constantly invading other Muslim countries (attacking their friends) and we are pressuring them not to have nuclear weapons despite having the largest stockpile of them ourselves (for comparison purposes, lets say we're expanding too much and we're asking them NOT to). HOWEVER, we do not know exactly how upset this makes them. There is no numerical value associated with the nuclear tensions between the two nations. Civ IV diplomacy felt unusual because you could nickle-and-dime the system to make people like you a certain way. Essentially you knew how much you had to please someone so you could make them JUST happy enough not to outright hate you. Flatly speaking, it does work that way IRL. Trying to quantify all the emotions and dynamics of the relationship is not realistic and all but impossible. Therefore, trying to implement it in-game is hugely undesirable.

Regarding "erratic" behavior, its not so erratic, especially if you look at the flavors file for the civilizations. Montezuma's actions are actually fairly predictable once you get down to it. Montezuma is opportunistic; if he thinks he is stronger than you, he will attempt to capitalize on his advantage as soon as he can, if not immediately. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate enough force and strength to counter him, he will fear and respect you, becoming a trusted ally. Gandhi is just the opposite. Be a peaceful civilian and he will adore you; be an inhospitable warmongeror and he will be quick to tell you so and denounce your behavior. I'm not speaking for the AI's combat skills, simply for its choice of action. I generally do not build much of an army, so more warlike leaders tend to dislike me and attack me because they think they can get away with it. Meanwhile, I often befriend the peaceful peoples like India and Siam because I'm not a jerk to them. Apply some critical thinking to the AI and you'll see what the Devs were trying to do with it.

[harmonic42]

words

You are getting way too emotional, kid. Settle down.

There is a huge amount of people who feel that Civ5's AI and diplomacy are extremely poor. It's not just me or the OP.

[muddle77]

I honestly can't say that Japan has backstabbed me more often than Gandhi, or gone to war with me more often than England or anyone else. You guys suggest that we're missing obvious cues, and that each leader is consistent in their behavior. And I'm saying that to an average gamer like me, it does not feel that way at all. If each leader has a distinct personality, it is not apparent to many players, and thus Diplomacy feels random and stupid to us. It is not apparent in the flow of the game WHY each leader acts the way they do. It should not require the equivalent of postgraduate study to decipher. The leaders, to me and a lot of other people, seem pretty much interchangeable. Your saying it isn't so does not change the fact that this is the way we are experiencing it.

Gandhi says "I'm denouncing you because Elizabeth declared war on you, which makes you a warmonger!" Yeah, yeah, they all say that. They really do.

Here's a suggestion which might help everyone. Rather than a points system like the OP suggests, why not have "traits" bars in the Civilopedia, outlining each leader's personality. On a scale of 1 to 10, Japan gets a 9 for "Aggressiveness", Gandhi gets a 1. Have personality traits like "Opportunism", "Openness to Trade", "Expansionism", "Honesty", etc. I'm sure you guys could make a better list than I.

Then, Firaxis, work on the interface so it's more obvious WHY a leader has made the diplomatic decision they've made. A lot of us are just clicking next turn and managing our kingdoms, not monitoring every tile and trade and exchange for their obscure diplomatic consequences.

[jdog5000]

Then, Firaxis, work on the interface so it's more obvious WHY a leader has made the diplomatic decision they've made. A lot of us are just clicking next turn and managing our kingdoms, not monitoring every tile and trade and exchange for their obscure diplomatic consequences.

This is a real issue - visibility of why decisions are made.

The + and - relationship numbers in Civ IV are neither realistic nor do they intrinsically make for a more fun or strategic game. What they do, however, is make it so that the human player can immediately understand the inner workings of the AI and why it would or would not agree to certain things. The rules for when an AI would agree to different trades or consider war were pretty clear cut. People still complained about how Catherine would declare on them at "Pleased" in Civ IV and that this showed the AI was crazy.

Having worked a lot on the AI in Civ IV, I can tell you that it was not crazy nor was it somehow especially intelligent. War declarations worked like this:
1. There was a random chance that an AI would consider starting war plans on any turn, the odds varied by leader personality and there was little consideration for game state (none in vanilla, a little in BTS).
2. When the random "declare war on someone" check passed, the AI would then pick a pool of possible targets. Each rival had a percentage chance to be included in the pool of potential targets based on relations - 100% chance at Furious, 0% chance at Friends. In between there was a fair amount of variance based on personality - Cautious was 90% for some leaders and maybe 0% for Sitting Bull if memory serves.
3. Inside the pool of targets, the AI assigned a weighting to things like proximity and relative military power. But still, relations were a huge factor that greatly increased the weighting and there was also a random element.

The point is this: in Civ IV when the AI chose to declare war was random, and relations basically determined war targets. It's this second part which some players seem to have liked - you knew basically exactly where you stood, and if Augustus was Pleased with you but Annoyed with Asoka then there was basically no chance he'd attack you. The visibility let people fill in the blanks and believe the AI was rational or thinking strategically.

For Civ 5, Firaxis actually put a lot of effort into developing more advanced AI. We can't see the internals yet without source code, but from the log files it's clear the AI is considering a lot more things then it ever did before at all levels. Seriously. The AI in Civ 5 is considerably more advanced internally than anything which has appeared in a Civ game before, and not just diplomatically. Clearly, however, these advanced internals haven't translated uniformly into a more awesome game at this point. I think there are several reasons for this:

(a) Shifting diplo situation. At launch, Firaxis had decided on no visibility of relations. We also had pacts of secrecy and cooperation. There was a large outcry and so they've changed a LOT of things and will tweak a little more in the next patch. The state of diplomacy we have now was not built from the ground up, but significantly patched and cobbled together. IMO, it doesn't feel like a cohesive whole at this point.

(b) Friendly is meaningless. I believe a fundamental miscalculation was having relations top out at Friendly. You can start the game at Friendly with some AIs, and an AI which is deceiving you also shows as Friendly. There is thus no real sense of who your friends are and who you can trust. I think we need either an "Ally" approach above Friendly, or to slide an approach like "Polite" in where Friendly is and make Friendly something which is earned and has more meaning.

(c) Insufficient visibility. This is certainly tied to the previous two, but it's a bigger theme as well. The next patch will make the AI tell you that it is backstabbing you which is a step in the right direction, but when you're denounced it's guess work as to why - is it something you did to them or something you did to one of their friends? One thing which would really help is if the AI would denounce you immediately when it comes to complain about something you're doing. For example, if you tell them to piss off and that you'll settle what lands you please, they should denounce you right there if they're going to.

(d) Lack of memory and auto-renewal. If you miss the expiration notice for a DoF and don't resign it, this causes a sharp change in the AI's opinion of you. They may denounce you the next turn because suddenly the 35 positive diplo points which may have been keeping your relations afloat are just gone - the AI doesn't appear to remember your past friendship after it ends, which is unnatural. Looks like the patch will finally add positive modifiers for trades, which is good and hopefully there will be memory in that system.