Civ 3. Same reason. If you asked an ally to give you a tech they'd want about everything you had for it. If you asked them for the same deal they would say you were straining tha alliance by attempting to cheat them with such an insulting offer.Originally Posted by stethnorun
Civ 2. Allies would send their forces in to "protect" your cities, interfering with your movement and sitting on pollution squares so you couldn't clean them up.
However, just because it's been like that before doesn't meen it isn't rotten.
There are some blatantly screwed things with the current diplomacy system, one of them being that one you DoF, your "friends" will expect you to give excess ressources while they never do the same to you. Furthermore, if you don't do it, you will likely end up with the "your friends found reason to denounce you" stamp which currently lasts (next to, if not) forever, which will have all other AI civs shun you, making any future diplomacy impossible. I'm all for choices having consequences, but when the only way is down, it's just not fun.
Thankfully, they have aknowledged that with some of the statements they've made about the new Diplomacy where the specifically mentioned being aware of the current diplomacy system always ending with bad relations in the long run.
Yeah, it's almost like if a European civ wanted to expand, it would have to start settling on other continents. Fancy that.
Strudo, your reply to that absurd condemnation is more civil than mine would likely have been. Tfordp lays out the ridiculous hoops you have to jump through just to protect yourself from a friend, and then proceeds to dismiss your perfectly legitimate criticism by suggesting its your fault. Pretty asanine.
It's simply dumb and downright bizarre that the AI does't initiate trades, it only offers DoF's and then asks for handouts. Has nothing to do with being lazy and everything to do with resenting unnecessary workarounds to bad AI design.
That just tells me you haven't understood the concept of a DoF either, and/or have been brought up to believe anybody who wants 'something for nothing' is bad without even entertaining the positives that will come out of the deal.
'Protecting yourself from a friend'? That is the absurd bit. You enter into the DoF in the first place in order to improve your diplomatic rankings with that AI. It would be counter productive to refuse the AI's request for 'help'. If I enter into a DoF with the AI, I do it knowing I will be happily giving the AI some 'help' when he requests it, and thus improving our relationships far longer than anything else in the game bar returning captured citizens.
I didn't lay out any 'ridiculous hoops', I simply showed a way that could counter the whole point of a DoF. I can't see the point in fighting it myself as it's only for the good.
Anybody who doesn't understand that this is working as intended is being asinine.
I don't know if DoF is working as intended, but i do know that at least 75% of the time i get hit up for resources before i can even offer a trade. Whenever i get approached for a DoF, i know...i just freaking know...that they'll mooch off of me. I sigh and say "okay...", then next chance i get, i look at what they have for trade and see they have 2 or 3 of something i could have used. It's as if the AI can't fathom that exchange and simply says "gimme".
Then of course there are those times when my new friend asked me for all my gold. Not some of it, not what i could afford, but every single coin from the treasury and personal piggy bank. Not sure if that's another flaw in the DoF system, or just a friendly neighbor trying to screw me over. Either way, i curse at the monitor and deny his/her request. The relationship and my reputation go downhill from there.
So yeah, not happy with DoFs. I try doing workarounds all the time, but it needs to be gone over by the Devs again. Just sayin'.
My main issue with DoF is not that I have to give something to my friends once in a while - I'm ok with that. My main issue is that they never give anything in return. That's just silly. If the game is programmed to expect me to give up surplus ressources for them if they don't have anything to trade, it should go the other way around also, if an AI player approaches me for a DoF, he should be willing to give me a surplus ressource if I don't have anything to offer in trade. It might imply a slight negative modifier, that's ok (after all, my friendship is slightly less desirable if I start asking him for free gifts) but it should be at least a possibility, otherwise it is just a plain negative thing to enter a DoF.
This actually does not match my experience from game. It might be different if you play higher difficulties but from my experience (I play king), the AI only asks you to gift a ressource that you have surplus of if they don't have any ressourcse that you don't have yourself. Thus, I don't feel the gifting thing comes in way of trading with that particular AI, but of course you could potentially have traded that ressource with another AI. I don't have anything against a system that works like that as long as the relationship goes both way as mentioned above.
It's working as intended. I doubt anyone here would argue otherwise. That thosee intentions are ill-conceived is the bone of contention. The current design turns a DoF into a non-reciprocal sham of a relationship.
Then your DoF is just a series of bribes. Why is the relationship one-sided? You are helping him when he asks for it in order to improve your diplomatic standing, but what form of reciprocation does that translate into? At best, it simply means he doesn't denounce you and picks someone else to declare war on. That's not friendship. That's a protection racket.'Protecting yourself from a friend'? That is the absurd bit. You enter into the DoF in the first place in order to improve your diplomatic rankings with that AI. It would be counter productive to refuse the AI's request for 'help'. If I enter into a DoF with the AI, I do it knowing I will be happily giving the AI some 'help' when he requests it, and thus improving our relationships far longer than anything else in the game bar returning captured citizens.
Last edited by steveg700; 04-17-2012 at 09:55 AM.
Yes, if you like.
I find it a useful way to keep some civs off my back (if there are two, three or even four with DoFs or just denouncing the same AIs, even better) and still stay friends with while I beat up on others without getting denounced.
That's the positive side I get out of it. That resource that I'm giving to them now means I will still get a good exchange when I want to deal with them later and the rest of the world thinks I'm a warmonger.
It is after all my game. The AI is there for me to use as I see fit, not the other way around. The onus is on me to make the deals that I want.
If you want to call it bribing, buying into a protection racket, that's fine. I call it looking after my assets for the future. Doesn't business work that way in the real world?
You are establishing a DoF to keep them off your back. They are reaping that same benefit. However, they are reaping the extra benefit of being able to show up and expect gifts, while you are not free to do so of them. There's a distinct lack of mutualism that makes for neither a good friendship nor good business. If they are asking for a mere gratuity, like a spare lux, it can be overlooked, but they often ask for things like big, honking sums of money.
You are obviously content with that imbalance since your goals are ultimately served. Often, I can live with it as well. However, i do find the design to be rather poor, and in fact inferior to that of much older games. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for the possibility of a mutually-beneficial relationship to develop rather than just pawning a guy off until I can get around to squashing him.
The real problem here is the implicit assumption of sociopathy. The AI simply doesn't value frliendly good relationships with other civ's. It would much prefer to get miffed over all the routine stuff other civ's do to improve themselves.
Only to a certain extent. When the DoF has expired, the AI is still bound by *all* the positives I have collected.
I, on the otherhand, not being an AI can backstab that ☺☺☺☺☺ all over and he wouldn't know a thing.
I think "wait and see" is the best policy at the moment. Multiple changes to diplomacy have already been announced, including expiration of old modifiers. Good chance DOFs are getting revised as well.
Certainly. They've come out and said that the diplo penalty for trying to win the game will be gone.
Thank God. This was always completely immersion breaking for me. The entire world did not declare war on the United States or Soviet Union for having a space program, or the US for having a cultural victory, or the British for trying a military one. Friends will almost always stay friends unless something specific happens to split them. If I am friends with the Egyptians for the entire game they are not going to declare war on me just for starting the Apollo Program.
True that.
The whole "you're trying to win the game the same way as they are, and they don't like it" deal is supposed to be done away with as well. Indeed, I get the impression that we're going back to religion being the only major decisive factor in relations, at least up through the middle ages.
It does kind of make sense, so long as policies become infinitely more important come the renaissance.
With Espionage and the penalties between Freedom - Order - Autocracy I can see Cold War settings developing. Oh how funny it would be to see America denouncing Russia for following freedom when America is under Order
That would be just too good, though I think policy choice has flavours doesn't it? At least it did in IV, where America was more likely to be freedom loving unless it was a completely stupid strategic move, or Russia and Order, etc.
Yeah, they do, but I have seen Autocratic America before in the game so there is a chance
I see your point, and frankly, I as well do not like being penalized for, you know, trying to win the game. However, I haven't played CiV in multiplayer and cannot be certain, but isn't that what "human" players are supposed to do? I guess it boils down to what kind of a single player experience you are trying to design. Do you want a "multiplayer, but with AI", or do you want the players to "role-play" their civilizations.
I would love to see the designers of CiV trying to achieve the second, though it is perfectly understandable if they want to come up with an AI that simulates real players as much as possible.
I think because of Steam shipping with the game, if people want to play humans or people who really want to win then they can quite easily, even if they don't have friends who play the game. Or they can come to the forums and play with us, we used to have games every Sunday. That's why I advocate the more role-playing AI, it seems much more fun when you don't want the thick competition and you want what might actually happen.
From what most folks assert, MP is pretty much about attacking each other from the get-go.
And fearing madjinn. He doesn't have to be in your game to win it
But yes, its much less about the industrial/economic development side and more about making sure you always have the advantage.
Did I heard right Spain was going to be in the expension pack?
Wasn't Spain part of DLC?
Yes, its being given away as a freebie. Possibly with the inca, though we don't know for sure. They're doing it because it's part of their Steampunk Scenario
So that's why my win rate is so high!And fearing madjinn. He doesn't have to be in your game to win it
@Shamajotsi
It's not that human players aren't out to beat you, it's that they aren't going to DoW/rage quit in 1000 BC because you allied a bunch of CSs or built a wonder or two which would have helped them towards their Space Race VC (or whichever).
When you finish the Apollo Program, then definitely watch out for falling nukes.
*Rennaisance scenario
My understanding was because it was for the new Renaissance scenario. Why have a scenario about religious wars and political intrigue in Europe without Spain?
Yeah, mixed that one up
I'm all for free stuff. But that's kinda not fair for those we actually paid for it.
Please, say that a little louder. The intense rage debate was just so much fun the last timeI'm all for free stuff. But that's kinda not fair for those we actually paid for it.
I haven't encountered any yet, which I found strange. But you'll encounter no rage from me
It's a burn. The gripe is legitimate. But such is life.I'm all for free stuff. But that's kinda not fair for those we actually paid for it.
Must... resist... economic... theory.....
1999 posts Shiav!!!!!!! OMG!
Well it's only Spain, not the Inca or the scenario that came with it so people who didn't buy the DLC will still be missing content.I'm all for free stuff. But that's kinda not fair for those we actually paid for it.
Though, technically you are not being ripped off. You bought the DLC to play Spain in Vanilla. As Spain is being included in the G&K files, almost definitely you will not be able to play G&K Spain in Vanilla games. The ability to play the other DLC in the expansion is a bonus past what was originally advertised and only people who bought the Spain DLC will be able to play with them in Vanilla games.
Did not notice. Preparing to pass the threshold. Thrusters at maximum.... And... We're into the 21st century! Providing reliable sarcasm and the occasional tidbit of useful knowledge in the form of FunFacts over 2000 times. 500 to go.
And, y'know, $7.50. Not worth the energy it takes to get steamed up over it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote