RTW: Diplomacy - A waste of time?

[bigredlemon]

Diplomacy is useful...

As a milk cow, the computer nearly always accepts to buy your map for a thousand, your trade rights for another thousand and alliance for as much more...

Making Diplomacy a major income for poor states in the first few turnes of the game...

the computer never wants to trade maps with me, even though i'm probably the most explored nation on there.

[Slaists]

the computer never wants to trade maps with me, even though i'm probably the most explored nation on there.

the AI is usually very reluctant to reveal it's own map... they will pay dinari for your map though... :)

[Lemur]

Something I still don't understand is factions who don't know when they're whupped.

The noble armies of Carthage smashed the Egyptian forces, killed all but one of their heirs and took all of their cities except Jerusalem. In a moment of mercy, they sent an emissary to offer a ceasefire. The Egyptians rejected the offer.

Let's make this clear -- Carthage had a full army within viewing distance of Jersualem, and the Egyptians had an heir and one unit of axemen in their city. Their doom was writ large. Refusing the offer was pure, simple suicide.

Why on earth would they do it? What nation would really behave that way? Why can't a faction figure out that it's beaten? If the diplomatic AI is really so good, why can't it cower in (appropriate) fear? Why not live to fight another day?

This sort of thing really bugs me.

[The Hun]

I wanted to be able to offer help to an ally or ask for help from an ally. Diplomacy is a bit too much of a silly game

[Zatoichi]

I had a mission from the Senate to start negotiations with the Spanish, who I was currently at war with - the Senate gave me 10 turns and promised all sorts of shiny things in return. So I sent off a diplomat to talk to them in one of their 2 remaning cities - I figured I'd offer a ceasefire to get in line with the Senate's touchy-feely policy. No, the Spanish 'pulled a Gaul' and would have none of it. So I tried offering them map info, but no. So I tried offering them money, but they decided I was being 'too mysterious' and refused. Basically, in the 10 turns I had, I tried all sorts of variations and combinations, but to no avail - they just didn't want anything.

So having failed my mission, I took offence and sent in the troops to take both their remaining cities - well, you would, wouldn't you? Obviously, they're better off as Roman citizens (or slaves) under my benificent rule...

Of course, if they'd taken my money, they could have bought some better troops and put up a decent fight...

[Doug-Thompson]

Something I still don't understand is factions who don't know when they're whupped.

The noble armies of Carthage smashed the Egyptian forces, killed all but one of their heirs and took all of their cities except Jerusalem. In a moment of mercy, they sent an emissary to offer a ceasefire. The Egyptians rejected the offer.

Let's make this clear -- Carthage had a full army within viewing distance of Jersualem, and the Egyptians had an heir and one unit of axemen in their city. Their doom was writ large. Refusing the offer was pure, simple suicide.

Why on earth would they do it? What nation would really behave that way? Why can't a faction figure out that it's beaten? If the diplomatic AI is really so good, why can't it cower in (appropriate) fear? Why not live to fight another day?

This sort of thing really bugs me.

Sometimes, you'd just rather die than make peace with the ones who killed your dad and all your brothers and enslaved your sister.

[Lemur]

Sometimes, you'd just rather die than make peace with the ones who killed your dad and all your brothers and enslaved your sister.

That seems kind of ... thin. Unlike a lot of aspects of the beautiful game, I find myself struggling to justify a lot of diplmatic behavior in-game. As your answer demonstrates.

I would really like it if the diplomatic AI showed a little more situational awareness. I know that sort of thing is freakishly hard to program (the old how-the-heck-do-you-code-common-sense conundrum), but I'd like it all the same.

[AngryGerbil]

I would really like it if the diplomatic AI showed a little more situational awareness. I know that sort of thing is freakishly hard to program (the old how-the-heck-do-you-code-common-sense conundrum), but I'd like it all the same.

Civ3, although not perfect, managed to give the AI a decent amount of situational awareness. Enemy civs knew when they were stronger than you, and they knew when they were beat. And alliances meant something in Civ3. Creative Assembly could learn a thing or two from Firaxis about diplomacy IMO.

[Zatoichi]

Yeah, very true. Although, I'm guessing Firaxis could learn a thing or two about 3 dimensional real time battles from CA too!

What would you give to get those 2 sets of devs in a room and not let them out until they'd made the ultimate game!

Well, I'll settle for Rome in the meantime, it may not have the best diplomacy model, but it's an improvement over what came before in the TW series, so it's a move in the right direction.

[Doug-Thompson]

That seems kind of ... thin.

Haven't had a family member murdered or a sister or child raped, have you?

I haven't either, but have interviewed people who have.

[Sociopsychoactive]

What several of you seem to be missing is that factions have a level of like/dislike toward you and others.

Remember in CIV2 and 3, the other factions responces and diplomats stance and expretion told you their feelings toward you, well that holds here, but you only have the responces to go by.

Take an example, you as Julii take all spanish cities but one, and park near the last with a large army and rquest a cease fire. They refuse point blank every time. This is because they hate your guts, every single one of them would rather fight and die than let a single roman citizen live.

Another example, early on you as Brutii request some money from the other roman factions in return for waging war on the greek cities. They all pony up some cash, and then you don't attack, or only make token aggresion against the greeks. next time you want smething, anything, from your mates they will see you as untrustworthy and refuse, and they have very long memories.

But, it can work. If you go to war with someone, repel all their invading armies and then sit your side of the border looking menacing, but not attacking and offer (or even demand) a cease fire, they will most likely accept. You are seen as more trustworthy.

Every time you attack an ally, break a cease fire, demand cash or anything else for a less than fair price your standing with the world goes down, you look bad and untrustworthy. Seen as the bulk of gamers play to win, expand and conquer they will be seen as total gits from early on and have serious trouble getting so much as a trade agreement from diplomacy.

The few who play diplomatically, making friends and giving regular gifts, not making threats and only attacking people they are at war with or buetral with will be able to rake in cash and keep alliances indefinately.

[Lemur]

Haven't had a family member murdered or a sister or child raped, have you?

Doug, that's a really dangerous line of rhetoric to take, especially if you happen to be wrong in your assumption. I'll take a No for the rape and Yes for murder. Thanks for asking. (Can I end that with a "wanker," or is that in violation of forum rules?)

So getting back to the issue of AI diplomacy, and away from groundless assumptions about people we haven't met, I haven't tried the diplomacy in Civ 3, largely because I haven't tried Civ 3. Back in the day of Civ 2 I got so disgusted with phalanxes sinking my battleships that I walked away from the entire endeavor. I take it everything's much improved in 3, eh?

Well, again, even though it's incredibly difficult to program common sense, I wish the AI factions had just a tad more of it.