Tweet
Tenure, history and relationships in Civ V diplomacy
I have been thinking about the AI in regards to diplomacy recently, and I think there may be some fundamentals either missing, or coded poorly.
The first of these must surely be the passage of time in regards to how long two nations have been on friendly terms? I have recently been quite startled to discover, that since the March patch to 1.01.217 the diplomacy in V seems to take scant regard of the amount of history you may have enjoyed with a particular leader, or the acts you may have conducted between you. It seems that an opposing Civ will quite happily denounce you and swiftly turn from Friendly to Hostile for nothing so much as a refusal to join a war or an apologetic grabbing of a city state, regardless of whether they met you last turn, or at the dawn of civilisation. I would have imagined that long-standing treaties and philanthropic deeds that have gestated nicely over hundreds of years would be worth more, weighting the AI more favourably towards you, thereby assigning less importance to minor infactions as they would do normally. Time, in the Civ V world, is no healer.
Next, I am also disappointed that great minds don’t seem to think alike. With the lack of religion in V, I understand that “you have fallen under the sway of a heathen religion” is no longer a negative trait, but what about empathy in policies? Why doesn’t one leader recognise the ethical and cultural pathways of another? If they do, my apologies, as I don’t see any evidence, or at least, not yet. If I play culturally, wouldn’t that ‘attract’ cultural leaders? Likewise wouldn’t militaristic tendencies appeal to Genghis and the like?
I also feel as if the pledge to attack a common foe is a short-term, reactionary union, rapidly forgotten and motivated purely by selfish goals. It seems as if once the war is won or lost at some point, the show of solidarity is completely ignored, unlike the negative memory of “you helped our enemies to attack us”, which seems to linger around much longer. I think we need a bias towards political milestones and major historical events and incidents, but from a positive factor, embracing the good, rather than remembering only the bad.
In summary, relationships between you and the rest of the world seem short-lived and transient, which to me is at odds with a game which is supposed to reward strategic (long-term, planned) development over quick and dirty politics.
So what is missing?
Regards for time, investment and continuing gestures of philanthropy
Weighting for the similarity of playing style and ethics / culture
Long memories of collegiate activities and coalition forces
Shared aims, goals and a collective memory of positives, help and assistance
I think it was in the book “The seven habits…” where the idea of the emotional piggy-bank first appeared; the proposition that says you reap what you sow, in the broadest terms, that you have to keep making deposits in the emotional bank so you can draw on it in your hour of need. The same principle is needed in V.
In this version of Civ, I think more than IV, it really does feel like you are alone against the world.
The first of these must surely be the passage of time in regards to how long two nations have been on friendly terms? I have recently been quite startled to discover, that since the March patch to 1.01.217 the diplomacy in V seems to take scant regard of the amount of history you may have enjoyed with a particular leader, or the acts you may have conducted between you. It seems that an opposing Civ will quite happily denounce you and swiftly turn from Friendly to Hostile for nothing so much as a refusal to join a war or an apologetic grabbing of a city state, regardless of whether they met you last turn, or at the dawn of civilisation. I would have imagined that long-standing treaties and philanthropic deeds that have gestated nicely over hundreds of years would be worth more, weighting the AI more favourably towards you, thereby assigning less importance to minor infactions as they would do normally. Time, in the Civ V world, is no healer.
Next, I am also disappointed that great minds don’t seem to think alike. With the lack of religion in V, I understand that “you have fallen under the sway of a heathen religion” is no longer a negative trait, but what about empathy in policies? Why doesn’t one leader recognise the ethical and cultural pathways of another? If they do, my apologies, as I don’t see any evidence, or at least, not yet. If I play culturally, wouldn’t that ‘attract’ cultural leaders? Likewise wouldn’t militaristic tendencies appeal to Genghis and the like?
I also feel as if the pledge to attack a common foe is a short-term, reactionary union, rapidly forgotten and motivated purely by selfish goals. It seems as if once the war is won or lost at some point, the show of solidarity is completely ignored, unlike the negative memory of “you helped our enemies to attack us”, which seems to linger around much longer. I think we need a bias towards political milestones and major historical events and incidents, but from a positive factor, embracing the good, rather than remembering only the bad.
In summary, relationships between you and the rest of the world seem short-lived and transient, which to me is at odds with a game which is supposed to reward strategic (long-term, planned) development over quick and dirty politics.
So what is missing?
Regards for time, investment and continuing gestures of philanthropy
Weighting for the similarity of playing style and ethics / culture
Long memories of collegiate activities and coalition forces
Shared aims, goals and a collective memory of positives, help and assistance
I think it was in the book “The seven habits…” where the idea of the emotional piggy-bank first appeared; the proposition that says you reap what you sow, in the broadest terms, that you have to keep making deposits in the emotional bank so you can draw on it in your hour of need. The same principle is needed in V.
In this version of Civ, I think more than IV, it really does feel like you are alone against the world.
Comment