Diplomacy

[Capt Dizle]

Probaby a good idea Mark, but its a shame its just a game when it could have been so much more.

BTW, good morning.

(not a bad idea for an anit-Civ3 tee shirt eh? "It's a shame its just a game"!)

[The Pioneer]

Diplomacy is really handicapped in the game. I guess that stems from its simplicity.

A few things things that I would like to see in the future in order to be able to play the "diplomatic way".

-The AI should forget and/or forgive bad behavior after a certain time has passed, (can also be in turns terms, for example 40-60 turns). Its attitude towards you should be set to zero. Of course that should take into account that within these turns you were behaving well.

-You should be able to also negotiate how long a trade/agreement lasts. At the same time you should be given the option to cancel/renogotiate (in a peaceful and humane manner) any running deals.

-The AI should be able to differentiate btwn some of the actions the player has taken. For example that you were forced into a war, you did not provoke. This is an essential element that should be taken into consideration. As another example you thee biggest and strongest civ declares war on you (much smaller) and you rally the other two civs to your aid against the "oppressor". Now this will last for 20 turns. After say 10-15 turns you have driven the enemy back to his lands at a huge cost to your economy (drafting, hurrying, etc.) and you decide to negotiate peace. Well if you sign it your allies will go from Gracious to annoyed, if you don't your economy will slip even farther. Now in a situation like this the AI sees balck or white. And for the player a one way street, unless of course you can re-negotaite that agrrement.

-The AI should be a bit fairer to trading with the player, especially when it comes to technologies. For example Tech A which has been researched by everyone but the player who needs another 2-3 turns. Player contacts each one of the AI players and none is ready to enter inro an agreement with the Player. This might be a little vague to a lot of you but it happens to me all the time and I can trade other techs, money, resources or any combination for it and the AI never does it, except for some "cheap, dead end tech" like Espionage. (Note their attitude Gracious or Polite).

-A little more far fetchted is to be negotiating with more than one Civ simultaneously. Kinda like a coalition/round table thing.

Because of the AI's lack to distinguish anything else but black and white the game will be quite difficult to be won in Diplomacy. I would actually love to be able not to have to wage wars (most of the time) in order to win.

[sugar daddy]

The reason why the AI wont trade techs could be that you cannot offer what he wants. Set your taxes to 100% before you enter negotiations and maybe he'll make you an offer ( you probably will refuse...). If you wait until 1 turn remains for getting the tech, he will lower his price.

As for diplomacy, I have gained many a friend in the late game, even after keeping a less than perfect record earlier. When going for a diplomatic win, you can give away any tech, since the game will end in a few turns anyway (hopefully).

I was at one time at peace with everybody else, but far from winning the vote in the UN, when the Chinese started pouring troops into one of my luxury-colonies. I saw through their pathetic backstabbing ploy and signed MPP's with every other nation on the planet ( ouch, that cost me ). Next turn they attcked and got counterattacked by a massive multinational force. From here it was only a matter of symbolic gifts to my allies to ensure me a post as Ruler of ze World. < Insert megalomanic laugh here >

[MarkG]

its a shame its just a game when it could have been so much more.

more than a game? like what?

[Ben Williams]

Question: does the AI hold it against you if you capture a city and immediatly abandon it?

[sugar daddy]

there has been discussions about a shift in attitude towards you if you raze a city upon conquest, but I dont think there has been any solid evidence on the matter.

I shouldnt think that abandoning a city you conquered a previous turn would do anything to affect the attitude towards you, as the city now is considered yours. Except maybe if they take the foreign nationals in the city into account...

hmm didnt really say much with this post, did I?

[MiloMilo]

Regarding abandoning cities: if they didn't think bad of you it would be stupid. Instead of razing (the merits of which feature will be discussed ELSEWHERE) you could just capture and abandon. Personally I got in lots of trouble one game when I captured an Iroquois city, turned it into a settler (an Iroquois settler, mind you - it had nationality even though it was mine, just like captured workers) and made a new city one square over. For the rest of the game, even when I was allied with them, giving them techs and resources and defending their cities, they were at BEST annoyed with me. Ungrateful #@%$&!

Catt is completely on point on this one - as usual. If you are the biggest civ, the ai SHOULD team up against you. Not because it's you against the world, but because each of the ai civs wants to take you down, for their own personal benefit, and the best way to do this is to team up. Just trade with them. Have you ever tried to get an ai civ to sign a trade embargo against someone with whom it had an active trade? They won't. So if they have an active trade with you they won't sogn one against you. And everybody's .

[Palleon]

Is it just me or is the diplomacy AI not very good? Maybe it's because I was a jackass the whole game, and have razed well over 50 cities by this point, but when I go to make peace, they'll give me cities size 2 or 1, up to 500 gold if it's in their treasury, but I can't even get 1 gold per turn out of them, or trade for luxuries. Even when I play nice, if I offer 2-3 luxuries for 1 of theirs, they still refuse. It seems to me like they need to be able to evaluate their situation a bit better. Also, I've noticed this bug once or twice, which I would think they wouldn't do. India was at war with me. They made a military alliance with Japan on their turn, then on the same turn, immediatly after Japan declared war, they offered me a peace treaty. If that hurts humans reputations, wouldn't that also be crippling to theirs as well? It apparently wasn't, because they were able to form a MPP with them just 10 turns later. Anyone else notice irregularities like this?

[HazieDaVampire]

I'm usualy so powerful nobody dares declare war on me! I've never had war declared on me before, only war i didn't declare was an MPP kicking in!

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
I'm usualy so powerful nobody dares declare war on me! I've never had war declared on me before, only war i didn't declare was an MPP kicking in!

Hazie, as far as I remember, you still play on chieftain... (which is normal for your second game, so that's not meant as a reproach ).
Get to the higher levels and let it rock!

[vondrack]

the Human vs. The Rest of the World

Originally posted by Coracle
In otherwords, the game is in reality THE HUMAN VS. THE WORLD. All AI civs work TOGETHER to find ways to screw the human. That is unrealistic, non-historical, makes for a frustrating quirky game, and is not what I paid for.

Coracle, you are missing the crucial point of the game disagreeing with that AI civs team up against you, if you are the current leader.

First: as someone else already stated, the AI civs behave this way irrespective of whether the current leader is the human or another AI... they do not make differences. I have seen examples of teaming against an AI leader SO many times in my games that I truly believe I (a human) am not treated in any special way...

Second: Civ3 is not a real world, it is a game (which has also been stated zillions of times in the forums here). The ultimate goal in the real world is - IMHO - to live a fruitful and happy life (for an individual) or to run a prosperous and stable country (for a ruler or government) allowing/helping its citizens live fruitful, happy lives. Note, please, that it is NOT about any "winning", at least not any "final winning". It is about reaching a position that can be described as "satisfactory", "convenient", "comfortable", "relatively good" etc. It is not (at least not necessarily) about reaching the #1 position. Therefore, the contest between different nations in the real world is somewhat limited and is, to a great extent, being conducted in a non-conflict, peaceful way (every time this ceases to be true, the humankind suffers... the history has proven this over and over hundreds of times).

Now, Civ3 is a game and is about winning it. Ending up as #2 means losing it. THIS at the very first place is - using your terminology - unrealistic and non-historical. But it is the principle of every game (even of all the past Civ games). Most games need winners, otherwise they would lose much of their thrill. To determine winners, games use rules. To win a game, you have to understand its rules and master the way how to use them to your greatest benefit.

As the ultimate goal in Civ3 is to win it, it goes without saying that preventing others from winning it is just as important. The current leader tends to be the greatest threat to all the other civs as far as their chances of winning the game are considered. The easiest and most reasonable way of fighting the leader is to team up with other non-leaders - as any "fair" one-to-one encounters would most likely end up just strengthening the leader and destroying the weaker (attacking) civ.

Should the leader deserve the right to become the overall winner, he must be able to successfully deal with all the others - if it means fighting the rest of the world, fine... the real winner shall be able to defend himself against the whole rest of the civ world. That is the game - and the AI civs must follow exactly the same rules and even an AI civ will face multinational coalitions on its way to victory, not just you...

And let me add one more personal note. I am frequently reading stuff here on Apolyton and I often notice your disappointed posts. Now, what is your point? What do you think these posts help? I find the number of other posters fully supporting your position very low, usually you face disagreement from others (while I do admit that some that expressed the same disappointment, already left these forums). Why do you still watch and post in forums that deal with a game you are ultimately disappointed with? Especially when rarely suggesting any change or improvement and usually just saying "it is a screwed game, it was not worth my fifty bucks". Well, I really feel sorry you wasted $50, but wouldn't it be better if you just take 50 more bucks and get another game you would like? The time you spend on these forums, writing disappointed posts that help nothing, is definitely worth more than those $50 you would need for a different game.