Diplomacy Strategy?

[Catt]

Originally posted by XOR
K, and why does the AI sometimes give a negative value to luxuries?

Sometimes, with some AIs, you can put a deal on the table with some exchange that the advisor says will be "acceptable" and when I add some of my luxuries to it wothout changing anything else the advisor says they will be insulted by the offer. So it's like the action of ofering an extra luxury for free _worsens_ the deal. It seems that AI's with this attitude are persistant on this attitude and dont trade with anyone at all, it does not seem to be really a bug, the rest of the Civs in the same game wont be as uncooperative.

What you're experiencing is the AI's response to a per-turn deal offer (a luxury) when you have a bad reputation -- if you have developed a reputation for not honoring your 20-turn treaties, the AI will refuse to deal with you in 20-turn trades (like luxuries) and your advisor will highlight this fact for you by informing you that they will be insulted. Notwithstanding that the luxury is a "freebie" on top of an otherwise acceptable deal, the AI will simply not deal with you when you've been untrustworthy. You can choose to look at it as a flaw in the game (maybe it is) or as a simplified but justifiable answer to a complicated and challenging AI decision problem.

But your above point and your post to start this thread indicate a bit of confusion on your part -- there are two distinct but related concepts at play here: reputation and attitude.

Reputation is driven by your diplomatic and trading history. Made a peace treaty and then declared war again with 20 turns? Bad. Made a military alliance and then made peace with the enemy within 20 turns? Bad. Agreed to a gold-per-turn trade deal and then had the deal broken? Bad. Attacked a civ without first declaring war and/or declared war with any of your units inside the enemy civs territorial borders? Bad. Basically, not honoring your commitments results in a black mark against your reputation. Black marks may prevent you from entering into any per-turn deals in the future -- break a treaty in the Middle Ages and you may still have trouble in the late Industrial Ages trading with a civ for that extra supply of oil that they have within their borders and/or for that extra luxury which could mean so much to your larger, marketplace-equipped industrial cities - they "would never accept such a deal" with someone known for breaking his / her word in the past.

Attitude is simply a civ's current state of mind regarding your civ. Develop your empire into the world's dominant civ? Expect some negative attitudes. Hold a seemingly insurmountable technological / military lead? Expect some negative attitudes. Refuse to trade with your neighbors? Expect some negative attitudes. Refuse to ever grant an RoP and insist, at the first opportunity, on expelling interlopers? Expect some negative attitudes. Fight wars against your neighbors? Expect some negative attitudes. Rule your empire under a government that is a "shunned governement" for the AI civ? Expect mildly more negative attitudes. I don't fully understand the implications of a negative attitude - I'm pretty certain that it strongly affects an AI civ's decision regarding a UN vote; I suspect it makes certain trade deals harder to strike; I suspect that it makes alliances against you easier to secure; and I suspect that it makes war more likely. In at least certain circumstances, I have noticed that attitude does not affect the price of trade deals, but it certainly could in other circumstances.

Reputation and attitude are not joined at the hip -- you can have a sterling reputation and still have the entire world furious with you; and you can have a despicable reputation, but still have the world Gracious to you (I really enjoy seeing "Gracious" Elizabeth, in her most charming and gracious manner, say "We couldn't possibly accept that deal after the perfidy you displayed in your dealings with the Aztecs").

Catt

[Theseus]

One subtlety: All of the above only applies if your prior actions are KNOWN. What I call the Arrian Deception is doing baaaad things to AI civs on your home continent, but destroying them before they can ever tell anyone else. Mucho satisfying.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Catt
I find the opposite. It is when I become the largest, most advanced, most powerful civ that others' attitudes become harder to manage. If I am somewhat inconsequential in terms of power and resources, I find it pretty easy to maintain my AI foes' attitudes in Polite or Gracious.
Catt

I can not agree with this perception. It really does not matter about your size as much as where things are in the game. If all lands are basically settled, they have to come for somebody. If you are weak or in the wrong place or many other things, guess what, you are it. Getting large can be used to keep them in check. Being small and keeping them appeased is going to be expensive, one way or another.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Catt
It is certainly much harder to secure the respect and trust of a nation from whom you have taken land, cities, citizens, etc., but is not impossible. I have had AI civs that I used as punching bags in the early game vote for me at the UN in the late game (without employing the many exploits to secure a favorable vote).

Sorry don't mean it seem I am picking on you, but an exception, only proves the rule. The original point is still essentially valid. The AI will stay unhappy with you till the end, unless you take masive efforts to change it. Not attacking it any more will not cause it to change. If I get to 100 cities and leave it with one and make nice, sure, it can be done.

[Catt]

Originally posted by vmxa1


Sorry don't mean it seem I am picking on you . . . .

Don't worry - I can be picked on! (Seriously, I know you're not picking on me and the free flow of differing opinions is one of the things that make the forums interesting).

I can not agree with this perception. It really does not matter about your size as much as where things are in the game. If all lands are basically settled, they have to come for somebody. If you are weak or in the wrong place or many other things, guess what, you are it. Getting large can be used to keep them in check. Being small and keeping them appeased is going to be expensive, one way or another.

I think AI decision-making on going to war or not is influenced by a large number of factors (and randomness is one of them) some of which you touch on - relative weakness, geographic or resource issues, etc. - it is very hard to isolate one particular fact from a game and extrapolate underlying game rules from them -- but that's what sharting our opinions on forums tries to advance!

I still believe that being large and powerful is a factor that increases the likelihood of wars of aggression from the AI. I have seen too many times that the largest, most powerful civ (even if AI) is often the target of the other civs. I have also noticed a repeated and repeatable tendency to face more negative attitudes from AI civs as my power grows. Although I'm not an avid gamer, others have reported that the "bring down the leader" proclivity is a hallmark of Sid Meier's games (don't know if this is accurate or not).

I also don't agree that being small and keeping them "appeased" is going to be expensive. I have played many a peaceful game where I have to do nothing to appease anyone - a decent military force is defintiely necessary so as not to appear weak and ripe for the plucking, but a smallish empire need not be an appeasing empire. Regular trade and honoring obligations goes a long ways towards completing a peaceful game (and being a smaller empire has many trading advantages - you don't have to put up with the "I'll give you my wines for your gems, silks, spices, 100 gold and Combustion" offers you deal with when you're the biggest kid on the block).

. . . . but an exception, only proves the rule. The original point is still essentially valid. The AI will stay unhappy with you till the end, unless you take masive efforts to change it. Not attacking it any more will not cause it to change. If I get to 100 cities and leave it with one and make nice, sure, it can be done.

I just don't agree. I rarely make massive efforts to change anything - it's just not usually worth it - I would just as soon wipe the civ out than ply it with gifts or other bribes in an effort to improve its attitude towards me, and I am generally not too concerned with attitude anyway, certainly not the attitude of civs whom I have (hopefully) punished in one or more wars.

I cited the one example as an illustration, but it is by no means an exception to a rule in my experience. I often fight numerous wars against a civ in the ancient and early Middle Ages, and simply through later trading luxuries or resources, selling techs, entering into RoPs, etc. their attitude improves over time. Entering into an MPP or military alliance does wonders as well. I don't do any of these things in an effort to improve the AI attitude - I do them becuase I think they make sense for my civ at the time of the deal.

I have ended numerous games where my empire is 2x or 3x bigger than a particular AI civ (i.e., not 100 to 1), where during the course of the game that AI civ unwillingly provided me with lots of productive cities, lots of slave labor, and valuable real estate, and where, at the end of the game that AI civ's attitude toward me was Polite - all without making any conscious effort to take action to improve the AI attitude.

Catt

[Theseus]

Well, how can someone not like Catt?

[vmxa1]

I guess that is what makes the game work, that it is not always the same. In my current game all that I have ever fought with are not favorable with me, only the French are polite. Some, such as Japan, I only fought one war early and have saved them several times, by attacking their enemies, that were pressing them hard and they are still furious. So in short, I accept what you say, but it is not my experience.
BTW, I played this one as a mild manner person, with only a few short wars. That is not much fun, back to scorched earth. Only 3 GL's and the game is nearly over (China).

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by XOR
Razing cities, but I NEED to raze cities, I attack some weak sucker and raze a few cities each time I need more workers every now and then. I also raze cities for population sometimes (even knowing people seem to dislike having foreign nationals in their cities so much that some starve the cities to grow them again).

Thanks for starting a great thread, XOR, and applause too for Catt for a fine contribution .

The problem here seems to be an attempt to secure a diplowin via aggressive warmongery. Did you not know that you can build your own workers?

Using variants of the Peace Dividend Strategy it's possible to stroll diplowins at Monarch almost every time. This is quite a strict approach, with a rule of never starting a war, and a 'meta-goal' of avoiding all war, but it is possible to be involved in wars (defensive and MMP-drag-ins) and still secure the required votes.

Players who are frustrated by their poor rep after "only starting a few wars" are missing the point. Exploits aside, a diplowin should be a peace-play win, and if you think you 'need' to be aggressive for this then I'd suggest that alternative methods have not been fully explored. It is possible to get a bad rep through no fault of your own, but this risk can be minimised if understood.

I'm currently playing the Peace Dividend strat on Emperor, Standard Pangea, 5 civs. It's early industrial and my twin-core 20-city civ is right on the pace. Researching the AI-shunned Printing press (40 turns) then Democracy (10 turns with Uni's up-and-running) netted me SEVEN top-end Middle Age techs and parity through trade. Joy of Joys - the 2 top civs are now at war and I'm watching them grind each other's cavalry on my turf whilst I build factories... All civs are Gracious, and the TOE pre-build is on the stove. I'll probably get attacked eventually, but I'm close now to Sufficient Power, and really enjoying the game.

(thanks to the mighty Aeson for encouraging me to try this )

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by XOR
So now tell me, what are your strategies to get a better treatment in diplomacy from the AI? I always end up having to carry my diplomacy by the point of the spear. The cheapest way to "buy" luxuries, techs and resources is to offer them a peace treaty in exchange for their stuff.

If I've interpreted this correctly, your solution to the problem of expensive luxuries is to 'offer them a peace treaty' in return for their stuff. I assume you weren't at war when offering this treaty, otherwise you wouldn't have been trying to buy the goods. This implies you were at peace.

Now, extorting goodies out of rivals by renegotiating peace is a classic warmonger tactic known in the real world as 'gunboat diplomacy'. I won't raise political hackles by quoting real examples of this, but it's not a way of making friends, and is effectively an act of war. Likewise in Civ, and it will hit your reputation.

If you want to be a warmonger, XOR, be a proper warmonger and read threads and posts by Arrian, Theseus, Vel and others.

If you want a diplomatic win, learn how to play Civ without requiring war, learn to live without its fruits, and learn how to grow the fruits of peace .

Quickie example : war-weariness requires luxuries, and the more lux you have, the more expensive they become. If you've built cathedrals and colliseums instead of knights then they can keep their stinking overpriced furs - you can do without them. Or, with plenty of marketplaces and banks you can afford them.

I posted you a link to one diplowin strat, but ISTR that Aeson, Txurce and Catt have also at times discussed peace-play on this forum.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Catt
I have also noticed a repeated and repeatable tendency to face more negative attitudes from AI civs as my power grows.

I can confirm this. In the Emp game I mentioned above I was trading up to parity, when Joan, after trading a tech deal switched from Gracious to Polite. I flashed her a smile and a few GPT and she was alright again though.

At higher levels you can just tuck in behind the leaders, keeping your head down but maintaining adequate military and cultural strength, while waiting for them to kick off on each other during industrial, while you're less of a target. By the time they've noticed you're on top, it's too late for them and the UN is yours.

Originally posted by Catt
Although I'm not an avid gamer,

Aw c'mon. A well-repected Civ 3 analyst and writer on two strat forums and you're not an avid gamer? Well, maybe the avid Civvers aren't generally avid gamers because there's no need to play any other games!

Originally posted by Catt
others have reported that the "bring down the leader" proclivity is a hallmark of Sid Meier's games (don't know if this is accurate or not).

Yep. In Civ 1 and Civ 2 your could build your way to a big lead then they'd all declare war at once - nothing you could do about it. Civ 3 offers more levers to avoid or minimise this.

[vmxa1]

I played all of the victory conditions, but I found them to be boring. I only allow conqest now. Darkside is action. I hate the other civs, they are barbarians. I played with no wars other than defence. I let the AI roam all over my land fighting each other. Once they had so many troops that I could not sent a unit to another point in my land in one turn as my rails were blocked by them. I did not notice and the unit ended in Russian land. They decalred war for that even though they had troops in my area and I was stronger. My favorite games are when I am at war from first contact to the end, preferably with all known civs.

[XOR]

I'm not trying to diplowin, maybe I'll try it out at my current game because I have never seen it except in SMAC (In which I usually won by being the only person that votes for me, I just had more population than the rest of "Planet").

I just want to know how to get the AI attitude in better towards me because it seems to dramatically affect their likelyhood of doing things for me or against me. When they are fourious towards me it seems impossible to get them to join in a 20 turn crusade against a third civ. I have done many of the things I read here and I am getting a few civs to be more agreable towards me, they are charging me a rather low price for alliances so I think I'll destroy the ones that dislike me and try the UN for once...

[quote]The problem here seems to be an attempt to secure a diplowin via aggressive warmongery. Did you not know that you can build your own workers?[quote]

No, I am not trying to win trough diplomacy, in fact, I am responsible for sabotaging, razing, conquering, massive shelling or bombing until the population points fall to 1 against any city that attempts to build it, I have always seen it as an "evil" thing since the day I read the description in the Civilopedia, which was in my first Civ game. But their being fourious or polite seems to dramatically affect how much they will do for you or against you. I have followed many of the things I have read here and now almost all Civs are cautious or polite towards me. It makes the price of alliances against a 3rd civ much cheaper, makes RoPs and similar things also easier to get, and removes their refusal to trade that happens sometimes.

As for the workers, it's a commercial problem, slaves dont cost me money, so I just secure massive numbers of them trough wars with weak Civs that have a few large cities I can raze. Sometimes I get such large amounts of them that I can road-ize, de-junglize, mine and irrigate an entire continent in very little time.

What you're experiencing is the AI's response to a per-turn deal offer (a luxury) when you have a bad reputation -- if you have developed a reputation for not honoring your 20-turn treaties, the AI will refuse to deal with you in 20-turn trades (like luxuries) and your advisor will highlight this fact for you by informing you that they will be insulted. Notwithstanding that the luxury is a "freebie" on top of an otherwise acceptable deal, the AI will simply not deal with you when you've been untrustworthy. You can choose to look at it as a flaw in the game (maybe it is) or as a simplified but justifiable answer to a complicated and challenging AI decision problem.

It was with only one of the AIs, in that case it was the Americans, my reputation was fine and I could easily trade with anyone, but I couldnt trade with the Americans and they couldnt trade with anyone either. Could it be it was the American AI the one with the bad reputation?

If I've interpreted this correctly, your solution to the problem of expensive luxuries is to 'offer them a peace treaty' in return for their stuff. I assume you weren't at war when offering this treaty, otherwise you wouldn't have been trying to buy the goods. This implies you were at peace.

Now, extorting goodies out of rivals by renegotiating peace is a classic warmonger tactic known in the real world as 'gunboat diplomacy'. I won't raise political hackles by quoting real examples of this, but it's not a way of making friends, and is effectively an act of war. Likewise in Civ, and it will hit your reputation.

Peace treaties can be cancelled or re-negotiated after 20 turns. When a Civ that is close enough for me to attack is becoming annoying about trading costs and prices I just cancel the treaty (not "break" it as in violationg it, just cancel and choose to "renegotiate" peace, that's how the foreign advisor calls it). Then I offer them peace in exchange for what I want, if they give it to me we get peace, if they dont I just take what's rightfully mine along with anything I find in the way. I also do this for tech, I know I cannot steal a tech trough war, but I can conquer half of their land and offer peace in exchange for a tech, if they dont give it, I still get to have more land, and a lot more workers.

[XOR]

BTW, someone said the AI is intimidated by ones number of Nuclear missiles. Do Tactical nukes and ICBMs intimidate just the same or are ICBMs more intimidating than Tactical nuke?

I ask because so far I only build ICBMs and only build Tacticals when I still dont have the tech for ICBMs. I usually build like 1 ICBM per city in like half of my cities, and leave them there to rest until I decide I want to trash that savegame and start over. :P

[Catt]

With a better sense of play style, I can see how it would be hard for some of you to maintain positive attitudes .

I don't usually play for a diplomatic win, but I do think I make war less often than most. And I fully agree that if you are constantly at war with someone, and/or you like to renegotiate peace every 20 turns to get something more from them, then you pretty much should resign yourself to having a lot of furious leaders around the table -- it's tough to make them like you if you exert your significant power advantage at every opportunity. But why worry about attitude in a game like this - as long as there is no risk of losing the race to the UN, don't worry - you may have a few more alliances made against you over the course of the game, but you're looking to leverage your relative strength anyway, right? Build the UN and never call a vote (assuming the game makes it to Fission).

Attitude is, IMHO, over-rated (but reputation isn't ) -- I just haven't seen enough negative consequences associated with negative attitudes to change my play style in any significant way in an effort to secure more favorable attitudes.

Catt

OT: Thanks, Cort Haus! Civ 3 is about the only game I play and I never played Civ or Civ 2, so, while I spend (waste, according to my wife ) an awful lot of my scarce free time playing Civ 3, I really can't be considered an avid gamer.

[vmxa1]

Yup, so true. I tend to not allow diplo. If I do, I take your advice and build the UN and never have a vote. I ignore all attitudes, who cares. I do that even if I do not have an edge in power. I do try not to get into war with my neighbor if they are capable of hurting me. I will prefer to war with some one who will trek long distances so I can thin them out some. I have played some builder games, to see what it was like, boring.