Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Broseph Stalin]

I think it would be nice if the AI tried to smooth things over from time to time. Maybe they should recognize that even if they don't particularly like the amount of exploration I've done that I have a huge fucking army and a mutually beneficial 1 for 1 trade deal or two might encourage me to be peaceful. Everybody keeps treating me like an asshole so I never have any reason to not be an asshole. 

[MrRoboto75]

I remember Civ Revolution on the DS had awful diplomacy.

Basically every couple of turns or so one the the CPU players would knock on your door and be like "Give us [thing] or we go to war bleh :V"

[Broseph Stalin]

I remember Civ Revolution on the DS had awful diplomacy.

Basically every couple of turns or so one the the CPU players would knock on your door and be like "Give us [thing] or we go to war bleh :V"

PS3 was no better

[sambojin]

Don't you arbitrarily (and for no reason the AI can see) build up and attack the AI? For reasons?

Your thought processes might have been entirely different (they're near *your* luxuries early on, they're near *your* expansion corridor early on, that's a nice continent you have/had there, etc), but you're certainly more chaotic than the AI in your diplomacy choices. Mostly, anyway.

Think of MP games, if there was no messaging system, but pretend they were AI players. A lot of shit doesn't make sense from your perspective, and you were being really nice to them....

I'm not giving the AI an excuse to be poorly programmed, but at least Civ 6 has some reasons for the behaviours. If you were them, you'd think how badly programmed the Human.Intelligence was, because shit happens to them all the time, for seemingly no reason at all. Even when they've got a huge fucking navy. And you were the Vikings.

So suck it up. They're trying to win too.

Seemingly random AI diplomacy often isn't, but I can understand the complaints of them not attacking you *properly* for *stuff*, chaotically and seemingly without reason. Shit combat AI and shit diplomacy AI aren't necessarily the same thing, though one leads to the other. Still, I'd rather good combat AI, regardless of seemingly "human" decisions from the diplomatic side of things. A big stick can be scary, spoken however you please.

[Chiefwaffles]

Except that's the opposite of what I'm talking about.
The AI, instead of feeling like its own entity interested in its own prosperity, just feels like all it cares about is some arbitrary stuff I'm doing. How dare I not have enough luxuries! Better declare war on me! Human players, on the other hand, may act unpredictably, but they still want to win the game and maneuver towards that end. AIs don't care about winning; they just want to police you and your luxuries to be just perfect.
(I know I'm using the luxury example a lot, but it's a pretty good indicator.)

I mean, the agenda system could work as a base, but right now I don't think its the best implementation. Agendas should probably be changing, and should be more related to the AI itself and not just "things cool to have".

[sambojin]

Except that's the opposite of what I'm talking about.
The AI, instead of feeling like its own entity interested in its own prosperity, just feels like all it cares about is some arbitrary stuff I'm doing. How dare I not have enough luxuries! Better declare war on me! Human players, on the other hand, may act unpredictably, but they still want to win the game and maneuver towards that end. AIs don't care about winning; they just want to police you and your luxuries to be just perfect.
(I know I'm using the luxury example a lot, but it's a pretty good indicator.)

I mean, the agenda system could work as a base, but right now I don't think its the best implementation. Agendas should probably be changing, and should be more related to the AI itself and not just "things cool to have".

I'd like it if they had either random hidden agendas entirely (but that would take all "character" away from each nation), or preferably one standard major and two weaker 67% (random) hidden ones, but that could outweigh their major one combined or with gifts included. No luxuries? No worries, coz you're fulfilling my other one or two randomized wants reasonably and you suck up a bit. We'll overlook your heathenistic ways for now......

You'd have to get to know them, because you'd never know what they wanted game-to-game, but you could really decide if it was worth keeping them onside, with plenty of ways of doing so. 1x100% strong, 2x67%'ers random, and gifts/tribute/payment/trade to pop that over to friendly somewhere, without them being ever 235% friendly at any time. Unless you met a "really fucking stupid" demand, and then only temporarily. Cold war blocs, etc.

Ball-park figures, but you get the gist. Maybe with an earlier "spy" unit in Classical (with few/no other abilities) to find out the first random hidden agenda, the second still comes in at medieval spies (or maybe Renaissance with the change) for full disclosure of hidden agendas.

Not meeting their major "character agenda", but meeting one of the minor randoms only leaves them slightly miffed, not a definite downward spiral towards war. As long as you suck up a bit. You may not even know you're keeping them happy if you don't know about it. Meeting two random minor agendas is about as good as the major, but you won't find out about it for a while, and it could be damn near anything.

LIKES:BANANAS. Dammit, we have no more bananas......

[miauw62]

I remember Civ Revolution on the DS had awful diplomacy.

Basically every couple of turns or so one the the CPU players would knock on your door and be like "Give us [thing] or we go to war bleh :V"

i once had france reduced to a single city and he demanded i give him the science for tanks :V

[Levi]

Catherine de Medici:  I see you also enjoy spycraft, my compliments! (+12 Love)

Levi of Congo:  What is a spy?

Gilgmamesh:  Ho there friend! Mind if you open your borders so my 4 War-Carts can pass through your capital.

Levi of Congo:  Uh...  Well okay.  I'mma gonna build so more archers though.

Gilgamesh:  Great thanks friend!  Oh also WAR!

Levi of Congo:  Ass...

[Wiles]

I wish the love/hate stuff happened like it did in Beyond Earth. It would pop up on your screen and not take you into diplomacy like it does in Civ 6. I also wish you could have the option to cut off communications with a country so if they're just being pests you don't have to listen to them denounce you and hate on your policies all the time.

[miauw62]

Also since this is the biggest civ thread rn, how do you even get good at civ. In V I can win on Warlord with ease but I've only ever won one game on Prince, as France with culture, and I had a really good start then (flood plains, mountains covering me to one side, and Venice to the other).

Meanwhile people are already winning IV on King and above and there isn't even a real meta yet?

[Levi]

Also since this is the biggest civ thread rn, how do you even get good at civ. In V I can win on Warlord with ease but I've only ever won one game on Prince, as France with culture, and I had a really good start then (flood plains, mountains covering me to one side, and Venice to the other).

Meanwhile people are already winning IV on King and above and there isn't even a real meta yet?

I don't really worry about meta.  My general strategy is to try to build lots of units and handle barbarians early, and get as many boosts as possible.  I've won one science victory on prince and one religious victory on King(with a terrible start).

I think the boosts are really great and worth going for, each time you get one its like you are doubling your science or culture rates.

[miauw62]

I was talking about Civ in general and V in particular, because I don't own VI and I'm not sure if I will anytime soon (just waiting for polish and the price to drop)

[Harry Baldman]

Also since this is the biggest civ thread rn, how do you even get good at civ. In V I can win on Warlord with ease but I've only ever won one game on Prince, as France with culture, and I had a really good start then (flood plains, mountains covering me to one side, and Venice to the other).

I tend to win on Prince in V by rushing the Great Library, getting Philosophy as a free tech and building the National College on top of that, then outpacing everyone on science by miles upon miles and building all the wonders I can. Should probably step up the difficulty at this point (I tend to play Civ V when I'm listening to a podcast, since it requires me to pay very little attention to things for the most part).

Of course, I also always play on Marathon game length, so maybe that makes it easier, I dunno.

[Kot]

Civ is actually pretty easy if you want domination victory because it's just a matter of outmurdering the stupid combat AI in defensive war and slowly, slowly pushing up to their land.

[Wiles]

Does marathon game speed change tech and production in Civ or just tech? If it's just tech I might give it a go because the pacing in 6 felt a bit off. I felt like I was teching up way faster than I was producing things.