Does anyone else find the diplomacy in most 4X games really annoying?
>they hate you because your military is weaker than theirs
>they love you because your military is stronger than theirs
>alliances either last from 4000 BC to 4000 AD or they break it as soon as they're doing a bit better than you
>getting them to trade ANYTHING is like pulling teeth and you have to offer them way more than it's really worth
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
because AI doesn't think in long term plan or as creative as a human
AI just thinks by the conditions that were set in code, basically thinking about now
i like it in civ4
I don't play civ so I don't encounter things like that. For me, it's more like
>Ask an AI to assist with an attack on something between our territories
, can't spare the forces
>Ask allied AI to help defend something nearby
, can't get there buddy
>AI asks me to assist them with something on the other side of their empire within 2 turns
>Naturally, I can't get there
>>What a jerk you are, player
Trading thing is because trading is op and you can take everything from the AI in old games while ruining their already unstable, cheating economy with extra territory and units to upkeep. I think trading(of land/units/tech) is stupid anyway. It just doesn't work between players and AI except to advantage the player. Money/research/production pacts, trade routes, and a global market like in Endless Space 2 are all you need. I can't even think of a reason why, in games /where more land = more power, you would even ever trade territory except to immediately declare war and take it back.
Play multiplayer then moron.
From memory ShitV tried to mix it up and it was just a shitshow.
>multiplayer
>diplomacy
What moron would try to make deals with a bunch of genocidal psychopaths?
everybody knows that these alliances are pure temporary realpolitik and that's the neat part.
NTA, but that's the part I liked in V the most, (aside from the overblown warmonger maluses).
If there's a need to choose between the everlasting alliances, and the ones that fall at the drop of a hat, I vastly prefer the lasting ones, (i.e I prefer TW:E diplomacy, than pretty much any other TW game) where the allies are actual allies.
Although i still llike when they do sometimes betray you, I remember to this day when in one of my earlier Civ V games (Poland on Prince, because it was getting to know the game well)
Pedro the c**t betrayed me and forced me to march with my whole army into his land to cut him down a notch (he and Montezuma were my allies, and pretty much only neighbours on my continent left) and how he crawled back to our alliance after I kicked his teeth in and took one of his cities (Montezuma stayed out of this), leaving us three up against five other civs that hated us (but also coincidentally broke up into a 3 vs 2, instead of staying together against us, but their conflict pretty much stayed until the end of the game) At least until the time for ideology came and all three of us picked different ideologies, but Pedro did not try to fight, or even really oppose me again for the rest of the game, despite me leaving him alone(He certainly wasn't weak from losing that one city, even though it wasn't small, he mostly was weak for some time after our war due to having to rebuild his military)
Forgot to note, the game was played with "less warmonger hate" mod, since that was the part that noped me out of the game the first few playthroughs.
Flat penalties on higher difficulty levels that make diplomacy useless are the worst
this,it's okay to make AI more likely to betray you or aggressive, but making them useless or all the same is just not fun
average shogun 2 legendary experience
Frick the realm divide. Make the AI somewhat competent at either military on diplomacy, instead of having them sleep half game, until the system wakes them up like a NCO when they were late to a sortie.
The AI in 4x games never models the rootless cosmopolitan cliques that imbed themselves in every world power. If it did, then the diplomacy would look more realistic.
You could argue people act the same way
Any 4x games where you have to deal with diplomacy of dozens of groups instead of like 8? Or is that a grand strategy thing.
Civ4 modded to have +40 civs
It's a space 4X thing. Gal Civ, Stelaris, Distant Worlds.
Which galciv? 3 and 4? not 2.
4x diplomacy has went to shit the moment civilization started making the AI act aware that it's in a game
"we won't give you this cuz you will win the game!" started in civ 4