Ail wrote:
Imho the best 4x when it comes to diplomacy is Civ5 with the recent patch.

The game mechanics support it.You have spies,minor factions and world congress that add a shitload to the game in diplomacy.

Modelling a diplomatic AI is hard stuff.



From what I read and watched about the Civ5 development they actually have a few AI engines working for different problems. Each AI itself a an endgame goal based on which leader it is, according to personality it will tend towards a few of the win options. As the game progresses it will settle with one of these goals acording to what it finds on its initial expansion, making it easier to win on one specific way. There is another layer about gaining advantages in the medium term, which assesses the other players and their strengths based not only on each indvidual values, but also their relative stances towards each other. If a block seems to be friendly for example, going to war with one of them might have a higher cost, since they might all unite against that AI, which is bad. So it will try to be part of a block with someone too. The long-term AI decisions will have a weight on which options will be pursued by the mid-term AI. A third in-turn AI will also make decisions inside each turn, which are also influenced by the long and medium term AI.



So that's divide and conquer, making the big AI problem into three smaller problems with cascading influence.



And it ROCKS. I am in a game where I am well advanced to a culture victory, and recently the world descended into a kind-of world war, but I am befriending most AIs, at war with none, selling information and trying to help the weakest ones, so that the attrition causes maximum damage to every AI.



The diplomatic decision of Civ5 do not seem random at all, and having the AI discover that a nation is plotting against the other like, 15 turns in advance, is cool.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
^^ ...whereas in Disharmony I have had AIs go from Very Friendly, to War the next turn...

It is interesting. In Civ V... they are always doing that and it felt as if for no good reason. In the case I described, It felt like a a perfectly good reason... because I was about to do it to them.



As a side note, they didn't actually declare war on me, they declared war on one of my allies who i assume they had a less healthy relationship with.



I was actually relieved as I wasn't quite sure how to convince them to pick a fight with the friendly gorilla in the room.

^^ I agree with you as far as mechanics goes. I like the added fixes and tweaks that Disharmony brought, but atm they are kind of unstable In Vanilla, the AI would go from friendly, to neutral, to suspicious, to hostile, then to war, whereas in Disharmony, I have had AIs go from Very Friendly, to War the next turn. So if they make it as stable as vanilla, then I think the mechanics are sufficient. Not optimal, but sufficient nontheless.



But I don't believe it sufficient with regard to atmosphere. Sure, it has a real impact on the game. But it just doesn't feel as immersive as it should.

Really can't disagree more about the Diplomacy. I find the Endless Space diplomacy quite refreshing after the 'Can't trust anyone' years of CivV.



The AI's are responsive to overtures, and yet no overture is cheap unless it should be. I am playing on Endless difficulty. After being dog piled and carved up the first game, I have made diplomacy a priority.



I played a game where we were all friends. fighting a common foe until the foe was vanquished, but not eliminated. The new top dog anticipated the breakup of the loose alliance (friendly relationship with an alliance... think russia and proto-nato fighting the Nazis) without waiting for the old war to end. Most striking in that game however, is how quickly the alliances shifted.



We had all teamed up to take on the initial boss dog (e.g. Germany). One empire gained more form the venture than the rest of us. It was surprising how adept the AI was at shifting the alliance (Nato) over to making friends of our lifelong enemies (Germany et all) in order to fend off our new enemy who was once a friend (russia).



During that game, I could also see the AI switch from viewing me a a potential long term rival to the only thing standing between it and oblivion. Interestingly, part of that transition involved it asking me for help. Unlike the civ V... I need help give me all your money demands, these requests were always for things easily given (e.g. never asking to break a monopoly, never asking for my only resource, never asking for 90% of my cash flow).



It actually felt like I had real allies.



And unlike Civ V. I wasn't concerned about them back stabbing me three turns later because my fleets were off fighting the real threat.

The neverending wars thing is a bug which will be fixed with the next patch on 14th of November.

The recent patch for BNW has changed things for the better as the AI is more aggressive. I think they've hit the mark there now as it's not as bad as it was with the Vanilla version where even Gandhi was a warmonger but not too passive either. It seems the Civs that should be aggressive are and those that shouldn't aren't.



On the topic of ES, I find that generally the AI's are too passive. That being said, when a war starts they never seem to end. Part of the reason for this is that the diplomacy aspect of the game is very weak and bland. Diplomacy is the worst part of the game. It needs some attention to really push ES to another level of excellence. Without a great diplomatic component, it's just another space 4x game. I think the devs should use the Civ IV or V model as both work quite well in making the games fun.

BNW made the AI far too passive IMO. It was actually very refreshing to play some ES and actually get ATTACKED when I was just booming the econ out and ignoring keeping pace in military. In BNW, it's too easy to just sit back and tech up and grow the econ peacefully while the AIs make trades with me and research agreements and generally assist me to overwhelming them lol. I thought G&K was the right challenge level (although some of the 'banzai' attacks by random AIs got a bit old).



Anyways, I would hate to see ES follow the same trend and over-reward people for peacefully sitting back and teching/econ booming. On of the CRITICAL 'X's in a 4x game is 'eXterminate' and without that, you might as well be playing Sim-Space or Sim-Society or something.

Why can't my workers ambush enemy archaeologists and beat the crap out of them? I'm done with Firaxis games.

Seriously, I agree with DMT. BNW is kinda boring. And I'm not a big fan of the new trade route system.

Until you fix diplomacy.



It feels sterile and uninteresting.



Look to Master of Orion, Stardrive or GalCiv for some (much needed) inspiration. ALSO CIV V (thanks friends!)



Hell, I've said it before, but your game in general needs more flavor. More event cut-scenes, more flavor and personality.





If Endless Legend is the same way, I can't justify buying it. Sorry.

DevildogFF wrote:
Truth. You speak it.

I found CiV BNW a bit boring and easy... Ive put 300 hours into CiV and love it, but I find BNW boring, so I didnt buy it (yet)... Waiting for a sale

Ail wrote:
Imho the best 4x when it comes to diplomacy is Civ5 with the recent patch.

Truth. You speak it.

Igncom1 wrote:


...so you can spy on diplomats and use embassys to conduct spy actions on your enemy.

Or your ally. Such is the reasoning of the U.S. government

Other then a little animated picture the MOO2 diplomacy is exactly the game as the ES diplo.



Id like any diplo improvement to be tied in with a intrigue system so you can spy on diplomats and use embassys to conduct spy actions on your enemy.

Imho the best 4x when it comes to diplomacy is Civ5 with the recent patch.

Well I played GalCiv and I cant say that diplomacy there is any "fun". Only if you specify "fun" by



I can get what I want from you and you suck at diplomacy LOLZ



Yeah you had pictures and you had racial dependant statements but all in all diplomacy is all about sucking the last drop of tech out of your ally. Its not about friendship its not about making peace. You trade for tech and thats all. Not at all any better and seeing an AI that lets itself get exploited that much...I cant really say diplomacy is any better there.



I realize that expacations of a "good" diplomacy system vary from player to player and porgramming or balancing such a thing....hell I wouldnt even dare trying.





Personally I think diplomacy and the AI behaviour was much better in the past (when some people where whining about the AI being "too easy") but its still a supreme game. I dont play GalCiv at all anymore....I was "done" with it after like 30 hours. Simply because Endless Space is the superior game for me.



I m pretty sure the devs are watching the forums and are aware of the current problems (hell its a tidal(whine)wave on the steam forums) and are going to use that information for their future patches/game designs.



Me...I m not giving up hope



"its not fun"





Which doesnt help anybody.

I do agree that diplomacy is a problem, but the game is still fun.

Just say no to any alliance offers. It destroys agreements with other factions, and the AI leaves the alliance after a few turns anyway.