Ok, delayed by a busy weekend.
Diplomacy. Hoo boy, how to evaluate this. First off, it’s pretty bad. How bad? Depends on what other strategy games you’ve played. When I last played Civ IV I had yet to play a bunch of what are now my favorites of the genre. The weaknesses were, to be blunt, invisible to me. Sure it was basic, exploitable, and infuriating at times, but it was also genre standard. Nothing notably worse than most contemporaries. Most.
But playing now it strikes me as how bad it really is. And unlike espionage it is unavoidable. And really it suffers the same problem that espionage does, namely that I have since grown to love Paradox games. I know, shock, I’m going to be reviewing this in light of the fossil platypus. But how can I not? Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings rewrite much of what I know about strategy games.
So diplomacy is fairly limited in Civ IV. You can trade resources and technology. You can make demands (though it is a pointless affair). You can make alliances and enemies. Nothing outrageously bad, just basic. However the AI is just maddening. Not as bad as the cascading denunciations of Civ V, but when Mansa Musa gets all huffy when I deny his demand for 750 gold (nearly my entire treasury) despite the fact I could curb stomp him?
And really, that’s it. The AI will make constant demands on you, and it’s a bit silly. Gold is one thing, but demanding my newest tech? Does anyone ever really do this? It’s basically a RNG determining that you’re going to suffer a relations penalty. And it doesn’t seem to be linked to any greater strategic goals. The options are shallow, and only meaningful when trading tech or resources. It’s just unsatisfying. I never feel as if there is anything but playing at the margins. And the AI war declarations? It feels random. The first time I had war declared I had positive relations with both aggressors. Friendly even with Ramses.
Compare this to Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis which has the richest, and best, modelling of diplomacy and espionage in games that I’ve encountered. There you have tools to manipulate relationships between your nation and others, to plan and subvert using intrigue. Playing sides off eachother in order to weaken rivals, or to strengthen an ally. There long term relations have more meaning and impact. It takes more effort, but that effort is commensurately rewarded. It also can generate memorable and exciting moments. I vividly recall being able to subvert the HRE as the Ottomans by manipulating the balance of power of the leagues, isolating Austria in a war, and collapsing their military allowing a Savoy led Protestant league to declare a League War and utterly achieve victory within a year. 50 years of diplomatic maneuvering, planning, and subterfuge came together in one glorious and memorable encounter.
Now it would be patently unfair to expect anything so rich and rewarding in Civ IV. They are, after all, different games with different focal points. Even so the diplomatic AI for Civ still feels perfunctory. It is not a system, so much as a facilitator for other systems. After having experienced a deeper system it feels like a major step back to go to a game where diplomacy basically boils down to swapping resources and giving gifts to bribe the AI into liking you. The effects of trading, of agreements are small enough that you never are able to form some strong ties. When an RNG demand for tribute can overrule dozens of turns of diplomatic efforts it makes attempts to use diplomacy feel pointless.
It’s why the UN victory is my least favorite. It basically boils down to giving a bunch of gifts to other Civs to bribe them to vote for you. Very unsatisfactory after hundreds of turns. It feels disconnected from everything else.
I’d also love a diplomacy option that says ‘stop sending spies to destroy my buildings/ improvements or I’ll curb stomp you’. Having espionage actions have no impact on relations seems silly.