Denouncing: Like -or- Don't Like

[Sparthage]

Now that we've had some time with the Denouncing concept I thought it would be fine to open a thread to see what you guys think about the idea.

I personally don't like it because it seems like it's now a race to denounce everyone who has ever been angry at you.

[Hesha]

I don't like it, because it is punishment for playing the game right. If you expand you get denounced, if you win a war you get denounced, etc.

And furthermore it seems that "Your friend found a reason to denounce you" is the only relationship modifier that worsens your relations even with civs you haven't met.

[Soronery]

I think most people just take a passive roll in diplomacy and just sit there playing the game. You can't do that. You need to denounce people. Denouncing is actually useful, it isn't just a mechanic for the AI to harass you with.

[Nada]

Somehow I like it. It is annoying, but realistic. After all, no one loves the superpower in Real Life either.

I guess it is an element of rebalancing when one civilization (especially the human player) gets too much better than the others. No one loves you, you risk aggression (having to spend money on the Army), you do not get luxury resources (having to spend money on happiness buildings) and in general your path is more difficult.

[Hesha]

Have you noted how it ruins your reputation when you actually "see a war through" that someone started against you? That is ridiculous - the AI expects you to accept the first peace offer by the aggressor, if you don't: you're a warmongerer!

[wurstburst]

Hate it. It's a neverending cascade, leading to permanently bad relations between all civs.

The part I hate the most is when a friend backstabs you via denouncement and then the other civs get a negative modifier because "a friend found a reason to denounce you". What is this, high school? Liz hates me because I was BFF with Cath and now Cath said I'm a poser?

[Sparthage]

Originally Posted by Hesha

Have you noted how it ruins your reputation when you actually "see a war through" that someone started against you? That is ridiculous - the AI expects you to accept the first peace offer by the aggressor, if you don't: you're a warmongerer!

Yeah, that's my main issue with it. Before the patch I get war declared on me by the Aztecs. Kick their butt and the only thing anyone cares about is that their capital got conquered and that they can't win. Now, I have to accept their first (usually crappy) peace offer, or everyone else denounces me and then declare on me at some point. I actually won a 18-civ domination victory without declaring a single war.

[smash9936]

I feel that the system definitely needs revision... especially with regards to human players. At least if a Civ is friendly with you and not so friendly with the Civ you slay, there should not be a hit to diplomacy for slaying a fellow enemy Civ. Another thing I found odd was that you can't denounce/DOF human players. Most likely we will see more revision to diplomacy, as it still seems "unfinished."

[DaveGold]

It's really badly implemented. The AI use the denouncement system to ruin your diplomacy. All you can do is denounce them back, which can also ruin your diplomacy. As soon as someone becomes your friend they'll blackmail you for gifts with the threat of denouncing you. It's crazy.

The first thing that's needed is an advisor to pop up and tell you "Your German friends can denounce you if you do this" instead of letting the AI be prosecutor, judge, and jury when it comes to denouncements. The players need to know the rules. The second thing that's needed is a public reason given on denouncements to make them less random and artificial. A reason should also allow third party AI to ignore a denunciation if they have no sympathy.

[Dunkah]

In real life Denouncement means the other Civ did something that you don't like and the whole world should know that you don't. That doesn't generally mean that you will stop trading with that person or that they can't make it up to you etc.

There should be levels of denoucement and reasons. Say 25 turns for encroaching borders on our land. 50 turns for encroaching again. 200 for ignoring repeated requests about borders... etc.

Possibly should be consequences. Say trade agreements end at 25 turn, Open borders/ research agreements end at 50 turn and war at 200 turn.

Other than that I do like the concept, just not the way it is implemented.

[cman2010]

I dont like it, its just a crap game mechanic thrown in with a broken diplomacy system to try and add more into diplo but fails, another reason that this is the worst civ ever, and a major step back for the franchise.

[blind biker]

Vote "Abstain" - make the pollsters go crazy!


Oh....

[zarakand]

Originally Posted by wurstburst

Hate it. It's a neverending cascade, leading to permanently bad relations between all civs.

The part I hate the most is when a friend backstabs you via denouncement and then the other civs get a negative modifier because "a friend found a reason to denounce you". What is this, high school? Liz hates me because I was BFF with Cath and now Cath said I'm a poser?

Yep. Diplomacy is just broken. I enjoy Civ V, but other than trading resources I don't pay any attention to diplomacy. It just a war game for me, or a builder game with every other nation being a barbarian nation to destroy or ignore. Hopefully, the expansion's main focus is DIPLOMACY.

[I_qua_I]

I like the feature though would prefer if they were thrown around much more sparingly. As it is now it feels cheap and annoying. If they are going to be implemented they should be more meaningful and less ubiquitous.

[UWHabs]

I wouldn't mind a bit more depth to diplomacy (ie. I wouldn't mind some green diplo points for "I enjoy our fair luxury trades" and the like), but I do like how diplomacy is somewhat obfuscated, how it's not entirely predictable (in terms of being safe from attack from a friend), and stuff like that.

But it could use an upgrade. As it is now, let's say A, B, and C are all friends. If I'm A, and I encroach a bit on C, he'll denounce me, and then right away, B will also because "my friend had a reason to denounce you". I would like to see sometimes B come to me and say, "I don't think C was right to denounce you. Shall we join together and denounce him?" or something like that.

[Soronery]

Well this is isn't a roleplaying game. I think diplomacy works alright for the most part. Some parts are still kind of bad (DoW from every civ) but overall it's okay.

[cman2010]

Originally Posted by Soronery

Well this is isn't a roleplaying game. I think diplomacy works alright for the most part. Some parts are still kind of bad (DoW from every civ) but overall it's okay.

clearly civ 5 is not, and thats where it misses the mark as a civ game there is no imersion.

[zarakand]

Originally Posted by Soronery

Well this is isn't a roleplaying game. I think diplomacy works alright for the most part. Some parts are still kind of bad (DoW from every civ) but overall it's okay.

I understand that, but most of us want the ability have "friendly" civilizations. At the moment, that is not possible. As soon as you start to win, everyone hates you. While I understand why that was done from a strategic game play perspective it stinks from a fun perspective.

There are a multitude of instances throughout history where one civilization is the clear super power, but still maintains friendly relations with other civilizations that are not in contention for superpower status.

[kingpapawawa]

i might like it if it worked correctly.

i havent been denounced by anyone, im friends with rome only. rome denounces me because "a friend found a reason to denounce me"

or, 14 turns into the game france denounces me because "im trying to win the game in the same manner as them" in 14 turns???

im waiting for "i denounce you because you want to win and so do i!"

[Soronery]

Originally Posted by zarakand

I understand that, but most of us want the ability have "friendly" civilizations. At the moment, that is not possible. As soon as you start to win, everyone hates you. While I understand why that was done from a strategic game play perspective it stinks from a fun perspective.

There are a multitude of instances throughout history where one civilization is the clear super power, but still maintains friendly relations with other civilizations that are not in contention for superpower status.

I'll give you a scenario that happened to me. Lets say we are on an hour glass shaped pangea map. On the bottom (in order starting from the far left) is me, then another civ, then arabia, then another civ.
I take out a civ close to me. Arabia powers into being the top player. Arabia is next to me and we have friendly relations despite Arabia being right next to me. I think I am about on par with everyone but Arabia just powers through the tech tree. What do I do? I denounce them and bribe people to DoW Arabia.

We were friends the entire game but I still do this. Why? Because it will help me win, and it is the only way I can win because otherwise he can just win via scientific victory.

If the roles were reversed it would only be logical for the AI to do the same thing to me if I was that top civ.