Diplomatic victory is kinda broken

S

s2now

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
2
i just finished my first diety game. was way behind in tech, maybe not the very last but its pretty close. Siam was finishing the last piece of space ship and i havent even started the apollo program, lol.
destined to lose to a science victory, I spent all my savings and allied with as many city states as i could 1 turn befor UN vote. then i declare war on everyone, so A.I. couldnt buy them back. pressed next turn and then gg.
not the way i wanted to win, but certainly better feeling than losing. oh well, i guess next game i have to turn off diplomatic victory.
sry this is being mentioned before, but its just seem to me something this obvious should at least get addressed in patch not to mention i was playing on G&K. kinda silly isnt it.

Moderator Action: Not about strategy -> moved to "General Discussion".
 
Yeah, this really needs addressing, it's an incredibly cheap way to win (not that I blame you for doing it). Diplo victories in general are in need of a real overhaul: the concept of a 'gold victory' (which is basically what they are) is fine but the way it's implemented is just broken.

Not sure what the solution is though. I've always thought a diplo victory should be connected to peace somehow - eg, you can't have declared war on anyone for at least 20 turns to win? That's probably broken too, but this does need fixing.
 
Maintaining CS relationships in Civ V has been, to me, broken since the beginning. When Austria and the coup mechanic were added to the game the situation became worse.

Considering the UAs of Greece, Siam and Austria, and the mischief of coups, then the bribe and DoW strategy is often the only way to win a diplo victory.
 
jahsoldier said:
Not sure what the solution is though. I've always thought a diplo victory should be connected to peace somehow - eg, you can't have declared war on anyone for at least 20 turns to win? That's probably broken too, but this does need fixing.
Click to expand...
I'd say like 10 turns since the UN vote is every 10 turns isn't it?
 
Tachii said:
I'd say like 10 turns since the UN vote is every 10 turns isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that could work - it's just it'd be quite easy to do the same thing (buy up CSs, DoW everyone, wait 10 turns, GG). At least with 20 turns or longer, in principle the combined forces of the AI have a chance to seriously roll you during that time.

I'm trying to figure out a way that shuts down the exploit, and also where you're rewarded for keeping the peace, which seems in the spirit of diplo victories. Something that hinges on you not declaring war makes more sense than the current system where you basically abuse some under-cooked game mechanics.

Either that, or just allow diplomacy with CSs that you're at war with, letting you (and AIs) bribe them to switch sides in the middle of a war. That would also solve this problem and make things a bit more interesting.
 
We kinda know :p

Personally, it's not as bad as people make it out to be.

The biggest issue is just making sure CS votes are more than "who can give the most money", and that they count less than Civ votes.

Having it factor in diplomatic actions, such as keeping citizens happy, not getting involved in wars/razing down cities would be a nice touch, too.
 
I'm unsure why the game designers moved away from the Civilization IV style of vote tabulation.

That is, the amount of votes for diplomatic victory a civilization gets is determined by how many total citizens that civilization has....you know, one citizen == one vote for diplomatic victory. Giving a pathetic civilization with only one 3 pop city the same voting power as a massive 30 city civ makes no sense to me.

If one were to use that system for Civ V, I think it is more than fair to double the requirements for City State votes, that is, two City State citizens = one vote. If nothing else, it would give incentive to conquer City States rather than always buying them out.

Furthermore, I think it would be an...interesting game design decision to make votes dependent on your empire happiness. In previous Civs, civilizations just gave all their votes to one candidate. It would be interesting if a civilization's vote tally could be divided among more than one candidate. I'm thinking a huge difference in comparative empire happiness could be one factor in splitting opinion...also a huge difference in Social Policy count or World Wonder count.
 
mintcandy said:
I'm unsure why the game designers moved away from the Civilization IV style of vote tabulation.

That is, the amount of votes for diplomatic victory a civilization gets is determined by how many total citizens that civilization has....you know, one citizen == one vote for diplomatic victory. Giving a pathetic civilization with only one 3 pop city the same voting power as a massive 30 city civ makes no sense to me.

If one were to use that system for Civ V, I think it is more than fair to double the requirements for City State votes, that is, two City State citizens = one vote. If nothing else, it would give incentive to conquer City States rather than always buying them out.

Furthermore, I think it would be an...interesting game design decision to make votes dependent on your empire happiness. In previous Civs, civilizations just gave all their votes to one candidate. It would be interesting if a civilization's vote tally could be divided among more than one candidate. I'm thinking a huge difference in comparative empire happiness could be one factor in splitting opinion...also a huge difference in Social Policy count or World Wonder count.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

I made a very rough outline (that thread is a rough outline of said rough outline :p ) of how such a happyniess based voting system could work, combined with how CS's and Civs would vote and how much each vote would be worth, but stopped halfway through because it'd be impossible to mod without the DLL, and because it'd require me to introduce a whole new game mechainc to tie into a culture victory overhaul, and a new economic victory.

If you want to work together. with a stand alone version once the DLL comes out, that'd be great.
 
Jabberwockxeno said:
I totally agree.

I made a very rough outline (that thread is a rough outline of said rough outline :p ) of how such a happyniess based voting system could work, combined with how CS's and Civs would vote and how much each vote would be worth, but stopped halfway through because it'd be impossible to mod without the DLL, and because it'd require me to introduce a whole new game mechainc to tie into a culture victory overhaul, and a new economic victory.

If you want to work together. with a stand alone version once the DLL comes out, that'd be great.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I am intrigued. Check your inbox.
 
mintcandy said:
I'm unsure why the game designers moved away from the Civilization IV style of vote tabulation.

That is, the amount of votes for diplomatic victory a civilization gets is determined by how many total citizens that civilization has....you know, one citizen == one vote for diplomatic victory. Giving a pathetic civilization with only one 3 pop city the same voting power as a massive 30 city civ makes no sense to me.

If one were to use that system for Civ V, I think it is more than fair to double the requirements for City State votes, that is, two City State citizens = one vote. If nothing else, it would give incentive to conquer City States rather than always buying them out.

Furthermore, I think it would be an...interesting game design decision to make votes dependent on your empire happiness. In previous Civs, civilizations just gave all their votes to one candidate. It would be interesting if a civilization's vote tally could be divided among more than one candidate. I'm thinking a huge difference in comparative empire happiness could be one factor in splitting opinion...also a huge difference in Social Policy count or World Wonder count.
Click to expand...
Does sounds very interesting. Much better than the current system. *Thumbs up
 
mintcandy said:
Furthermore, I think it would be an...interesting game design decision to make votes dependent on your empire happiness. In previous Civs, civilizations just gave all their votes to one candidate. It would be interesting if a civilization's vote tally could be divided among more than one candidate. I'm thinking a huge difference in comparative empire happiness could be one factor in splitting opinion...also a huge difference in Social Policy count or World Wonder count.
Click to expand...

I totally like what you proposing with world wonders and policies. It would be interesting to see some policies liked and disliked by general public in terms of UN vote too. Depending on their current world dominance for example. Or by quality. For example, everyone would love Tradition, but hate Autocracy branch. Also,a proportion of foreign voters living in desert might become envious of your Petra wonder, and thus vote for you in the UN.
 
what I find absolutely laughable is the advantage of building the UN entitles you to one extra vote...

but you cannot vote for yourself.

ROFL!

is this not a DISadvantage? or have I been wrong all along and the purpose of the game is to try to NOT win?
 
honestly there are only two VCs I want to pursue and one I dont mind pursuing as a break from those two. And then there's diplo. I will settle for it if i have to or do it as part of a challenge. but it is so poor a mechanic that I never actively pursue with intentions. and its a shame, too. i tried to give it some chances in both vanilla and GnK but it just isnt worth it.
 
slapshot2119 said:
what I find absolutely laughable is the advantage of building the UN entitles you to one extra vote...

but you cannot vote for yourself.

ROFL!

is this not a DISadvantage? or have I been wrong all along and the purpose of the game is to try to NOT win?
Click to expand...

The UN gives one extra vote for you. It doesn't allow you to vote twice, which would be a bit counterproductive :p
 
Maybey city states should only count for a half a vote instead of one. On larger maps this way not have any affect, but on standard maps there is only eight possible votes from city states. More emphasis should also be placed on tributing resources to other civs, and perhaps larger quests, that if completed grant extra votes.
 
haha, maybe firaxis intentionally designed diplo to feel corrupt. you buy them off, rig their elections and declare war all over the world to appeal to the minor states of the world. i.e. you win with diplomacy without actual using any real definition of diplomacy, haha.
 
Terakahn said:
It's not that bad. I view it the exact same as an Economic Victory. Because in a sense it is.
Click to expand...

I agree that's what the devs decided. I do not agree that it is a good approach for a diplo VC. If they wanted to do this, they should have simply left it as an economic victory and ditched the diplo VC altogether. As it stands, they need to tweak the modifiers so that diplomacy really exists and works. Right now, it's all about war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Triple win
Replies
0
Views
248
martindo
M
T
Diplomatic Victory seems kinda OP
Replies
12
Views
1K
Jaybe
Jaybe
S
World Congress Review: Part 3 (Diplomatic Victory)
Replies
7
Views
740
CppMaster
CppMaster
Ruin
Robbed of Cultural Victory - What Should I Do?
Replies
17
Views
409
superslug
superslug
P
How to block AI from getting diplomatic victory
Replies
15
Views
1K
MrRadar
MrRadar
Top Bottom