Denouncing: Like -or- Don't Like

Sparthage said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're using it correctly. The point isn't to denounce everyone who denounces you (which can just lead to hostility from former allies who like the leader you're denouncing), it's to use it as a targeted sanction to influence other civs' attitudes towards both you and your rival. If you notice someone you want as an ally has denounced X, denouncing X will improve your standing with them. If you already have an ally and denounce your rival Y, your ally will probably denounce them in turn ("someone we like hates this guy - must be something in it"), which will also increase the chances of war between your rival and your ally.

The key problem with the denunciation system isn't the system, which I think is a great addition, it's the complete lack of any information in the rulebook or Civilopedia about how it works and what to do with it. Post G&K I've seen a lot of people amazed that you can "now" form lasting friendships, tripartite relationships and power blocs. I point out that I reliably did all of those in vanilla once I'd got a handle on how diplomacy worked - G&K made diplomacy a lot more transparent, but it always worked as intended if its key elements - DoFs and Denunciations - were applied correctly. Denouncing the world is the best way to ensure you end up at war with everyone, which leads to the experience of "irrationally" hostile AIs.

I'm voting like, but it still needs work. I say it's an improvement over Civ4 diplomacy. I just don't like the many chain denouncements.

PhilBowles said:

I'm not sure you're using it correctly. The point isn't to denounce everyone who denounces you (which can just lead to hostility from former allies who like the leader you're denouncing), it's to use it as a targeted sanction to influence other civs' attitudes towards both you and your rival. If you notice someone you want as an ally has denounced X, denouncing X will improve your standing with them. If you already have an ally and denounce your rival Y, your ally will probably denounce them in turn ("someone we like hates this guy - must be something in it"), which will also increase the chances of war between your rival and your ally.

The key problem with the denunciation system isn't the system, which I think is a great addition, it's the complete lack of any information in the rulebook or Civilopedia about how it works and what to do with it. Post G&K I've seen a lot of people amazed that you can "now" form lasting friendships, tripartite relationships and power blocs. I point out that I reliably did all of those in vanilla once I'd got a handle on how diplomacy worked - G&K made diplomacy a lot more transparent, but it always worked as intended if its key elements - DoFs and Denunciations - were applied correctly. Denouncing the world is the best way to ensure you end up at war with everyone, which leads to the experience of "irrationally" hostile AIs.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

I do love the G&K improved diplomacy, but I was perfectly happy with Vanilla diplomacy and didn't have trouble understanding how the system worked.

Most of the time when I get denounced, I understand very clearly why I got denounced. There are rare occasions where the reason isn't completely obvious, but it's likely due to asymmetric information that I do not have.

Requiring DoF's for RA's does make DoF much more valuable to maintain. In Vanilla, I usually found DoF's a liability, so I would rather stay Friendly with everyone (or everyone but the one or two AI's I denounce) whereas now there is a better reason to stay Friends. *However*, I do think that RA's come really late (making early DoF's a bit less useful, though they can often deter aggressive neighbors). The new way they work (based on beakers produced) does make them a lot worse. I was recently playing a Marathon game where they cost 750 gold each (I was in Medieval era) and even though I had three long-lasting friendships (on a standard map of 8 players), I passed on RA's because they weren't worth it.

Also, with the system of denouncements, if you can bribe your frenemy into DoW'ing several city states it will likely get him denounced by several other civs. Getting someone to DoW someone they have a DoF with is even better! You just *know* it's going to ruin their diplomatic game yet the AI is often willing to do it if you offer it enough.

I like the concept, though I think it should say WHY you were denounced.

I was recently playing a Marathon game where they cost 750 gold each (I was in Medieval era) and even though I had three long-lasting friendships (on a standard map of 8 players), I passed on RA's because they weren't worth it.

Click to expand...

I tend to find the civs I become friends with rarely have enough money for more than one or two RAs. I find them helpful for accelerating progress - I've gone from 5th to 3rd in literacy in my current game using them.

Also, with the system of denouncements, if you can bribe your frenemy into DoW'ing several city states it will likely get him denounced by several other civs. Getting someone to DoW someone they have a DoF with is even better! You just *know* it's going to ruin their diplomatic game yet the AI is often willing to do it if you offer it enough.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I'll have to try that with Darius in my current game - he could do with being taken down a peg (Alex is stronger, but he's not my friend). Neither Alex nor Ramkhamhaeng is likely to take kindly to attacks on CSes, and William has been quite proactive about grabbing them too.

I was some 10 turns into a game and a Russian Scout came by my lands. Next thing Catherine Denounced me. All it said was that she covets my lands. Wtf am I supposed to do about that then?

Denouncing is thrown around way too much. Everybody hates each other it seems.

Denounced said:

I was some 10 turns into a game and a Russian Scout came by my lands. Next thing Catherine Denounced me. All it said was that she covets my lands. Wtf am I supposed to do about that then?

Denouncing is thrown around way too much. Everybody hates each other it seems.

Click to expand...

Some Civs are just flavored to be more aggressive and protective of land around their empire, Catherine being one of them. If she is on the other side of the world you have a much better chance of being friends.

If you increase the number of civs than the standard for the map size you will likely run into this scenario alot since there is less land for each civ.

I usually play standard size continents, so that is usually 4 civs to a continent. Usually what happens is a 2v2 scenario, which gets set up by denouncements. I like how the denouncement system works, it makes it very clear who is friend and who is foe.

On early game levels, denouncing doesn`t seem to mean much at all. I can`t see a difference. On Prince I got denounced after using a nuclear bomb first in war, which I thought was pretty realistic. However, it didn`t seem to have any other effect. Perhaps I was too powerful and everyone too scared to act? I`ll have to try harder difficulties and see what happens there.

There are other times I get denounced for no reason at all, not at war or anything. It would be nice if they explained WHY they are denouncing you whether a lie or true.

Oh and I almost never denounce. I tried it once and the Leader got really annoyed, but again, nothing much happened.

Last week I was in another game as Songhai on a huge tilted axis map. I had a huge continent to myself and was known for my strong economy. I was on good terms with most of the civs but Byzantium was winning. They were also an ally. I couldn't bribe anybody to fight her, even though some had already denounced her or been denounced by her. So I took it to the extreme and denounced her myself (backstab). Next thing I know, pretty much all 14 civs left alive denounced me. It was a total domino effect! First it was her close friends saying that they like her better than me and then it was the rest of my allies. I thought I held some clout in global politics but she had them wrapped around her little finger. I guess I really did sully my name with that foolish move because after that it was very difficult to get a fair trade anywhere. Yeah, I lost that game. I was going for Diplomacy win. Only secured 4 votes in the end.

It seems like the system could be more fleshed out. AIs giving you the cold shoulder for a few turns isnt that significant