PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
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.
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.