Denouncing: Like -or- Don't Like

Do you like the Denouncement system?


  • Total voters
    371
Denouncing is usually fine most of the time; however, there are some very strange instances where I've been denounced and have found absolutely no reason why.

Outside of the seemingly alien instances I've been denounced, I like the system. Most people I've talked to about it don't like it either because they don't understand how to capitalize on it, or they ignore diplomacy/passively play with diplomacy. That being said, diplomacy is a very delicate balancing act and things can go sour really, really quickly. If there's one major critique of the current system I have, it's that once a relationship goes south, it's almost impossible to repair it. In other words, bad diplomatic relationships never heal except for the very occasional exception of war -- but chances are denouncing happened either before or during war so it doesn't matter.

Here's my strategy when I want to play nice or just use diplomacy to my advantage in general.

First, don't play nice with everyone! This is the quickest way to get denounced by everyone because one of them will betray you. This will lead to another betraying you then another, then everybody. You have to pick one to three solid allies and keep them until you don't care about them anymore. Furthermore, you have to grant ALL their requests. So, don't make more allies than you can afford.

When choosing allies, I typically go for the civs that have a reputation for being aggressive as a priority. Next, I choose civs that have resources that I don't. Lastly, location can be very important. Especially if you want to really press the civs you aren't allied with. I choose aggressive civs first for two reasons -- I want Monte to smack other people, not me, and I want to conquer "builder" civs because their cities are generally more valuable (more improvements, bigger pop). Resources I don't have is obvious. Location is tricky. Typically, you don't want your ally(ies) to all be bordering civs with you because you'll probably want to smack at least one of them around in the early game. At the same time, allying with distant civs minimizes any military strategic advantage you have from the alliance. If Elizabeth is across an ocean, her involvement in a war will mean nothing.

About backstabbing -- Avoiding getting a knife in the back is usually simple, but this is where the AI does wierd, completely illogical things sometimes. However, as a rule -- grant all your allies requests unless you want to get knived and keep a decent sized military. If your military is small, your allies will leave you or even do a complete 180 and backstab you. Also, if your military is unnecessarily large, you'll get knived (probably because they think you'll backstab them first). Lastly, get your allies to declare war on a particular civ BEFORE you declare. This will soften the negatives from warring too much/often. However, if your wars are successful (and they should be -- why else would you declare?) they'll be jealous of your success anyways, but you will be able to cap more cities otherwise.

That brings us to neutral civs. Generally, I try to keep neutral status with a civ unless my ally(ies) denounce that civ or I am going to steam roll them soon. If just one denounces that civ, I immediately denounce them too (unless they have a lot of resources I want or I can sell them a lot of mine). This will usually start a chain-reaction of all the civs in your camp denouncing them as well. Knowing this little factoid is VERY VALUABLE for not getting yourself denounced all over the place. Even a single ally backstabbing you can result in all your allies backstabbing you especially if your military power is low (do you see the link between military and diplomacy now? =-)

If a neutral civ becomes a target of yours, denounce them a couple of turns before declaring. If you can get one ally to follow suit, often times the others will follow. This will strengthen you alliance even more since you all hate the same civ(s). On the flip side, if an ally asks you to denounce a civ, do it (unless you have a good reason -- like they are vastly superior militarily/technologically)

Now angry civs -- there's not really much you can do with a civ you've denounced or that has denounced you. They'll ask for ridiculous trades, will hate everything you do, and will regularly taunt you. The only useful piece you can do with an angry civ is avoid war with them. The easiest way to do this is to pay attention to what they are taunting you with. If they say your military is weak, build more. If they hear your people wailing in sorrow -- bump up happiness. BUT, this will only delay the inevitable. They will declare war eventually. Here's the kicker though -- the AI will often stupidly declare war. You could have a military twice the size that is much more advanced, and they'll sometimes do it anyways. Fighting a defensive war gets less "warmongering" negatives. So, you can use this to your advantage.

So how to use all this information? For starters, I always try to get weak civs to declare on me, and I always try to declare on strong civs. The reasons are as much diplomatic as they are military. If a weak civ declares, I can capture more cities and get less warmongering. Furthermore, rope-a-dope tactics work well when you don't have four pieces of artillery firing away at you. Strong civs are the opposite but with the added caveat that you should form a coalition before you invade to avoid/mitigate the too many cities/warmongering negatives. Militarily, it's best to initiate the war because you get those free cheap-shots with your ranged units.

Lastly, there are some things that are just plain unavoidable. The most obvious and toxic to friendly relations is the "They believe you are trying to win the game in a similar manner as them!" This is probably one of the worst besides the trifecta of warmonger, coveted land, and too many citites or backstabbing people. On the positive side, it's smart of the AI to try to foil your plans to win, because that's what any player would do. Luckily, by the time you see "win similar" message, your alliance shouldn't matter that much anymore anyways.
 
I also want to get some insight. Above I mentioned that there are sometimes completely illogical instances for being denounced. Something tells me I'm just overlooking something. But let me give an example:

I get a three-way alliance going -- Me (Inca), Ottomans, and Gandhi. We're all happy go-lucky and all hate the Spanish and the Russians (who are also allied with each other). I grant every request my allies makes and I have absolutely zero negative relationship factors with either ally for ~150 turns.

Then, for seemingly no reason, Suleiman backstabs me and Gandhi follows suit ~10 turns later. Then both declare on me in another ~10 turns.

My military was strong, but not overwhelming. I was the point-leader but not by much. I was the second most advanced in tech, but probably the most advanced culturally (but nowhere remotely close to a cultural victory). I figured I must be sitting on a strategic resource that hasn't been revealed to me yet, but that they can see. I reveal coal and oil and yes, I have some, but they not only have them, but they have almost twice as much!

Again, I had no negatives (red) relations with either, was receiving no threats etc.

So, can anyone illuminate why this sometimes happens? Is there an actual reason I'm overlooking? Or is the AI just that -- weird?
 
A well-intentioned, but poorly implemented feature. Once you reach a certain point it just causes a downward spiral in diplomacy...for everyone. Seems if a 'friend' denounces you, then everyone else will follow suit and denounce you. Once I was denounced by a friend, all other civs I had made contact with denounced me on the next turn. Fun. Makes it harder to sign research agreements without ponying up extra gold, makes fair luxury and strategic resource trades impossible, and open borders agreements impossible without a significant bribe. This is all on Chieftain, one of the easier settings. While it can be argued this is 'realistic'...the end effects are not realistic. No fair trade between anyone because of a couple disrespectful words. In real life, some get over this and move on when there's a benefit that pops its head up.
 
As soon as you start to win, everyone hates you.
Depends. I have won numerous games on Emperor/Immortal where the remaining civs (on the other continent(s)) waved goodbye to their good friend as I launched the space ship. On pangea it is much harder. However, I have still managed to have a friend or two in most games. Pretty much got to work diplomacy consistently the whole game to avoid universal hatred towards you.
 
Most people I've talked to about it don't like it either because they don't understand how to capitalize on it, or they ignore diplomacy/passively play with diplomacy.
Not to dismiss your lengthy analysis, but I wanted to focus on this.

I ignored the diplomacy system because the penalty for not engaging in it at all is less than the penalty for engaging in it at all.

That doesn't mean I didn't sell open borders ASAP and often, or likewise sold resources ASAP and often; I did. By not engaging in the name-calling declaration/denouncement system (aka the UN), most trade deals were kept at their maximum value by keeping most AIs neutral or slightly friendly.

Over time, some of these deals lose value, but not enough to make engaging in the system worthwhile. More importantly, there is no additional benefit to being friendly with the AIs, because they're inherently programmed to be stingy even with their best of friends.
 
I ignored the diplomacy system because the penalty for not engaging in it at all is less than the penalty for engaging in it at all.

I agree entirely with this assessment. A few times, I've played without proposing or accepting any declarations of friendship during the game. Although alliance blocks do not form, and I have slightly less control mid-game, I am denounced far less, and by end-game I am still often friendly with many of the AIs. Not declaring friends makes for a far friendlier game.
 
Not declaring friends makes for a far friendlier game.

Actually, I have come to wonder whether "declaration of friendship" might be just a test run for CivFacebook.
As you've said, staying out of this system makes you have a better game. Yet, you loose the feeling of having "friends" somewhere.

It feels like a system adressed to people who are feeling lonely if they cannot proudly check their list of "friends" and how it may have grown.
To me, this sounds very much like the Facebook principles: neglect and cover your own insignificance by adding people you don't know to your list of "friends".
 
As an experienced Civ player (Civ II, III, IV & V) I must say that the biggest disappointment in Civ V must be the AI: They're just all about backstabbing and no solid relations.
The denouncing system just angers me, because when the AI finally denounce you after 3000 years of friendship there is no way to repair that. Denouncing should be time limited, say 90 turns, and after that all negative effects should be erased or reduced. An other alternative would be to replace the denouncing system with a "Casus Belli" system similar to those in the paradox games of Europa Universalis and Victoria.
 
Like, but wish there was a 10-turn grace period on first contact with any civ, and wish you could negotiate terms for becoming "un-denounced".
 
Ugh, sometimes it's like a domino effect.

Ramkamhaeng - > Catherine - > Gandhi - > Askia - > War -> Game loss.

It could really use some tweaking. One denouncement could permanently harm relations with one civ.
 
I voted "Like it" because you can't take any of the diplo too seriously and I do get a kick out of denouncing my denouncer in my turn, too.

filli noctus above said, "Good idea, bad implementation," and that's true. Any number of early games, I've gotten a DoF and pretty soon after a denouncement and right on the heels a pile-on DoW. IMO you shouldn't see such extreme AI schizophrenia but I take it in course because I just assume that at higher difficulties all bets are off and these game mechanics are extremely situationally based, and I expand aggressively and that will tick the AI off.

So I just take the DoFs and denouncements FWIW--very little. What is good, though, are the hover-overs that tell you why the AI likes or dislikes you.
 
- some AIs are coded to be more likely to denounce/backstab you
- different AIs denounce for different reasons
- Peacemongers usually denounce warmongers and vice versa
- if going for a wargame, befriend warlike AIs (Oda, Genghis etc.) and vice versa
- Lizzy is going to hate you no matter what
- a CIV that denounced you can still become friendly after a while (normal trades)
- the larger your civ is the more likely it is to get denounced (or AIs guarded/hostile toward you); counterbalance to large empires and favors small empires.
- like always, there's a die roll involved in AI decisions so there's some randomness to it

Whatever playstyle you take, someone is not going to like you, immediately or eventually. You should already know who hates what and don't let these AIs befriend AIs you want cordial relations with (bribe war if need be).

World diplomacy won't "happen by itself", especially not in your favor. You have to play it and work on it.
 
- the larger your civ is the more likely it is to get denounced (or AIs guarded/hostile toward you); counterbalance to large empires and favors small empires.

What a bs feature. :lol:
"Oh, you always treated us nicely, but since you just crossed the magical border of having six cities, we have to hate you now!"

The core idea of a Civilization game always has been to build an EMPIRE.
Now they implemented elements which are punishing you for successfully playing the game. How childish has one to be to even develop such a nonsense idea?
 
What a bs feature. :lol:
"Oh, you always treated us nicely, but since you just crossed the magical border of having six cities, we have to hate you now!"

The core idea of a Civilization game always has been to build an EMPIRE.
Now they implemented elements which are punishing you for successfully playing the game. How childish has one to be to even develop such a nonsense idea?

it's the whole play to win thing.

me, I prefer role-play
 
No, i hate it. Every single turn, all civs denounce eachother for _ANY_ possible reason. I just don't care who "cant be trusted" because noone can.

You shouldnt be able to denounce anyone without a very good reason (like catching a spy red handed), but when other civs denounce me for not accepting a peace offer in a war that THEY started, it just makes me sad.

It has potential, but its crappy implemented as it is now. It simply needs to mean something. As of now, all the denounce messages is ignored, because it happens too often without a just cause.
 
What a bs feature. :lol:
"Oh, you always treated us nicely, but since you just crossed the magical border of having six cities, we have to hate you now!"

The core idea of a Civilization game always has been to build an EMPIRE.
Now they implemented elements which are punishing you for successfully playing the game. How childish has one to be to even develop such a nonsense idea?

They always have... otherwise there would be no wars in civ... and effectively, no game either!

I'm of the opinion that the implementation is not as good as the basic idea... more work needed, Fraxis!
 
Top Bottom