Denouncing: Like -or- Don't Like

Do you like the Denouncement system?


  • Total voters
    371
In Civ 4, Germany would have taken over Europe because England and Germany both had Hinduism as religion,(...).

I never have any problems keeping friends through the whole game and dictating world diplomacy. Sounds to me that what people really want is a dumbed down system.

So it is fine that the broken Civ5 diplomacy allows you to "dictate".
But in Civ4 religion would dictate (which, btw, isn't true) and that's not good?

Strange. :rolleyes:
 
If you are denounced by your friends, then you clearly need to learn how diplomacy works. The system works quite well, I think.

How can you learn where not to settle, where not to put your troops, which city states not to ally with, etc, when there is no information in game to help your decisions? Get one or two of those 'decisons' wrong and the AI eagerly grabs an opportunity to denounce its friend.
 
How can you learn where not to settle, where not to put your troops, which city states not to ally with, etc, when there is no information in game to help your decisions? Get one or two of those 'decisons' wrong and the AI eagerly grabs an opportunity to denounce its friend.

exactly diplo is borken in this game, you cant build true alliances.
 
Doesn't really matter that much since gameplay concepts have already been tilted towards Total War activities - i know the AIs clearly aim to defeat everything on their path. What the "Denouncing" factors create is a way for the Human Player to actually get a formal hint on why this & that occurs during the natural flow of events.
Somethin' like your fate is already sealed by whatever actions you *AND* everyone else does.

I'd agree that it's somehow wrongfully implemented though - and possibly couldn't be altered enough to actually make sense - but that has more to do with the fact that true Intelligence is always a variable shade of Reasons & Emotions. And as far as Algorithmic coding is concerned, binary principles are freakishly cold and dandy with a touch of irrational randomness thrown in for good measure.

To mimic the infinitely complex human brain is no small feat - indeed. Our own reactions to specific situations included.
 
radiohodet said:
In Civ 4, Germany would have taken over Europe because England and Germany both had Hinduism as religion,(...).

I never have any problems keeping friends through the whole game and dictating world diplomacy. Sounds to me that what people really want is a dumbed down system.
Yeah, why don't you upload a savegame from, lets say, AD 1000 and show us your diplomatic success,...
 
One problem is that I don't see a way to "undo" some diplomatic actions. So, for example, in my game, I was friendly with my few friends. But then England started getting on my other friend's nerves. But I already had a pact of friendship with them. So I go ahead and pre-emptively denounce them (since otherwise my other friends will get the "our friend found reason to denounce you" with me). So what happens? I get 2 negatives - "You have denounced our friend" (okay, fine), and "You have found a reason to denounce your friend" (wtf?)

If I could have "unfriended" Liz, or even waited a few more turns for our "pact of friendship" to expire, then I would have had an opportunity to stir up some more global resentment. As it is now, since our 5-civ "Alliance" started to break down, everyone hates everyone in the alliance since there's so many "friends denouncing friends" penalties all around. We really need on every denouncement each other civ to "pick sides" so that you can maintain a small block within the bigger block, if necessary.
 
The way the diplomacy system is implemented, there's an inevitable downward spiral towards total world-wide free-for-all war. There is only one (!) way to gain a positive relation, and that is to declare friendship - but you can't do so if you don't already have a positive relation. This means that once you have an enemy, they're an enemy forever.

Look at the global politics tab of the diplomacy overview in any late-stage game. It's pure red. Everyone hates everyone else. It's not just everyone hates the player. No. Everyone hates everyone.

Several things are needed.

(a) Players (and AIs) need to be able to mend their ways, and be rewarded for doing so. I'm settling cities too aggressively? Ok, I'll stop settling cities. But I want to know that in 50 or 100 turns, if I don't settle any more cities, my diplomacy penalty goes away. Currently it doesn't.

(b) Denouncements need to be retractible. Again, look at global politics. Everyone has denounced everyone. Arguably, friendships need to be retractable as well, so that there'll be fewer "backstabbed" in the global politics, and less of the "your friend found reason to denounce you" crap.

(c) There need to be other ways to gain positive relations with other civilizations. There's one that I think would be simple and effective (stolen from city-state diplomacy). If player A and player B are both at war with player C, then any time player A kills a unit of player C, player B likes player A little bit more.

Also, other posts above mention reactions to denouncements - when A denounces B, C has the option of agreeing with A, ignoring A's denouncement, or politically defending B. However, I don't know if this would be too disruptive to game flow. Maybe the icon on the right side of the screen that announces the denouncement could have a click-menu to it, where by default you ignore the denouncement?
 
There's nothing like the "damned if you do or damned if you don't" scenario. A one-city civ about to be wiped out asks you to denounce his attacker. If you do, he gets wiped out and now you have a problem. If you don't he denounces you, starting a string, and gets wiped out anyways. So very kindergarten.
 
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.

How do I use denouncing to my advantage if I want to play peacefully? Anyone have any tips on that, or is "take a wild guess at who will get angry at you fist and denounce them and hope they're too scared to DoW on you" the best one can do?
 
I don't think you can really do that. I am sick right now, so i took the time and tried everything to prevent the denounce fest. I didn't settle near anyone, kept my troopers of the borders and didn't even attack one city state. This worked fine for some time. There was group of 4 nations that worked together, we're were all befriended until at some time one guy started the backstabbing and denounces you. After that you can just try to contain the damage but in the end it will always be same: Everyone hates everybody. When you start hopping from one war declaration to the next just to keep your good relations up you know it's to late. ;)

The most annoying thing really is that in the end there is no one left to trade with.

Funny fact: At some point people might become friendly again, but that just means that they are going to declare war on you 10 rounds later. First I hoped the denouncement wore off, but war comes every time (Yes, I spent the last three days playing civ...)

For now I decided to stop playing until there is a patch. The last half of the game is just always the same. :(
 
yeah need an option to desolve a declaration of friendship nicely. like a - its time our civs went their separate ways option. then you could decide to agree and disolve friendship nicely or denounce

and you need to be able to pick sides when your multi civ alliance falls apart cause one idiot starts denouncing

and if you wipe out a civ you should get a bonus from their enemies like - you saved the world from that menance ghandi
 
I have to say i don't like it, it feels like a tacked-on afterthought with regard to the diplomacy design, to me at least, personally i feel the problem stems from the "trying to win" attitude of the AI, it's immersion destroying.

Yeah I was thinking about that too, the fact that the AI is "Trying to Win a Game" is lame for me. Some games I can just feel the algorithm kicking in and I just think "God this is tacky." It's not any more difficult or nerve-racking when the "AI plays to win" algorithm kicks in, it's just obvious and transparent to the actual person who is playing the game.

Another problem I have is that they originally programmed the AI to have the "Appearance of Trying to Win a Game" where they wouldn't let the AI buy out the City States or build sshuttle to win. That's the part that feels tacked on to me "Guys, the AI could win virtually all these games at high level by buying diplo or building shuttle." "Oh gee, I guess we better deactivate that so they won't actually win."
 
That's the part that feels tacked on to me "Guys, the AI could win virtually all these games at high level by buying diplo or building shuttle." "Oh gee, I guess we better deactivate that so they won't actually win."

That's a good point.

Actually, on higher levels the AI should *always* win the bribery (aka: diplomacy) victory, just due to their many bonuses and advantages. But this would actually require them being programmed to win.

And the AI is clearly not programmed for this goal. It is programmed to be an obstacle in the human player's way. Nothing more, nothing less.

And that's the worst you can say about a design decision.
 
That's a good point.

Actually, on higher levels the AI should *always* win the bribery (aka: diplomacy) victory, just due to their many bonuses and advantages. But this would actually require them being programmed to win.

And the AI is clearly not programmed for this goal. It is programmed to be an obstacle in the human player's way. Nothing more, nothing less.

And that's the worst you can say about a design decision.

dead on the crap ai has ruined this game.
 
Funny fact: At some point people might become friendly again, but that just means that they are going to declare war on you 10 rounds later. First I hoped the denouncement wore off, but war comes every time (Yes, I spent the last three days playing civ...) :(

I noticed this happen as well. Rome was hostile all game due to several wars (that he started) led t omy owning half his empire. But then all of a sudden I see he is Friendly. I'm thinking 'wtf?' Then as you say he switches back to hostile and makes a DOW about 10 turns later. I suppose the purpose is to allow you to get cash for got or lux/t and abuse him? i don't really know, though. Like most of the diplomacy, it just doesn't make sense... and if you try to make sense of it you will only give yourself a headache. :lol:

That's a good point.

Actually, on higher levels the AI should *always* win the bribery (aka: diplomacy) victory, just due to their many bonuses and advantages. But this would actually require them being programmed to win.

And the AI is clearly not programmed for this goal. It is programmed to be an obstacle in the human player's way. Nothing more, nothing less.

And that's the worst you can say about a design decision.

In my most recent game (same as the one described above, actually), Siam had bought 20 CS's. My only chance was to eliminate enough votes to make diplo VC imposible. So Siam helps me out by declaring war (thus all the CS's declare war) on me, enabling me to wipe out CS's. (I needed to wipe 10, only had time to wipe 9 before Siam finally decided to build the UN).

So if you suck as bad as I do, the AI will eventually try and win. But they'll try to make you think you still have a chance; they won't actually win until it looks like you might.

Agree the AI is just an obstacle. But I would suggest that is the same in Civ4, too. The difference is that in Civ5 its about as intelligent as Pacman.
 
I have played a few games now but abstained on this poll because I'm not sure how I feel about denouncing yet. When I first saw it I thought "great!" - it looked intriguing and it felt right that the AI should have a way of being angry without actually declaring war. I still think it's a good idea, although it probably needs refinement and I agree with other posters who would like something a little more complex and subtle.

I play peacefully and have so far not been dog-piled, although I have been denounced several times, so it seems likely to me that going to war - even at the invitation of the AI - is the area that is causing the most dissatisfaction.

I do wish there was more information on diplomatic relations generally in the game - and I also wish that the information that is provided could be displayed in a way that makes sense and is easy to take in. Have to say that CivIV - and especially with the Hall of Fame mod - was really very, very good at that.
 
Denouncement is fine in the sense that it give the player an excellent opportunity to take advantage of a polarization in international relations.

There are some downsides to it though. First, the way it is implemented is just too overdone. I've played games where I met a leader on turn 7 and on turn 8 he denounced me and from there it just becomes a downward spiral. Second, denouncement as it is implemented leaves no room for rehabilitation. So the player feels isolated and danged if you do or if you don't. So if the player has been accused unjustly then they might as well go ahead and do the dirty deed. If they say that I am bad, I am going to be very bad even to the extent of giving new meaning to the word.
 
All this denouncing thwart my attempts at peaceful games.
It makes late-game trade very difficult if not impossible.
When some angry civ DoW's and asks for a million goldpieces and all your lux 10 turns later, you're attempt at winning peacefully ends right there.
Deny the ridiculous request and you're screwed.
Accept, and you're screwed.
So i voted no.
 
Top Bottom