"Diplomatic Victories" just don't quite sit right do they?

I've never quite gotten why they included the Diplomatic victory in the form it is now. I guess it was a way of justifying the importance of the City States, however the effect they have the on the game is important even before this victory condition is taken into account. The bonuses they give and the political effect that they give is a useful game mechanic which [with patches] has been a good replacement to the old; "You're not worshipping the same God! As such here's my stack of doom!" Politics that existed in Civ IV. Overall, with the patches the game is now a fairly good game, but the diplomatic victory does spoil it a bit, as it is a very unsatisfying way to end a game you've been playing for the best part of 8-12 hours which for some people may constitute many days of their free time. The question then becomes, how can they fix this, as simply complaining isn't really helping anyone.

Here's my take on the issue:

- Diplomatic Victories are based on getting enough votes
- No civilization is going to vote for eachother in most circumstances
- City states are worth the same as a full blown civ
- You can get City States favour and hence votes with cash
- The UN has one single resolution: Diplomatic Victory

So, if we ignore the NWO connotation with this UN it doesn't take a genius to see what this means for the Victory condition. When the UN is built, just pay off all the city states you can at once and as such VICTORY!!! This reduces what has been in previous games one of the harder ways to win to simply an "Economic Victory" as some others have pointed out. This creates the situation where you could have simply been trashing about as a war monger for the first 5800 years of the game and then suddenly pay off 10-12 city states for insta-victory. What's worse is that there is normally at least one AI with enough gold to make Scrooge McDuck jealous who may use this to then win the game with this method, essentially forcing you to do so if you don't want to lose suddenly due to them using this 'Win-Button'. Maybe I'm over simplifying the problem, but in the vast majority of games I've played either I have or the AI have won by "Diplomatic Victory". What is worse is that not one of these was from having control and diplomatic subtlety, but rather just feeding gold into the City States "Insert to win" slots.

Well, how can this be fixed then?

There are two options, one of which I read on this forum previously and if I recall properly he made a mod around the idea. Actually, this it is. I've never played it so I can't recommend it, but I must applaude the work and the ideas that went into it. I could spend time describing it, but as I said, I have not played it and it would be better to read it from the creators point of view.

The second option is one that I have thought of today, and is in all honestly half baked. However, it is an idea none the less and without an original idea in here I may as well have not posted anything or added a bit [WHINGE!] tag at the top. In any case the idea is based on the following ideas:

- The UN should be more than just a win button
- City States are too important in this victory condition and as such bribing them is too easy
- Diplomatic Victory should have something to do with other civilizations

So the basic idea that I thought of was again weighting the votes to the population of the Empire. Then having it that you need 70% or whatever you want to actually win. On top of that as other posters have requested the UN could again have more resolutions than just our good friend "Corruption Victory" button. This of course means there needs to be a UN leader vote every once and a while. Ironically though I'd feel that having this bribary and corruption stay in this victory would actually be in interesting mechanic, just not with the city states. How you may ask? By allowing the civs to trade their votes. That is, that you can actually bribe eachother for their votes for the upcoming vote. This means that the next vote could be decided, then a number of turns later the vote would occur, this giving you time to "dicuss" with the other civs and as such how they value their votes could be weighted accordingly. As the AI is more favourable to trading when friendly than angry, this would be able to act like pretty much everything else in terms of trading. Of course Civs could actually vote for you because you're friends, but as this is a game about winning maybe this could work a bit better. On top of that City States can stay as they are and their importance in these matters would still exist, just to a lesser extend. As they are generally very large cities though this would be some advantage. The vote could also be weighted by more than just population as well, maybe a Civ/ City State value, then population of secondary importance. I don't know, I have run over the numbers yet.

So a basic outline:

- The UN has more than just the "winrar!!1!!" resolution
- City States stay as they are
- Votes weighten is some way to do with Civ/City State size
- Votes can be traded between the Civs
- Civs may Vote for eachother if they are really good friends without needing to be "bribed"
- Vote value depends on the particular resolution
- As with all trading, the AI would be more willing to trade for their vote if they were your friend

This would hopefully mean that Diplomatic Victory would actually be more worthwhile than just the "pay off the city state Victory" that it is now. Previous diplomatic actions would actually mean something in it and yet it would still be able to be won through corruption, but you'd probably at least need some friends still.

Also, if that's too long, just read the dots points. That's if you made it this far.

with ai in current state it has to mix play to win with sandbox and in doing that must consider against voting human. Diplo win right now makes more since than before because it is not a faction competing to win that votes winner. diplo is a good way out when u have to go against tough opponent just sell gold/turn for lump sum and buy all city states last moment hahaaha works pretty well and satisfying imo

the diplo and cultural victories are just dumb and boring. that's why 5.45% of people list that as the most upsetting thing in civ5 according to my poll.

Jim Bro said:

the diplo and cultural victories are just dumb and boring. that's why 5.45% of people list that as the most upsetting thing in civ5 according to my poll.

Click to expand...

5.45% small percent lol diplo culture fun they equalize ai and let human win against ai cheats and bonus

Usually, I disable Diplo victories so I don't lose when I'm close to victory or don't succumb to the easy way out.

Save_Ferris said:

Usually, I disable Diplo victories so I don't lose when I'm close to victory or don't succumb to the easy way out.

Click to expand...

easy way out no diplo victory takes skill, survival tactic and outsmart ai

TheMeInTeam said:

easy way out no diplo victory takes skill, survival tactic and outsmart ai

Click to expand...

I always found them to be silly, pointless, not diplomatic and the easiest of all the victories. Cultural victories take patience and skill, Diplomatic are just "bribe the City states the day before the vote". Sell cities, resources or really just anything, get it the coin and feed it to the city states for insta-win.

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with either my or the other Gazebo's ideas?

Menzies said:

I always found them to be silly, pointless, not diplomatic and the easiest of all the victories. Cultural victories take patience and skill, Diplomatic are just "bribe the City states the day before the vote". Sell cities, resources or really just anything, get it the coin and feed it to the city states for insta-win.

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with either my or the other Gazebo's ideas?

Click to expand...

Bribe ai for vote similar to bribe city state for vote. diplo victory is fine as is IMO equalizes cheap ai by outsmarting them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TheMeInTeam said:

Bribe ai for vote similar to bribe city state for vote. diplo victory is fine as is IMO equalizes cheap ai by outsmarting them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

First of all, it would require more tact than that because it isn't a fixed price. So it isn't all that similar. What about the other idea, did you even read them both?

Are you saying that it's too hard to win? I never have a problem with "cheating AI". They are given bonuses on difficulty levels harder than Prince, but really...

Menzies said:

First of all, it would require more tact than that because it isn't a fixed price. So it isn't all that similar. What about the other idea, did you even read them both?

Are you saying that it's too hard to win? I never have a problem with "cheating AI". They are given bonuses on difficulty levels harder than Prince, but really...

Click to expand...

No wins are pretty easy but ai is cheap and its fun to be cheap back. Mod looks interesting but maybe a bit big for main game

I just had an emperor game where the Songhai needed 10 votes to win diplomatically. He had 8 city state votes (and he had also built the UN for the last 2 "self" votes) and the countdown was beginning. The game win would either be my space race victory or the Songhai diplomatic victory. (I was randomly Spain)

What followed was a very exciting buying war with his CSs, where I waited to buy off critical key ones and timed it to keep the votes from getting there. 10 turns later the vote happened and he had 9, so I had barely kept him from winning. The next 10 turns I found that he upped the buying war and started buying some of my CSs, so I knew he may pull off the win unless something drastic happened. Luckily, I had just completed the Manhattan Project and had a nuke cooking, hehe. So I bought off two CSs on his continent and got England to go to war with him. Well, he bought two CSs on MY continent, so the trade was even. He still had his 8, and we were at war. My nuke finished building literally 1 turn before the vote would come. I instantly nuked one of his CSs right next to me and invaded and conquered it the same turn. Vote came, and he was 1 vote short of winning!

Anyway, this continued, and i finally brought him down to 7 votes, and finished my spaceship and won. It was quite exciting.

Now, I have never gone for a diplomatic victory myself, so I don't know if that will be fun or not. But keeping the AI from getting the victory was quite fun.

I must admit to taking a DV in about roughly half of my wins. Usually it is because I know I can win in a number of different win conditions and I feel like the game is just about finished so why not just get if over with sooner? So, yes I have a problem with the way it works now but I'm not sure I'd go with your suggestion, and the mod looks like dangerous ground.

The changes that I think should be made are due to these points -

- As it stands DV is imbalanced compared to the other conditions, particularly in relation to a science victory. There is no possible situation (I'd hazard to say with some confidence), if your goal is to win the game in as few turns as possible, where it would make sense to go for a science victory over a DV. Less techs, less hammers. So I think this should be balanced more with a science victory and DV should require a larger investment in science and/or hammers to get the UN built.

- Your relations with other civs do not matter at all in the current system. The heart of a DV should be that you have managed to arrange a state of affairs where you have excellent, friendly diplomatic relations with at least a majority of the other civs in the game . That you can currently be involved in a nuclear armageddon with all other civs on the map at the time when you win a DV seems absurd to me and is against the spirit of what this win condition is meant to be all about. So the next observation is that friendly relations with other civs should be one of the necessary ingredients to a DV.

I don't have the perfect answer of a system that meets these requirements and would work without majorly altering the game mechanics. One idea that I would like to see discussed more is the two party system where two civs are nominated for UN vote and if a civ is in 'friendly' status with a nominee then they get their vote. CS votes would still come into the equation but it could be weighted so that other civ votes are crucial. Another possibility could be that building the UN doesn't get you automatically nominated for the vote, the two civs with the best overall relations with the other civs are nominated.

Regardless of whether that idea would work, I think getting deep into the game with a decent tech rate and economy while juggling actually trying to be genuinely friendly with a majority of the other civs is what the DV should be about. But I'm unsure how this should be done.

snarzberry said:

I must admit to taking a DV in about roughly half of my wins. Usually it is because I know I can win in a number of different win conditions and I feel like the game is just about finished so why not just get if over with sooner? So, yes I have a problem with the way it works now but I'm not sure I'd go with your suggestion, and the mod looks like dangerous ground.

The changes that I think should be made are due to these points -

- As it stands DV is imbalanced compared to the other conditions, particularly in relation to a science victory. There is no possible situation (I'd hazard to say with some confidence), if your goal is to win the game in as few turns as possible, where it would make sense to go for a science victory over a DV. Less techs, less hammers. So I think this should be balanced more with a science victory and DV should require a larger investment in science and/or hammers to get the UN built.

- Your relations with other civs do not matter at all in the current system. The heart of a DV should be that you have managed to arrange a state of affairs where you have excellent, friendly diplomatic relations with at least a majority of the other civs in the game . That you can currently be involved in a nuclear armageddon with all other civs on the map at the time when you win a DV seems absurd to me and is against the spirit of what this win condition is meant to be all about. So the next observation is that friendly relations with other civs should be one of the necessary ingredients to a DV.

I don't have the perfect answer of a system that meets these requirements and would work without majorly altering the game mechanics. One idea that I would like to see discussed more is the two party system where two civs are nominated for UN vote and if a civ is in 'friendly' status with a nominee then they get their vote. CS votes would still come into the equation but it could be weighted so that other civ votes are crucial. Another possibility could be that building the UN doesn't get you automatically nominated for the vote, the two civs with the best overall relations with the other civs are nominated.

Regardless of whether that idea would work, I think getting deep into the game with a decent tech rate and economy while juggling actually trying to be genuinely friendly with a majority of the other civs is what the DV should be about. But I'm unsure how this should be done.

Click to expand...

Well, the aim of the system I suggested was to keep some of the flavour of what currently happens whilst bring other civs into the equation. The balencing act of getting civs onside would definitely require them to not be guarded or fear you as can be demonstrated by asking a guarded civ how much they want for an excess luxury resource.

The point about population weighting is the part that I have the most trouble with. In terms of the system though, let's take an example. There are 5 civs on the planet: Let's say, Spain, Denmark, Russia, China and the Yanks. On top of that we have some 10 city states. Spain, Denmark and Russia have formed a bit of a bloc whilst China is on their own, but not hated and the Yanks are a warmongering menace to the world. The biggest of them is definitely the Yanks, but Spain have a working relationship with the other 3 civs, especially the much smaller Russia. Let's give them all some random "vote numbers" sum with up:

(S) Spain - 50
(D) Denmark - 60
(R) Russia - 25
(C) China - 50
(Y) Yanks - 80
(CS) City States - 10 each

Yes, that does have Russia as just above the City states. From let's say someone needs 70% of the votes where anyone can vote for anyone and CS only vote for Allies. Spain has 3 CS on their side, whilst the Yanks have 5 and China have 2.

If Spain were to trade some either lump sum of gold, resources or anything else for Denmark's vote, a moderate amount, but not too much as they are friendly. Russia, a much closer ally agrees to do so free of charge. China, takes a lot more effort, but not too much. That equates to 185 votes with an extra 50 from the 3 CS giving them a total of 215. There are a total of 365 votes and as such one needs some 256 for victory. Here Spain could from here spend a moderate to low amount (comparitively) getting another 5 CS on side to win by Diplomatic victory.

From the Yanks point of view they need to somehow get 256 votes to win. If they got all 100 CS onside they'd have a whole 180 votes, still well below the needed 256. From here the guarded China may be an option, but even then they'd only get around 230, still short. The other states hate the Yanks to much to deal with them, let alone letting them get bought out for the victory. China definitely cost a lot of coin/ resources, more than bribing all the CSs at least.

This is based on a game I played once, where I am was the Yanks. I was ahead of the pack, but not far enough that they couldn't stop me. I basically had blood dripping from my teeth though as I was the one who mauled Russia. China was off the main continent, but the rest of them hated me. I bought the CS favour (can't remember how many there actually were or how many I bought out) and one the Diplomatic Victory despite have the World against me.

That example has some kinks to get out, but it does do a number of things:

- Prevents captain Warmonger from winning diplomatically
- Lessens the effect of Bribing the CSs
- Gives the AI something new to play with. These votes would give the late game diplomacy an interesting new twist, especially for the UN resolutions (which was part of the original idea)


It makes Diplomatic Victory exactly that, diplomatic. Yes, there is still dealing going on, but the deals can now be more and more complicated than giving away large lump sums of gold as well as giving the politics of the planet a foothole in the diplomatic victory!

It would need some refinement, but it definitely could do the trick. Certainly better than the current system.

Some great ideas guys. +1 for city state diplomacy mod too!

I wonder if they are likely to change things like without an expansion pack...

I can picture it now, Civilization V: New World Order

Menzies said:

I wonder if they are likely to change things like without an expansion pack...

I can picture it now, Civilization V: New World Order

Click to expand...

some debate exists over whether there will be expo pack vs more dlc. if un is expanded i hope its not like civ iv un where ai picked resolutions at random and didn't consider their own position!

probably what youre looking for is better suited to mods which can be great.

TheMeInTeam said:

some debate exists over whether there will be expo pack vs more dlc. if un is expanded i hope its not like civ iv un where ai picked resolutions at random and didn't consider their own position!

probably what youre looking for is better suited to mods which can be great.

Click to expand...

No, I'm definitely looking for them to fix a huge issue in the base game. Hopefully their fix it somehow.

Menzies said:

No, I'm definitely looking for them to fix a huge issue in the base game. Hopefully their fix it somehow.

Click to expand...

yes i agree they should fix huge issues in base game but dont forget history such as what they did with apostolic palace or vassal state in civ IV which were autowin and skeleton code respectively. firaxis angers me in that they release dlc before fixing the game or patching major issues but they have done this pattern for many years now.

Maybe an expansion with this kind of fix would be good after all. Also, vassals weren't all bad.

I find that the current diplo victory should be named economic victory, and a completely new diplo victory should be made.