Cheesiest Diplo Victory Ever
- Thread starter smallfish
- Start date
aceflamingo23
Chieftain
wat. i don get it.
Flying Mathias
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 251
He and Wu voted for Japan, while everyone else voted for China, but He ended up winning by accident due to city states.
I thought that the Civs always voted for themselves, unless they're extremely small and weak.
Itstrucktwice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 33
It was changed in the expansion so that you can no longer vote for yourself.
Well, its not so much the end result as the means that I got there.
Basically...
1) Sold off all my cities to various civs for big lump sum. China was stingiest of them, but I still netted close to 3K from her.
2) Bought all of the CSes one ally at a time
3) Declare war on all of them after they gave me their goldstacks and bought off their CSes
4) CSes can still be bought off for 2K-3K, right before the UN Vote
5) This was something that was promised to be changed before expack release? The devs made a big deal out of "economic victory" being a problem, after all.
e: ok, title is not exactly accurate, but it is extremely cheesy! And it was supposed to be fixed!
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Civs can't vote for themselves in the expack.
um you deliberately did all that to win so that is not really a "win" in my book.
Yeah, but I recall them saying that there won't be no cheesy as hell economic victories (like this) possible? That goldstacks meant way less than before (yeah no - still good ole 2K can get you a CS ally right before the UN)?
"Earning a diplomatic victory is now more about being a good Global Partner to all the states, and less about amassing a lot of gold and spending it on them.
Sigh
They really need to nerf the amt of influence gold can net you, at the very least
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
As far as I know, the lowest I've seen is 15 influence from 250 gold (and I think I had the Patronage ability).
I am slightly disappointed in the Diplomatic Victory requirements, but let's admit, it's better than what it used to be.
I am slightly disappointed in the Diplomatic Victory requirements, but let's admit, it's better than what it used to be.
While improved, it wont deter people from complaining.
I'm quite happy with the improvements that were made.
An actual solution to the problem of spamming money gifts is making it so that you can only do one gift to a city state per turn and that the influence you get from gifting drops by 10% every time you do so. (And goes up by 1% every turn when you don't gift for one turn.)
Scenario created:
Turn 142, I gift 1000 to CS1, I gain 200 influence (100%). Can't gift more this turn.
Turn 143, I gift 1000 to CS2, I gain 180 influence (90%). Can't gift more this turn.
Turn 144, I gift 1000 to CS3, I gain 160 influence (80%). Can't gift more this turn.
Turn 145, Monty stages a coup in CS2, I lose them as ally. I gift 1000 to CS2, only gain 140 influence (60%). Can't gift more this turn.
Turn 146, I don't gift this turn, next time I gift influence gained is (61%).
In the end staging coups, performing quests and rigging elections will be far more preferable but still leave gifting money as an option. Do it too much however and you'll gain less and less influence with each turn and have to wait longer before gaining more influence.
It solves money spamming AND solves the issue with selling cities and becoming allies at the last second.
(But will this make the game more fun? That's important too.)
A simple solution is to have your relationships through time count for the city state vote rather than most recent ally. If city states voted for their favorite leader throughout history rather than the flavor of the day, then that nerfing woudln't be necessary, and it would make the entire diplo game more interesting because you'd be fostering relationships through your whole game.
Right?
Right?
So basically the city state should look at:
- Duration of friendships and alliances. (+)
- How many missions were completed. (+)
- How much influence was gained over the course of the game. (+)
- How many times and turns they went to war with you. (-)
- How many times you demanded tribute. (-)
Compile the scores for each civ and the one with the highest score gets the vote as long as they aren't currently at war.
That might be a lot better yes.
Thibaulthc
Prince
yes something like that whould be very good and more realistic.
Also add the average influence through the whole game, and since when they know you.
That way for a diplo victory you'd have to take care of'em all way long.
Also add the average influence through the whole game, and since when they know you.
That way for a diplo victory you'd have to take care of'em all way long.
Andulias
A Stranger on a Train
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 508
What they actually did say was that gold wouldn't have such a huge impact on CS relationships (which is true) and CSs will give out more and varied quests (which they do). Nobody ever said gold will be taken out of the equation.
I agree though, they could have done a lot more with CSs. There is still room for improvement. I always imagined before Civ V was released that CSs would actually act as minor civs, not static quest givers and money grubbers, something more in the vain of GalCiv 2, exactly what Zaimejs proposed.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
The point is that gold was the only viable way to get a diplomatic victory previously. They decided to promote an alternative rather than completely remove gold as an option. It seems good because it prevents all but the cheesiest attempt to circumvent this. Unfortunately, that's what this case is. You can always not do this if it bothers you.
That being said, my view is that the City-State's vote should be a formula taking into account current ally, length of alliance, and who they've been friendly with the longest. It'll convert into a percentage chance with each civ rather than a set civ.
That being said, my view is that the City-State's vote should be a formula taking into account current ally, length of alliance, and who they've been friendly with the longest. It'll convert into a percentage chance with each civ rather than a set civ.
I'm not sure how your victory here actually goes against this statement. I mean, yes, you can, under certain circumstances, still buy your way to victory. But the strength of gold has been diminished, and you could equally quest your way to victory. And other relationships are more important now too. 'Less about amassing a lot of gold' does not mean that amassing a lot of gold will never be a viable strategy. It means you need a lot more gold (you said you needed to spend 2-3k on each CS) in order to cheesily win in the end.
The problem is in being able to sell your cities for such a large amount of money, not in gold buying too much influence.
It should be noted that cheesy domination victory is still possible, too.
Atwork
Immortal
I like this.
I was also a fan of the diplomacy mod. Hopefully it'll be back online soon. Did away with the pay-to-play system entirely.
Similar threads
