Civ Vi Diplomacy and war penalties

[LordByron]

More things i have noticed...

-Alliances are a necessity...without those points, everybody will hate you for ridiculous minor reasons (thing i didn't know), with that instead you can almost decide who goes against whom
-Civ will refuse your requests of friendship just to ask it themselves during their turn almost Always
-Peace negotiations are totally messed up... if you give back cities, enemy civs will demand compensation.... if they offer you 6 piece of arts and you refuse one, they will ask all your moneys for an equal deal....
-after a peace treat you can sneak in some good trades or an embassy because the civ realizes he is actually angry at you.
-if you burn a city your relationships are doomed forever.
-Warmongering is generally a bad idea for a lot of reasons: in CIV BE attacking someone would enrage his allies but please his enemies... that would open up lot of diplomatic gamestyles....
Being universally hated for any attack despite the reason (except casus belli that are clunky and not versatile enough) doesn t work at all... makes your allies hate you because you accept their request of a joint war and silly stuff like that.
-Joint war is broken....has no purpose in game if it gives huge penalties.
-What s the point in alliances if you can joint war in more than 2?
-"remove troops" points are broken... i didn t ask for open borders with a civ in order to be blamed for troop transit, also if i free your city my troops shouldn t be moved outside for at least a couple of turns.



Also the AI that wants to screw your game at all costs building all his city near you even when there is almost no resources is something intended....even if its just an annoying workaround....if it was a boardgame i would call it KingMaking..

 

[nzcamel]

Lots of people I suspect just want it to be a wargame so cannot be bothered with dip.

The irony when that is sat next to the other complaints that warmongering in VI is too optimal! Which it may be....
That Civ is not primarily a war game was one of the original big draw-cards for me.

-Civ will refuse your requests of friendship just to ask it themselves during their turn almost Always

When they reject you, just to ask themselves a turn later I think that is because the first time around you genuinely weren't across the threshold. It does fluctuate up and down a bit.

-after a peace treat you can sneak in some good trades or an embassy because the civ realizes he is actually angry at you.

This does need correcting.

-if you burn a city your relationships are doomed forever.

Especially frustrating when it is an extreme forward settle. Other than that though...genocide should result in a very long term enmity.

-Warmongering is generally a bad idea for a lot of reasons: in CIV BE attacking someone would enrage his allies but please his enemies... that would open up lot of diplomatic gamestyles....
Being universally hated for any attack despite the reason (except casus belli that are clunky and not versatile enough) doesn t work at all... makes your allies hate you because you accept their request of a joint war and silly stuff like that.

See what @Victoria said...more players than less probably complain that war mongering is too overpowered as it stands. I think they may have a point...? But it's a fine balance.
I like the sound of BE diplomacy; but they didn't stay with it for a reason, which I'd like to know more about.

-Joint war is broken....has no purpose in game if it gives huge penalties.
-What s the point in alliances if you can joint war in more than 2?

Joint wars give a lower penalty than surprise wars; and you don't even need to denounce anyone.

-"remove troops" points are broken... i didn t ask for open borders with a civ in order to be blamed for troop transit, also if i free your city my troops shouldn t be moved outside for at least a couple of turns.

Yeah; these complaints are very fair.

Also the AI that wants to screw your game at all costs building all his city near you even when there is almost no resources is something intended....even if its just an annoying workaround....if it was a boardgame i would call it KingMaking..

The extreme forward settling probably needs to change. I don't see how it helps the AI if their city is rubbish and has a huge target on it...

 

[agonistes]

Lets see what the record is for turns withoul war.

 

[Leyrann]

More things i have noticed...

-Alliances are a necessity...without those points, everybody will hate you for ridiculous minor reasons (thing i didn't know), with that instead you can almost decide who goes against whom
-Civ will refuse your requests of friendship just to ask it themselves during their turn almost Always
-Peace negotiations are totally messed up... if you give back cities, enemy civs will demand compensation.... if they offer you 6 piece of arts and you refuse one, they will ask all your moneys for an equal deal....
-after a peace treat you can sneak in some good trades or an embassy because the civ realizes he is actually angry at you.
-if you burn a city your relationships are doomed forever.
-Warmongering is generally a bad idea for a lot of reasons: in CIV BE attacking someone would enrage his allies but please his enemies... that would open up lot of diplomatic gamestyles....
Being universally hated for any attack despite the reason (except casus belli that are clunky and not versatile enough) doesn t work at all... makes your allies hate you because you accept their request of a joint war and silly stuff like that.
-Joint war is broken....has no purpose in game if it gives huge penalties.
-What s the point in alliances if you can joint war in more than 2?
-"remove troops" points are broken... i didn t ask for open borders with a civ in order to be blamed for troop transit, also if i free your city my troops shouldn t be moved outside for at least a couple of turns.



Also the AI that wants to screw your game at all costs building all his city near you even when there is almost no resources is something intended....even if its just an annoying workaround....if it was a boardgame i would call it KingMaking..

Are you sure you're playing the same game as me? Over half of your points I don't recognize at all, and for most of the others (like burning a city down) I'm like "duh, working as intended".

 

[LordByron]

Are you sure you're playing the same game as me? Over half of your points I don't recognize at all, and for most of the others (like burning a city down) I'm like "duh, working as intended".

Anything else are either known bugs or poorly tested mechanics.

And to answer the accusation of people wanting to play a wargame... i usually keep my army at minimum and focus on science... I never go to war unless forced....and i mostly go to war twice per game (epic duration), dceclaring usually just one at most.....WAY LESS than other civs.

If it seems logic to you that if a friend civ builds a lvl 1 city near your capital early game just to betray you attacking by surprise and then if you burn it you have to pay for the Whole game we have different way of thinking how a civilization game should be.


I still think that Civ BE diplomacy is way better than civ VI (unfortunately the game is not and the expansion killed it completely ).

 

[Leyrann]

Anything else are either known bugs or poorly tested mechanics.

And to answer the accusation of people wanting to play a wargame... i usually keep my army at minimum and focus on science... I never go to war unless forced....and i mostly go to war twice per game (epic duration), dceclaring usually just one at most.....WAY LESS than other civs.

If it seems logic to you that if a friend civ builds a lvl 1 city near your capital early game just to betray you attacking by surprise and then if you burn it you have to pay for the Whole game we have different way of thinking how a civilization game should be.


I still think that Civ BE diplomacy is way better than civ VI (unfortunately the game is not and the expansion killed it completely ).

I don't see what you mean with "anytihng else are either known bugs or poorly tested mechanics".

As for razing a city... How would you react if an AI came in and razed your city, no matter how provocatively you built it? You'd be mad and the only reason you'd ever sign a peace treaty would be because of war weariness.

 

[nzcamel]

no matter how provocatively you built it?

I think there does need to be a mitigating factor here...even if just a mild one for game plays sake.
But then, in the real world most empires didn't establish most of their cities - they conquered existing settlements for the most part.

 

[Victoria]

-Alliances are a necessity...without those points, everybody will hate you for ridiculous minor reasons
In fact without agendas, once the initial impression is gone the only modifier left is your diplomat at +3 so without agendas they would be neutral-positive. Set a trade route to get to +5... open borders to +8... then wait a few turns and depending on the random decision they make depends on if they offer. I can offer as well and sometimes they take it but you must be +8 or higher for that.., they must show as friendly. It is still a random decision. So agendas are the key... and your actions.

-Civ will refuse your requests of friendship just to ask it themselves during their turn almost Always
refer back to your 1st point... if you ask every turn you will have the same odds as them I imagine.

-Peace negotiations are totally messed up... if you give back cities, enemy civs will demand compensation.... if they offer you 6 piece of arts and you refuse one, they will ask all your moneys for an equal deal....
Some things may seem weird in a peace deal but I find there is something I like. You are complaining about the taste of the ice cream? I disagree about the compensation for cities... no idea where you see this

-after a peace treat you can sneak in some good trades or an embassy because the civ realizes he is actually angry at you.
is that a mis type?... the first turn after peace you can always get an embassy and thats the way it should be.

-if you burn a city your relationships are doomed forever.
Yup... -20... I'll remember you nasty mother f.... I have no issue with this.

-Warmongering is generally a bad idea for a lot of reasons: in CIV BE attacking someone would enrage his allies but please his enemies... that would open up lot of diplomatic gamestyles...Being universally hated for any attack despite the reason (except casus belli that are clunky and not versatile enough) doesn t work at all... makes your allies hate you because you accept their request of a joint war and silly stuff like that.
I completely disagree. I was fighting a modern war with allies last night just fine... the key is not to be too successful as your warmongering points decline during the war .. taking too many cities too fast ups them... If you used the right Casus then the cost of those cities is not high. Your WM points are limited with others that hate the civ
. You are not universally hated... you get denunciations by your allies... it does not mean they hate you. Please be accurate.

-Joint war is broken....has no purpose in game if it gives huge penalties.
WTF?.... I LOVE joint wars. I get no warmonger points with my joint companion... I get a standard war not a surprise war but it is a surprise... and my joint friend now thinks +5 of me... what is to not like? Sure in the modern era a casus may be better, 5 turn delay, your call.

-What s the point in alliances if you can joint war in more than 2?
An alliance gives you +9 for declared friends and +18 for alliance that is +27 which counteracts a LOT of warmonger points that reduce fast. Alliances have many other benefits including seeing each others maps and troops visibility.

-"remove troops" points are broken... i didn t ask for open borders with a civ in order to be blamed for troop transit, also if i free your city my troops shouldn t be moved outside for at least a couple of turns.
Agreed both are crap... however you can move your troops on mass through their lands, there just should be a no sleeping in allies lands rule in there somewhere.
The liberate is a significant flaw that must be patched ASAP IMO.

Also the AI that wants to screw your game at all costs building all his city near you even when there is almost no resources is something intended....even if its just an annoying workaround....if it was a boardgame i would call it KingMaking..
The devs have decided that forward settling is fun... I would not have an issue if they did not bang themselves right up against your border in a useless place


You make some valid points near the end but a lot of your starting points sound like frustration. The golden rule is warmongering too much to fast accrues a lot, fine in the early game put later you have to pace yourself a bit to gain respect... but you do not need that respect later if you do not want it... it just may avoid you being nuked though

 

[LordByron]

I don't see what you mean with "anytihng else are either known bugs or poorly tested mechanics".

As for razing a city... How would you react if an AI came in and razed your city, no matter how provocatively you built it? You'd be mad and the only reason you'd ever sign a peace treaty would be because of war weariness.

Its called bridgehead and since ancient rome they were dealt with in the same way....

Also wasting resources with no benefit to slow down a player is commonly referred as bad mechanic if avoidable (difficult to prevent in pvp but programming an AI to do so is silly).

Most others are clearly bugs.

 

[Leyrann]

Its called bridgehead and since ancient rome they were dealt with in the same way....

Also wasting resources with no benefit to slow down a player is commonly referred as bad mechanic if avoidable (difficult to prevent in pvp but programming an AI to do so is silly).

Most others are clearly bugs.

You really need to do some more explanation with what you're saying, because I still don't get what you're talking about. I know what a bridgehead is, but I have no idea how that applies to anything you've said. I also don't even know what "most others" is referring to, so I don't even know where to look for what are "clearly bugs".

Also, I would like to refer to Victoria's post for the point-by-point reply that I myself didn't bother writing.

 

[LordByron]

-Alliances are a necessity...without those points, everybody will hate you for ridiculous minor reasons
In fact without agendas, once the initial impression is gone the only modifier left is your diplomat at +3 so without agendas they would be neutral-positive. Set a trade route to get to +5... open borders to +8... then wait a few turns and depending on the random decision they make depends on if they offer. I can offer as well and sometimes they take it but you must be +8 or higher for that.., they must show as friendly. It is still a random decision. So agendas are the key... and your actions.

Against a free +18


-Civ will refuse your requests of friendship just to ask it themselves during their turn almost Always
refer back to your 1st point... if you ask every turn you will have the same odds as them I imagine.


False even at +40. Simply they want to ask themselves or they deny it..it happens all games for the Whole game even when you have alliances for hundred turns except in few situations.

-Peace negotiations are totally messed up... if you give back cities, enemy civs will demand compensation.... if they offer you 6 piece of arts and you refuse one, they will ask all your moneys for an equal deal....

Some things may seem weird in a peace deal but I find there is something I like. You are complaining about the taste of the ice cream? I disagree about the compensation for cities... no idea where you see this


You can t deny something that is documented across the forum.
The points are messed up... If you offer me something and i want less i shouldn be forced to pay to accept less.
Works with cities resources and art.


-after a peace treat you can sneak in some good trades or an embassy because the civ realizes he is actually angry at you.
is that a mis type?... the first turn after peace you can always get an embassy and thats the way it should be.

-if you burn a city your relationships are doomed forever.
Yup... -20... I'll remember you nasty mother f.... I have no issue with this.


See answering a bridgehead AND betrayal

-Warmongering is generally a bad idea for a lot of reasons: in CIV BE attacking someone would enrage his allies but please his enemies... that would open up lot of diplomatic gamestyles...Being universally hated for any attack despite the reason (except casus belli that are clunky and not versatile enough) doesn t work at all... makes your allies hate you because you accept their request of a joint war and silly stuff like that.
I completely disagree. I was fighting a modern war with allies last night just fine... the key is not to be too successful as your warmongering points decline during the war .. taking too many cities too fast ups them... If you used the right Casus then the cost of those cities is not high. Your WM points are limited with others that hate the civ
. You are not universally hated... you get denunciations by your allies... it does not mean they hate you. Please be accurate.

Here i might have given a bad explanation....there are several reason why an universal warmonger malus shouldn t be applied.
I am perfectly fine with civ specific warmonger malus.
Attacking the guy that is conquering your cities should not be considered a bad thing for you. (and other similar cases)...this was already solved in CIV BE and CIV VI is a stepback.
Its somehow difficult to explain if you never tried civ BE.


-Joint war is broken....has no purpose in game if it gives huge penalties.
WTF?.... I LOVE joint wars. I get no warmonger points with my joint companion... I get a standard war not a surprise war but it is a surprise... and my joint friend now thinks +5 of me... what is to not like? Sure in the modern era a casus may be better, 5 turn delay, your call.

Just read the forum of all the people complaining about civs requesting joint war and then going crazy about it right after.
Also why can t you make a joint war for good resons?
Why can t you ask more than an ally to join war?
Why your friend can joint war against you because another friend asked... that is not how it should work.
Why if someone Attacks you you can t request a civ to join after?


-What s the point in alliances if you can joint war in more than 2?
An alliance gives you +9 for declared friends and +18 for alliance that is +27 which counteracts a LOT of warmonger points that reduce fast. Alliances have many other benefits including seeing each others maps and troops visibility.

-"remove troops" points are broken... i didn t ask for open borders with a civ in order to be blamed for troop transit, also if i free your city my troops shouldn t be moved outside for at least a couple of turns.
Agreed both are crap... however you can move your troops on mass through their lands, there just should be a no sleeping in allies lands rule in there somewhere.
The liberate is a significant flaw that must be patched ASAP IMO.

Also the AI that wants to screw your game at all costs building all his city near you even when there is almost no resources is something intended....even if its just an annoying workaround....if it was a boardgame i would call it KingMaking..
The devs have decided that forward settling is fun... I would not have an issue if they did not bang themselves right up against your border in a useless place

Its a reknown design flaw... the opinion here is irrelevant.

You make some valid points near the end but a lot of your starting points sound like frustration. The golden rule is warmongering too much to fast accrues a lot, fine in the early game put later you have to pace yourself a bit to gain respect... but you do not need that respect later if you do not want it... it just may avoid you being nuked though

The only frustration i have with this game (but this is not the place) is from barbarians that are extremely OP early game.
Everything else is delusion from the missed opportunity that was working on the only thing review acclaimed of civ BE: diplomacy.

 

[Leyrann]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgehead

I don't see how this has anything to do with any of your points.

 

[LordByron]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgehead

I don't see how this has anything to do with any of your points.

Bridgehead is also an historical military strategy that consists in making a fortification between enemy lines in order to launch Attacks from there.

 

[Leyrann]

Bridgehead is also an historical military strategy that consists in making a fortification between enemy lines in order to launch Attacks from there.

A city is not just a fortification though. It's a permanent settling spot. Bridgeheads - wheter for landings or in the case you mentioned - are temporarily. Cities are permanent.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Cities in Civ tend to serve both purposes. Some games had temporary outposts (but those turned eventually into a city and were not part of the main series), Civ3 had colonies that were unable to produce anything and could get a temporary access to a resource (temporary because it will be included inside some civ borders eventually). Still, I think razing a 1-2 size city in the classical era should not be a permanent stain. Also it would have been nice if you could "abandon city" by building a settler when pop=1 (might be disabled if the city has districts).

 

[Leyrann]

Cities in Civ tend to serve both purposes. Some games had temporary outposts (but those turned eventually into a city and were not part of the main series), Civ3 had colonies that were unable to produce anything and could get a temporary access to a resource (temporary because it will be included inside some civ borders eventually). Still, I think razing a 1-2 size city in the classical era should not be a permanent stain. Also it would have been nice if you could "abandon city" by building a settler when pop=1 (might be disabled if the city has districts).

I also kind of liked the Colonization system where you could simply pull all citizens out of a city and then it'd disappear, though of course that does make for pretty different gameplay.

 

[Felis Renidens]

And even there it stopped working once the colony had a stockade.I suppose the Civ6 equivalent should be a district.
Another interesting idea in my mind is an ability to rebuild the city center on a different tile - which when finished will remove the original center. If you can build on tiles why not do it? And I think if you are at it you can also move districts around in the same way. It will probably take lots of hammers and will block the building site and you'll have to rebuild stuff but it can be nice to have that option.

 

[Leyrann]

And even there it stopped working once the colony had a stockade.I suppose the Civ6 equivalent should be a district.
Another interesting idea in my mind is an ability to rebuild the city center on a different tile - which when finished will remove the original center. If you can build on tiles why not do it? And I think if you are at it you can also move districts around in the same way. It will probably take lots of hammers and will block the building site and you'll have to rebuild stuff but it can be nice to have that option.

Maybe in combination with this.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/remove-district-project.615030/

 

[cazaderonus]

I mostly disagree with OP;

First, BE diplomacy being the best of the serie ? pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaase. Nope. it was highly exploitable to basically make the AI irrelevant.

Now on CiVI, the more i play, the more i see the good in the diplomacy system. Now, even when i start a war and conquer some cities, i manage to keep solid friends over the course of a game. In my deity France game, i even wiped out Gorgo and still had 3 alliances declared the whole time and until the game ended.

From my experience so far, warmonger penalties tend to decrease at an ok rythm. Meaning that if you had built a solid relationship with some civs, even a -20 in warmongering wont hurt that much. But that requires to learn about the civs, especially their hidden agenda, and to play along so that you can get as much positive modifiers as possible and let the relationship grow before doing anything that will generate a malus.

Things like getting open borders, sending a delegation, sending trade routes, denouncing the same AI, holding a promise (set a city, promise not to settle close anymore, wait, profit. Same goes for the military border alert), picking a the same government. All those, if started early can lead to a rock hard relation with an AI.

As for trades, i've seen countless times my friends offer me 2 luxes plus gold for just one of my lux. So i dont share your opinion on trades always being in favor of the AI.

Yes there are still idiotic things, some OP mentionned, but unlike CiV, a solid friend will stay a solid friend and not suddenly DOW you after 2000 years of declared friendship and alliance. Among the worst idiotic things are : Warmonger penalty not being affected by how an AI feels about the AI you DoW ; Warmonger penalty from allies in a joint war ; Warmonger penalty for capturing cities in a war you didnt start ; Warmonger penalty for turning down a peace treaty (should be a thing but after 2/3 refused deals) ; The joint war system being dumb as hell ; Some agendas that make befriending an AI basically impossible.

Still, despite all those things, i get more and more pleasure in playing the diplomacy game in CiVI.

 

[agonistes]

Being able to enter a joint war against someone you are *already* at war with. Germany dows on me. I can't then ask England to join me in fighting Germany. .....