Idea: Holy City ownership affects diplomacy?

[MisterBenn]

Reposted from the RoM 2.9 feedback thread, with a couple more thoughts added.

Presumably relating to Realistic Diplomacy: I wonder if there should be any holy city-related events that affect diplomacy?

In my current game, Catherine founded Judaism, and quickly afterward I adopted the religion, declared war and took the city from her. After a peace treaty was agreed, she immediately went to Pleased and agreed Open Borders with me as she had no negative diplomatic events listed against me at all (not even "You declared war" for some reason) and mainly had +6 for having the same state religion! I have been able to stretch out a conflict with her and she has been quick to forgive and forget every time I asked.

This got me thinking. Perhaps some extra diplomatic events should be tracked:

"You stole our holy city!" - large negative upon the holy city capture itself when the state religion corresponds. Gradually forgotten once the state religion changes or the civ in question no longer owns the city.

"We cannot accept our holy city remaining in your hands!" - negative diplomacy when civ A founded the religion creating the holy city and civ B now owns it. Whether you claimed the city directly or not, this will still nag the founder. Immediately forgotten if civ B no longer owns the city, gradually forgotten if civ A changes away from the state religion.

"Our people are disturbed that you control the holy city of our religion." - A smaller negative: Civ A has a state religion and Civ B owns that religion's holy city. In addition, Civ A is running a Civic that causes unrest when the state religion's holy city is owned by someone else (Revolutions Mod). Immediately forgotten if the case above ceases to be true.

"We are thankful that you gave us our spiritual home back!" - If you gift or trade the holy city back to its owner, they should be very pleased as a result. A big positive that is slowly forgotten with time. You can heal a rift by this concession or please a rival by liberating their city for them and handing it over!

I'm "fairly" sure that similar events don't already exist. I think they'd add a realistic new aspect to diplomacy and I believe they all use existing Realistic Diplomacy mechanics so should be quite achievable without huge amounts of work. Thoughts?

 

[Afforess]

This sounds like a great start. There are a bunch of other situations that should receive diplomatic attention too:

1.)Civ A is at war with Civ C. Then, Civ A hires Civ B as a war ally against Civ C. Then, Civ A makes peace with Civ C. Something along the lines of "You backstabbed us!"

2.) Civ A hires a lot of war ally or starts a lot of wars between Civs. "You are a Warmonger!"

3.) Civ A brokers peace between warring countries. "You are a peacemaker."

4. ) Civ A captures Civ B's capital city: "You Stole our Capital City!"


Anything else I forgot?

 

[WildFire]

"You razed a city with a great wonder!"

 

[konradcabral]

An important city (greater than X pop, scaled by era) has more than 20% of foreign culture -"We don't like to be pressed by your ugly culture"

 

[Afforess]

Great Ideas! Anything else?

 

[civ_king]

"You razed a city with a great wonder!"

should be really high if it contained the leaders favorite wonder

 

[vamperium]

Are there currently negative relations for naval blockading a civilization? I never noticed...

 

[Afforess]

No there isn't, and that is a good candidate for inclusion.

 

[MisterBenn]

If it's at all possible, what about some additional options to reply to a request to join a war?

Existing options:
1) Join the war
2) Point blank refusal

Suggestions:
3) Convince them you have enough on your hands right now, if you are outmatched against current war opponent(s) - to decline without repercussions.
4) Fund them with a proportion of your economy (x gpt) but don't declare ware directly. (+ve relations)
5) Fund them with a proportion of your military (x units) but don't declare ware directly. (+ve relations)
6) We will join your war so long as you join us in our current war(s) !!!

 

[WildFire]

Going off of his post, I'd like to see something like...

If someone asks you to declare on someone and you refuse, you should get a +1 rep for not declaring war. Maybe a "not intimated by bullies" or "we consider you a friend" or something

 

[Afforess]

If it's at all possible, what about some additional options to reply to a request to join a war?

Existing options:
1) Join the war
2) Point blank refusal

Suggestions:
3) Convince them you have enough on your hands right now, if you are outmatched against current war opponent(s) - to decline without repercussions.
4) Fund them with a proportion of your economy (x gpt) but don't declare ware directly. (+ve relations)
5) Fund them with a proportion of your military (x units) but don't declare ware directly. (+ve relations)
6) We will join your war so long as you join us in our current war(s) !!!

Not entirely sure that other options are possible... A lot of the diplomacy screen and how it works is locked in the EXE. CvDiploParameters.cpp looks promising, so it *might* be possible, but no promises.

Going off of his post, I'd like to see something like...

If someone asks you to declare on someone and you refuse, you should get a +1 rep for not declaring war. Maybe a "not intimated by bullies" or "we consider you a friend" or something

A .5 (cumulative) effect might be better, or a +2 cap.

 

[WildFire]

Sounds reasonable. Just aggravating since I played huge maps with a whole bunch of civs and get asked to war very often and take rep hits but don't gain any.

 

[Arakhor]

I think you should definitely get a global reputation for either being a peacemaker or a big girl if you publicly refuse to go to war a lot

 

[MisterBenn]

I like. Perhaps it could affect your player name like Dynamic Civ Names. Afforess the Pacifist, MisterBenn the Merciless and so on!

 

[kabooki108]

I wonder if it's possible to make wars have different "flavors" that affect diplomacy. For example, a "Holy War" between one bloc with religion X vs. another with religion Y. You could get a bigger diplo penalty for refusing to join with your brothers and sisters of the faith. Your warmonger diplo penalties could go up if your start a "War of Conquest" against a weaker neighbor with good relations. Pipe dreams, maybe, but it would certainly add some intrigue to those DoWs. There could also be happiness repercussions and variations in war weariness depending on the war.

One thing I think should be added if possible is to differentiate diplo penalties for agreeing or refusing to go to war depending on whether the person who's asking got attacked or was the aggressor (wow, what a terribly written sentence). So maybe the international community and the requesting civ are a little more lenient if you decline to join Montezuma in one his 40 ongoing wars, but take a harsher stand if you refuse to join in defending poor Gandhi.