(4-NS) Add diplomatic option to stop CS competition

[der_weihnachtsmann]

Proposal: Add diplomatic demand to let AI stop sending diplomatic units and spies to allied city states. The demand is found under the Discuss section and works similar as "Stop spying on me". Then the AI can promise to stop influencing the city states your allied to and prefer city states other leaders are allied to. This demand could be named for example: "Leave my allied city states alone" or "Stop meddling with my allied city states". Whether the AI accepts the demand or not works like the other demands, just with the value for the specific city states.

Rationale: Right now I am playing a game where I vassalised England and they keep couping my allied city states. England is very friendly with me so it doesn't really makes sense. It creates a massive downside to vassalising in contrast to eliminating and is just very annoying. Also the AI gives you the demand a lot, although you can't promise to stop doing it.

If that proposal is to hard to implement, making friendly AI less likely to influence your allied city states would also solve the problem.

This is my first post btw, I am very open for feedback.

 

[Recursive]

Adding new diplomacy buttons is complicated...

It's not a bad idea, but it'd be more work than you might think to implement.

 

[alchx]

Some quests cannot be avoided - Natural Wonder will be found by chance sooner or later.
Failure to complete some quests directly harms you - build 4 walls in cities. Obviously. that you will build them.
Add horses/iron to your trading network - you need to upgrade these tiles to get hammers, science or trade.
Add luxury to your trade network - you need happiness in cities for population growth. Or you accidentally complete a quest in another city-state and he will give you this resource as an ally.
Spread religion - if CS is near you, then religion itself will come into it.
Get a Great General - it is impossible to block the accumulation of GG points during the war.

Yes, and it is rather ridiculous if the player or AI does not try to influence neighboring CSs. After all, if they are allies of other empires, then in the event of a war we will have to fight on several fronts, which is very difficult.

 

[der_weihnachtsmann]

Fair point, haven't thought about quests. It should only consider spies and diplomatic units then. This is probably a lot harder to implement though, but I wouldn't know.

Your second point makes a lot of sense too. I imagined allied leaders and friendly vassals as a team with joint interests (for the scope of 50 turns on standard) , where the diplomaticly strongest can secure his city states. There very well could be a better way of negotiating with the AI which specific city states you can secure for you, for example over the trade screen but I imagine this to be even more difficult to implement.

Thanks a lot for the feedback @alchx !!

 

[azum4roll]

It should only consider spies and diplomatic units then.

Probably not even election rigging, as it isn't public knowledge whose spy does that. I'd just make it coups and diplo units (including Great Diplomats). Missionary spread with Way of the Noble Truth shouldn't count either.

Ideally you can tell an AI to leave a certain CS alone like how the AI can currently demand you to.

 

[der_weihnachtsmann]

To be specific with city states would in my imagination only be possible via the trade screen or a screen similar to the I killed your spy screen.

 

[besset]

Awesome proposal, I like it a lot. Always felt this option was missing. I guess it's up to whoever wants to try implementing it, if any?

 

[Stalker0]

My problem with these is I feel the AI just ignores my demands, meanwhile they always demand it from me and then just get mad when I tell them no.

 

[besset]

My problem with these is I feel the AI just ignores my demands, meanwhile they always demand it from me and then just get mad when I tell them no.

For me telling other civs to stop spying on me usually works only if they are friendly/neutral/afraid. But yeah if the civ doesn't like you/trust you it doesn't really do much. But it's nice to have to some extent for roleplaying purposes, even if it's only situationally useful

 

[KlHannibal2]

Another poibt to consider: alliances can fluctuate. You have an ally and your AI neighbor promises to let th e ally alone. Then another AI takes the alliance from you. So yoir neghbor starts to send envoys to this CS. You are not allied any more, so your neighbor isbnot breaking their promise. But while the envoys are on the way, you get the alliance back. Will the AI recall its envoys to keep its promise, now that you have the alliance again?

 

[der_weihnachtsmann]

Yes they would, they do the same with settlers and missionaries once you tell them.

 

[azum4roll]

I think both AI and humans should be able to demand a promise to not send diplomat units or coup a specific CS. It should be an option in the Discuss menu, with a list of CS that can be selected when the option is clicked on (like the "What do you think of..." option). Breaking this promise should incur a diplomatic penalty with the civ.

 

[der_weihnachtsmann]

I think specific CS would be ideal, but i thought it would bloat the Discuss menu. Best would be to do it over the trade menu, but I have no idea how realistic that is. I thought this version was the most realistic to implement.

 

[Recursive]

I think both AI and humans should be able to demand a promise to not send diplomat units or coup a specific CS. It should be an option in the Discuss menu, with a list of CS that can be selected when the option is clicked on (like the "What do you think of..." option). Breaking this promise should incur a diplomatic penalty with the civ.

That is what I had in mind, but I'm not likely to have the time to implement this before the end of May.

 

[Slyceth]

I sponsor this extremely.
Even though AI knows to leave your allied city states alone, it does not do so for city states you just lost.

So that means there's a gap between the time you're allies (which can be 100+ turns), the moment a hostile civ coups or great diplomats it, and an ally then coups or great diplomats it.

------------------

Just like promising not to settle near you, AI's should be allowed to demand to leave their currently allied city states alone, and the same vice versa.

Nothing is more important in this game than diplomacy, and if you coup a city state, just like settling close or buying tiles next to an AI civ, they should be allowed to ask you kindly with a warning to stop doing that. (and forgive you for your last attempt if you agree)
Nothing sucks more than your long term ally having a negative buff "You are competing for the favor of the same city states" even though you would happily declare war on all city states in exchange for losing that diplomatic penalty (because that civ means everything to you)

 

[Recursive]

I sponsor this extremely.
Even though AI knows to leave your allied city states alone, it does not do so for city states you just lost.

So that means there's a gap between the time you're allies (which can be 100+ turns), the moment a hostile civ coups or great diplomats it, and an ally then coups or great diplomats it.

------------------

Just like promising not to settle near you, AI's should be allowed to demand to leave their currently allied city states alone, and the same vice versa.

Nothing is more important in this game than diplomacy, and if you coup a city state, just like settling close or buying tiles next to an AI civ, they should be allowed to ask you kindly with a warning to stop doing that. (and forgive you for your last attempt if you agree)
Nothing sucks more than your long term ally having a negative buff "You are competing for the favor of the same city states" even though you would happily declare war on all city states in exchange for losing that diplomatic penalty (because that civ means everything to you)

Sponsoring a proposal means agreeing to implement it by the end of the month after the Voting Phase. It's not a second.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal failed due to lack of sponsorship.