A simple, possible fix to “Pledge to Protect”

[Barathor]

Another Idea, later in the thread:

Spoiler :

So, here's one of the problems:

The resting point can be minor to many civs. If you're focusing on a handful of city-states and consistently gaining influence, the resting point doesn't matter at all. It may only come into play a couple times when your influence drops really low, then it holds you up higher and gives a boost.

On the other hand, for Consulate/Papal Primacy civs, it can be extremely powerful.

Coming up with consequences to actions taken within a PtP is difficult because you're either going to make it not enough for the Consulate civs or it'll be too much for the other civs to even bother with PtP.

Also, the concept of PtP granting a resting point boost only encourages spamming it to many city-states, especially ones you don't have any influence with yet.

- - - - - - - -

So, what if we change the benefits of PtP and still try to keep it very simple?

How about, again, PtP doesn't grant any immediate benefit. Instead, you pledge to protect a city-state so you're given opportunities to gain lump sums of influence when you stand up for them and warn a bully. Influence is always useful to receive, even when you're way past the resting point.

This way, you can spam it all you want, but if you're not going to uphold the PtP, you're not really going to gain anything from it (since a PtP deters civs from bullying very little).

- - - - - - - -

So here's a new breakdown:

1) Pledge to Protect: no resting point boosts; nothing. You're simply given future opportunities to stand up to bully civs to gain extra influence.

2) Bully Demands Tribute:

a) Give a Warning to Bully: gain 20 influence points with the city-state and 10 opinion weight for 20 turns with the civ (was 5 for 10 turns; positive numbers are bad).​

b) Forgive the Bully: PtP ends and receive -20 influence with the city-state (existing value).​

3) Bully Declares War: (New window which will pop-up.)

a) Declare War on Bully: gain 60 influence with the city-state.

b) Forgive the Bully: PtP ends and receive -60 influence with the city-state. Can no longer PtP this city-state (if it survives!).​

Summary (Initial Idea):

Spoiler Summary :

• Initial PtP grants no bonus resting point.
  
• If you actually “protect” them when a civ bullies them, you gain +5 to the resting point.
  
• If you protect them again, you gain another +5, and max out at a +10 resting point. (Or perhaps even further, +15 max?)
  
• Perhaps the resting point boost can be instant instead of growing per turn (if below it), since you now have to wait for incidents of bullying to occur.
  
• Also, make the diplo hit with civs a little heavier (perhaps 10 instead of only 5) and maybe last longer than only 10 turns (15? 20?).

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

The updated Pledge to Protect (PtP) within the beta seems nearly meaningless: a +5 influence resting point.

For those 5 influence points, you throw yourself into the middle of conflicts between city-states and civs and either:

You forgive the bully civ: -20 influence with the city-state

You stand up for the city-state: opinion weight +5 for only 10 turns

(Higher opinion weight is bad. For comparison: DoF = -35; Denouncing = +35; Sharing Intrigue = -10; Ignore their warning of spying: +10)

Also, I may be wrong, but a PtP has very little impact on the AI’s decisions anyway, according to CvDiplomacyAI.cpp, starting at line 12175 (12228 for gold bullying). According to it, the strength of the civ protecting the AI isn’t even taken into consideration, and proximity to the city-state can easily trump the small deterrent value if the city-state is protected.

Spoiler Code :

// Calculate desirability to bully gold from this minor
if(bWantsToBullyGold && !bWantsToBuyoutThisMinor && !bWantsToGiveGoldToThisMinor && !bWantsToBullyUnitFromThisMinor)
{
	int iValue = 100; //antonjs: todo: XML, bully threshold
	if(eApproach == MINOR_CIV_APPROACH_BULLY)
	{
		// Only bother if we can successfully bully
		if(pMinor->GetMinorCivAI()->CanMajorBullyGold(eID))
		{
			// The closer we are the better
			if(GetPlayer()->GetProximityToPlayer(eMinor) == PLAYER_PROXIMITY_NEIGHBORS)
				iValue += 40;
			else if(GetPlayer()->GetProximityToPlayer(eMinor) == PLAYER_PROXIMITY_CLOSE)
				iValue += 20;

			// We like to keep bullying the same minor
			if(pMinor->GetMinorCivAI()->IsEverBulliedByMajor(eID))
			{
				iValue += 20;
			}

			// If we have not bullied this minor recently, but someone else has, it might be good to wait for an opportunity to gain a lot of INF
			if(!pMinor->GetMinorCivAI()->IsRecentlyBulliedByMajor(eID) && pMinor->GetMinorCivAI()->IsRecentlyBulliedByAnyMajor())
			{
				iValue += -10;
				//antonjs: consider: but if everyone near the minor has bullied it, then there is nobody to come to its rescue, so we can bully safely
			}

			[COLOR="Red"]// If this minor has a PtP from someone, bullying it could have big consequences
			if(pMinor->GetMinorCivAI()->IsProtectedByAnyMajor())
			{
				iValue += -10;
				[COLOR="magenta"]//antonjs: consider: scale based on which major is protecting it[/COLOR]
			}
			else
			{
				iValue += 10;
			}[/COLOR]

			//antonjs: consider: allies or friends another major
			//antonjs: consider: distance to other majors

			// If we are getting a bonus, don't mess that up!
			if(pMinor->GetMinorCivAI()->IsAllies(eID) || pMinor->GetMinorCivAI()->IsFriends(eID))
			{
				iValue = 0;
			}

			// Do we want it enough?
			if(iValue > 100)  //antonjs: todo: XML for threshold
			{
				veMinorsToBullyGold.push_back(eMinor, iValue);
				bWantsToBullyGoldFromThisMinor = true;
			}
		}
	}
}

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

I think we can have something a bit better!

I believe the thoughtless spamming of PtP across the map isn’t great gameplay, especially when a player has no intention on actually standing up for the city-state, is just bettering their odds in case quests are fulfilled, and immediately bails at the first incident. Likewise, spamming PtP is also encouraged if one knows the AI Civ opinion penalty is small and fleeting.

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

What if we make PtP more of a meaningful investment and something to weigh and consider by tweaking some numbers?

Perhaps the AI opinion penalty should be increased to 10 and/or the duration until it’s forgiven should be lengthened.

Also, most importantly, change the mechanics of it a bit. Don’t grant a +5 resting point UNTIL the civ proves itself and stands up for the city-state! Perhaps, make it max out at +10 again, but to get that you have to stand up for the city-state at least two times. Then, with Consulates, at least you’ve earned your perma-friend status with the city-state.

So, to clarify, you’re initial PtP with a city-state doesn’t increase the resting point. It only grants you the “opportunity” to do so by standing up for them if another civ bullies them. If you protect them, you get +5 to the resting point. If you protect them again, you get another +5 and are maxed out for a total +10 boost to the resting point. (Or maybe even the resting point bonus can be maxed out at a slightly higher number, like +15, for Papal Primacy friend opportunities.)

This would prevent, or at least greatly decrease, the spamming of PtP and would make it something to think about more, since you’re actually going to have to “protect” the city-state(s) you've pledged to in order to gain any benefit. Also, you're not going to easily abandon the city-state at the first incident with another civ (unless maybe it's a powerful civ or one you're really trying to become friends with), since you've gained nothing and lost -20 influence (instead of gaining some, and then losing some, for a lower net loss).

Also, since you have to wait for a bullying incident to happen now, maybe the resting point bonus could be instant instead of growing per turn (if below it).

Also, it would be nice if the source code used a value based on the protector civ’s power relative to the bully’s power when calculating the desirability to bully a city-state, instead of just using a simple, constant value.

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

Just throwing a simple idea out here. I assume it’s too late for this patch, but hopefully the current PtP is just a quick band-aid to fix the overpowered Consulates combo, and better things are planned for it in another patch down the road.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Hmm. I'm thinking of a Real World hypothetical that would be analogous to a Civ V PtP.

Suppose the USA provides a Pledge to Protect a Caribbean nation. I'm sure that that small nation would be grateful and impressed enough to think of the USA favorably. That might translate to first drink is on the House when the Fleet anchors in town. Other minor "We like you!" gestures, etc. Call that the +5 Influence for as long as the PtP is in place. Then along comes Cuba, demanding some "protection" funds to "keep smugglers and drug traffickers out of your waters" or some other rationalizing drivel. The USA has basically two reactions available:

1) Step up and tell Cuba to push off; extortion aborted. Or at worst, USA reimburses the extorted nation and then does whatever it takes to make Cuba give back that money. (Which may require some serious saber-rattling that may lead to a shooting war between USA and Cuba.) Note that the interplay of possibilities will be heavily weighted by Cuba's perceptions of the USA and whether it's just bluster, or if the willingness to actually go to war is there. If the USA does step in to fulfill its PtP, A) Influence in the client nation would most likely spike dramatically. (At least +20.) B) Other nations seeing the USA keeping its word would be properly impressed. (+10, but only temporary and degrading as usual.)

2) Offer some rationalization as to why the USA can't do the #1 option just right now. EVERYBODY sees that the USA's promises are just empty rhetoric and the USA's promises aren't worth the paper they were printed on. The client nation that was jilted would be VERY disappointed (-20 Influence, minimum) while other nations become reluctant to interact with a dishonorable deal-breaker. (-10 Influence.)

 

[Maxym]

I like this OP idea, but the initial 5 points could be given anyway and grow over time. This way it won't be subject to consulates abuse.

When bullying occurs and you stand up you get 5 per occurrence up to max of 15, so you can use it with papal primacy as well. But as you say increase the penalty for standing up so it has real consequences. At same time add an increase in CS resilience so subsequent incidences are harder to come by. + 20, 40, 60 resilience per each bullying incident. Maybe with a decay function to it.

 

[Barathor]

Yeah, keeping the initial +5 is another option.

I initially thought about keeping it that way myself, but it may bring things closer to the PtP spam again and getting something for no risk. +5 may not be much, but it's kind of free, and all you have to lose is -20 influence if you decide to turn your back on the city-state (if at the resting point, it's only a net loss of -15, which will grow back to 0).

Starting out with nothing will more often make a player pledge only if they intend on sticking up for the city-state.

- - - - - - - -

An additional idea could be:

You get the initial +5 from the PtP.

You can gain a maximum of +15 to the resting point by sticking up for the city-state at least twice.

But...

After the first incident of forgiving a civ for bullying a city-state under your protection, you're blocked from making further PtP to that bullied city-state (or at least for a lengthy amount of turns; 50 on standard speed?). Also, perhaps you can also be blocked from it if you revoke the protection a certain number of times too.

 

[Tarvok]

I'm not sure making "pledge to protect" automatically raise a CS's opinion of you makes a whole lot of sense. If they're in a situation where they feel a need for protection (the quest is active) then it should automatically raise their opinion of you. If they are bullied, and you stand up for them, that should raise their opinion. But just coming out of nowhere and saying, "I'll protect you!" shouldn't automatically raise their opinion. Maybe some eyebrows... but not their opinion.

I've always seen the primary value of offering protection being the annoying of your warmongering neighbors. Irritate them enough, and you get to fight a defensive war. Also, pledges to protect marginally raise the military requirements of successfully demanding tribute, so it has that benefit, as well.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Hmm. It dawns on me that none of the CSs ever come to you and request that you give them a PtP. It strikes me that at least some would do precisely that.

 

[Browd]

CSs do occasionally ask for PtP as a quest. Of course, anyone who's been in the habit of spamming PtP + Consulates won't have seen that quest very often.

 

[Pembroke]

You could improve the PtP even simpler by using the existing functionality of other city state actions to change it so that the pledge actually means what it says:

Keep the Pledge benefit, or even increase it, but if someone bullies the CS under your protection you get a popup with the following choices:

1) Let it pass. Diplomatic relations with the bully stay the same. Your relationship with the CS takes a nosedive with a big penalty. Your relationships with all other CSs decrease slightly (you are not trustworthy). This also ends the PtP.

2) Denounce the bully. Standard effects from denouncing. Your relationships with CSs stay the same (i.e. this is what you are expected to do.). The PtP stays in effect.

If someone DOWs the CS under your protection then you get the choices:

1) Let it pass. Diplomatic relations with the DOWer stay the same. Your relationship with the CS drops to rock bottom and it's now massively angry with you (duh, you defaulted on your promise...). Your relationships with all other CSs decrease with a large amount. The PtP ends.

2) Denounce the DOWer. Standard effects from denouncing. Your relationships with CSs stay the same. The PtP stays in effect.

3) Gift the CS a military unit. Your relationships with CSs stay the same. You take a slight diplo hit with the DOWer. The PtP stays in effect.

4) DOW the DOWer. Standard effect from DOW (although the warmongering penalty should not be applied here, I think, or at least the 3rd parties should not apply it against you.) Your relationship with the protected CS is automatically increased by +60 as is only proper as you clearly are its ally. You relationship with other CS is slightly increased. ThE PtP stays in effect.

Also, if you are not at war but the protected CS is, then it keeps asking military units from you, say, in intervals of 4 turns or so. As long as you keep gifting the PtP stays in effect. Alternatively you can DOW the attacker or end the PtP. You promised to protect so you have to do something to protect the victim.

All the functionality described above is already there: Denouncing, DOW, Gift Units etc. All it needs is to combine them in meaningful dialogs with appropriate actions and effects.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Here's a simpler idea: Make it similar to Gunboat Diplomacy. Let a player who has pledged to protect a CS gain up to 10 as long as he has a military presence near the CS, and make that military power count against anyone who wants to demand tribute. If your military leaves you'll lose the 10 again.
This would also make navies much more important post Astronomy when you want to protect City States on other continents.

 

[Barathor]

Here's a simpler idea: Make it similar to Gunboat Diplomacy. Let a player who has pledged to protect a CS gain up to 10 c5influence: as long as he has a military presence near the CS, and make that military power count against anyone who wants to demand tribute. If your military leaves you'll lose the 10 again.
This would also make navies much more important post Astronomy when you want to protect City States on other continents.

Ooh, I like that one too!

I see cool instances where two civs are amassing troops around a poor, little city-state as one civ is trying to protect and the other is trying to bully. As you add troops to protect it, it makes the target "bully" threshold number harder to attain by the bully civ.

Given this method, what if a successful bullying then always gives some kind of negative effect (as in, a lesser one or a greater one)? Since, you failed to "protect" the city-state from being bullied with your army presence. This is also more of an active and real protection versus the default method and choosing an action once the damage is done by a bully.

So, standing up for the city-state would grant a lesser negative effect (perhaps something like a small, one time, negative hit to influence) and forgiving the bully civ gives you the full negative effect: cancels the PtP and you get a big negative hit to influence. Perhaps along with a 50 turn standard speed duration of being blocked from making another PtP with this city-state.

Also, this method of "protecting" by amassing troops around a city-state also maybe gives more incentive to protect them when another civ not only bullies them, but declares war on them. Your troops are already there and ready to protect them. Perhaps another diplomacy pop-up window with the enemy leader could appear with another two options: stand up for the city-state and declare war on the civ (perhaps gain a very large influence boost) or get out of the way and retreat (big consequences with the city-state: never can PtP again, large influence hit, AND your troops get relocated off of the city-state territory -- so you can't be cheesy and block the other civs army)

I like it!

 

[Makavcio]

GoodSarmatian's proposition is a little too much of a bother. It would require sizable armies devoted only to protect a small portion of city states, which would be pretty much unobtainable in early games when even a single unit counts.

When I got screwed up by the reformed PtP in my current game, I thought about something similar to Pembroke's idea.

PtP would not cause any influence bonus, because it's pretty much a completely empty gesture most of the time. Instead, it would reduce influence decay by 25% as you are friends at least by name. I think that patronage policies would need to be at least slightly reworked to facilitate my changes.
Conflicts could be resolved in a very similar way to the mechanism we have to face when 2 friendly major civs become enemies (you know, when civ A asks you to denounce civ B and denonces you if you do not comply).

We have 2 possible situations:

(1) Tribute demand
a) Denounce the aggressor
+50 influence, +20 influence with other PtP'd cities; standard denouncement
b) Send a diplomatic protest
-25 influence; small diplomatic hit with the aggressor
c) forgive and forget
-50 influence with bullied city, PtP expires, -20 with other PtP'd cities; slight diplomatic bonus with the aggressor

(2) DoW
a) DoW the aggressor
+200 influence with the attacked city, +50 with other PtP'd cities; war
b) Denounce the aggressor
no influence change; standard denouncement
c) Send a diplomatic protest
-50 influence with the attacked city, PtP expires, -20 influence with other PtP'd cities; small diplomatic hit with the attacker
d) Forgive and Forget
-200 influence with the attacked city, -100 influence with other PtP'd cities, all PtPs expire; slight diplomatic bonus with the attacker

Why this way? Because PtP would influence your whole system of alliances and a CS-oriented strategy would really mean a CS-oriented strategy. Player would be forced to either take actions against aggressors and deal with diplomatic repercussions of such actions, or they would need to abandon their little allies in time of need, what would result in collapse of their whole system of CS alliances. Actual help provided to one of CS would result in benefits with all CSs and failure to do so would have similar, though negative effects.

Players oriented on CS with strong influence could really fortify it, while opportunists would most likely ignore their PtP and forgo most benefits coming from CS. Furthermore, it would be much more likely for civs to intervene on behalf of their allies. I've had several games when CS rapists were quite popular among major civs. It's also impossible to spam any of these events, with a single exception of 1b. In its case, we have moderate harm to the city, quite severe penalty to influence and a stackable diplomatic hit.

 

[Barathor]

Some more good suggestions to work off of.

While I don't think GoodSarmatian's idea would always require sizeable armies, it may have at least one drawback: new AI behavior would need to be coded in so the civs know how to play the new protect/bully game mechanic. Also, it would make things less global, and more focused on local city-states (though, not to the degree of being restricted to adjacent neighbors and such).

Perhaps, at this point, it's best to just stick with diplomacy windows and values.

- - - - - - -

Though, Makavcio, my initial impression of the systems you and Pembroke written here is that they may be a little too punishing. To gain any benefit, you need to denounce civs that simply bully. Though, I don't mind the only positive choices for aggressors is either DoW or denounce, since declaring war on a civ you're protecting is pretty extreme and it should be harsh.

Perhaps a fourth option should be added to combat tribute demands? A warning or something, and it grants you +25 with the bullied city-state along with a negative opinion modifier with the bully civ. But, having the harsher option of denouncing them is still nice to leave there, since there will be worthwhile situations where you really want the influence with a city-state and/or the bully civ is one you dislike or not getting along with anyway.

EDIT: Never mind, I think I misread things

 

[Ayestes]

I still think the simplest solution (which would be required for the patch in this kind of timeframe) is to have Pledge to Protect influence just require you to already be Friends. In other words you would have already needed to earn that influence in order to keep it. This would require you to either do a quest for them or pay them for their friendship.

 

[Quineloe]

to me the biggest issue here is that the AI doesn't really care how powerful the nations that PtPed a city state are when demanding a tribute.

That's just irrational and should be adjusted.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The simpler effect...
You must publically denounce the bully or lose the pledge to protect (make new PTP worth 15 resting, -50 influence if broken)

(possibly make bullying easier/more lucrative to increase the tension)

 

[Barathor]

I still think the simplest solution (which would be required for the patch in this kind of timeframe) is to have Pledge to Protect influence just require you to already be Friends. In other words you would have already needed to earn that influence in order to keep it. This would require you to either do a quest for them or pay them for their friendship.

I believe that could actually be a simple modification, since I remember seeing an XML tag that specifies the minimum influence needed to be able to PtP. Right now it's at 0.

 

[Quineloe]

The simpler effect...
You must publically denounce the bully or lose the pledge to protect (make new PTP worth 15 resting, -50 influence if broken)

(possibly make bullying easier/more lucrative to increase the tension)

That's good, but still doesn't address that the AI just demands tributes from just about anyone it can without considering possible consequences.

It sucks if a city state you PtPed suddenly gets bullied by a nation you're on pretty good terms with, especially since realistically no one would bully the protectorate of an ally.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That's good, but still doesn't address that the AI just demands tributes from just about anyone it can without considering possible consequences.

It sucks if a city state you PtPed suddenly gets bullied by a nation you're on pretty good terms with, especially since realistically no one would bully the protectorate of an ally.

Well with this modifier, the the AI (and the Human) should consider PtP more. (perhaps pledges could have a bigger effect on the difficulty of bullying as well)

OR... well now you actually have to choose.. will you actually Protect the CS... If so.. then you have definitely earned the 15 (maybe even 20) resting point.

 

[EgyptRaider]

You could improve the PtP even simpler by using the existing functionality of other city state actions to change it so that the pledge actually means what it says:

Keep the Pledge benefit, or even increase it, but if someone bullies the CS under your protection you get a popup with the following choices:

1) Let it pass. Diplomatic relations with the bully stay the same. Your relationship with the CS takes a nosedive with a big penalty. Your relationships with all other CSs decrease slightly (you are not trustworthy). This also ends the PtP.

2) Denounce the bully. Standard effects from denouncing. Your relationships with CSs stay the same (i.e. this is what you are expected to do.). The PtP stays in effect.

If someone DOWs the CS under your protection then you get the choices:

1) Let it pass. Diplomatic relations with the DOWer stay the same. Your relationship with the CS drops to rock bottom and it's now massively angry with you (duh, you defaulted on your promise...). Your relationships with all other CSs decrease with a large amount. The PtP ends.

2) Denounce the DOWer. Standard effects from denouncing. Your relationships with CSs stay the same. The PtP stays in effect.

3) Gift the CS a military unit. Your relationships with CSs stay the same. You take a slight diplo hit with the DOWer. The PtP stays in effect.

4) DOW the DOWer. Standard effect from DOW (although the warmongering penalty should not be applied here, I think, or at least the 3rd parties should not apply it against you.) Your relationship with the protected CS is automatically increased by +60 as is only proper as you clearly are its ally. You relationship with other CS is slightly increased. ThE PtP stays in effect.

Also, if you are not at war but the protected CS is, then it keeps asking military units from you, say, in intervals of 4 turns or so. As long as you keep gifting the PtP stays in effect. Alternatively you can DOW the attacker or end the PtP. You promised to protect so you have to do something to protect the victim.

All the functionality described above is already there: Denouncing, DOW, Gift Units etc. All it needs is to combine them in meaningful dialogs with appropriate actions and effects.

For good and logical suggestion!
I'd love to see an improvement to the PoP

 

[Dralix]

I mostly like Pembroke's suggestion, although I think requesting a unit every 4 turns is excessive. I've always thought the biggest issue with pledge to protect was the complete lack of protecting ...