[R&F] Accepting delegations and embassies

[beorn]

Sending a delegation or setting up an embassy is a no-brainer, assuming you have the gold. For a pittance, you get good will (giving you more control over when and if you are going to fight wars) as well as raising diplomatic visibility, which now affects combat noticeably.

But what is the motivation for accepting a delegation or embassy? You are giving this rival civ 3 points of military power over you, in return for practically nothing. And, as far as I have been able to ascertain, refusing results in no diplomatic hit, despite the visuals of an exasperated rival.

Seems to me that this is not set up properly. Refusing a delegation or embassy implies that you foresee war, which ought to make this other civ more cautious about you, and more willing to cozy up with your enemies. In the meantime, the smart play seems to be never accept, even civs that are currently declared friends.

 

[Dragabond]

Generally I refuse embassies for civs that have not discovered the location of my capital until I have a spy dedicated to counterspy there. The AI is predictable in that they will always try to send spies to your capital before trying elsewhere, and they mostly target your Commercial Hub if you have it, or now iwth R&F I have noticed them trying to neutralize the governor, which has altered my spy coverage somewhat as I find that more important than just a pittance of gold.

Mostly my motivation for accepting the embassy is so the AI finally stops asking me.

 

[acluewithout]

I think having embassies etc improves relations, and of course you get a little gold as well from the other civ.

Doesn’t your opponent lose visibility from delegations or embassies if either of you declare war?

On a different note, does having a delegation or embassy improve the likely success of your spies? It really should.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

In fact I rarely send them but always accept them. They cost a lot but do not provide actual benefits(except for religious wars). You shall take in mind that embassys and delegations are instantly destroyed upon declaration of war.

They do help with your relationship a little bit, but even the relationship itself is not very useful for me.

 

[Tech Osen]

They do help with your relationship a little bit, but even the relationship itself is not very useful for me.

Before R&F I might have agreed with you but now alliances are actually worth the investment. And when both parties send them they cost nothing as you also get the 25/50 gold upon accepting.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Jt's free money. Not gonna say no to that.

Maybe in a future version of the game where I'm actually afraid of the AI attacking.

Generally I refuse embassies for civs that have not discovered the location of my capital until I have a spy dedicated to counterspy there. The AI is predictable in that they will always try to send spies to your capital before trying elsewhere, and they mostly target your Commercial Hub if you have it, or now iwth R&F I have noticed them trying to neutralize the governor, which has altered my spy coverage somewhat as I find that more important than just a pittance of gold.

Mostly my motivation for accepting the embassy is so the AI finally stops asking me.

Embassies don't reveal capitals do they?

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Before R&F I might have agreed with you but now alliances are actually worth the investment. And when both parties send them they cost nothing as you also get the 25/50 gold upon accepting.

If you accept other without sending one then you get free money. In contrary, if they don't send you but just accept yours you lose that money. So the best choice is not to send them that money.

Alliance worth investment??? Sorry I don't appreciate the "permanent peace" playstyle, there's also no "permanent peace" option in Civ 6(which exists in Civ5 and Civ4) so the game doesn't want you to do so.

In Rise and Fall, Loyalty system encourages rapid conquer, while Magnus and Warlord allows you to build more troops to do conquer faster, so if you think before patch diplomacy being nonsense, it is more nonsense in Rise and Fall.

 

[Tech Osen]

If you accept other without sending one then you get free money. In contrary, if they don't send you but just accept yours you lose that money. So the best choice is not to send them that money.

Alliance worth investment??? Sorry I don't appreciate the "permanent peace" playstyle, there's also no "permanent peace" option in Civ 6(which exists in Civ5 and Civ4) so the game doesn't want you to do so.

In Rise and Fall, Loyalty system encourages rapid conquer, while Magnus and Warlord allows you to build more troops to do conquer faster, so if you think before patch diplomacy being nonsense, it is more nonsense in Rise and Fall.

Who said anything about permanent peace games? Making an alliance with one civ is an almost sure fire way to make enemies of others.
Having one or two friends to send traderoutes to for extra gold or science is sweet. Throw in wisselbanken and later arsenal of democracy and it becomes a growth/production powerhouse.
Of course, if you play civ purely as a wargame your view might differ. But with the AI being so poor at tactical play I don't find that a very fulfilling way to play.

 

[Disgustipated]

Sending them is a no-brainer? I only send them after the joint wars wear off. I hate throwing money down the drain. And money is tight in the early game.

Perhaps I've been too quick to accept them. I generally appreciate the 35 or 75 gold on epic speed.

 

[RealHuhn]

Isn't the +3 diplo visibility gone as soon as they declare war anyway? Why worry about it?

 

[Art Morte]

I usually accept them simply because it's annoying how often the AI keeps coming back with the question if you refuse.