Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by docbud, Jul 27, 2013.
Annoying. Embargo: city-states seems popukar as well.
I don't think it is fair to say that the AI has been written to deny the player. So far in my 20 games or so, i have never felt that i have been treated unfairly by the AI. When they ban lux, they usually have a specific Civ in mind who have been a complete douchebag in the game. Banning of lux is not very common. I think Embargo either Civ or CS are one of the most common ones. Projects are usually proposed by the AI late in the game and once in a while, world religions and ideology comes into play.
I remember having a pretty intense game where there were continuous wars between like 8 Civs including me as we were all practically next to each other. Every World Congress was an attempt to economic embargo their rival Civs. When the Civ i was warring against proposed embargoing me, i though i was doomed. Surely no one would help me. To my surprise, my long term trade allies and fellow freedom followers, France and Korea both voted Nay against the embargo, causing the proposal to fail. I thought that was brilliant AI.
Even as a human player it is sometimes hard to pick a proposal. If none of them offer any significant benefits or those that do will never pass and only give you the diplo hit - what should you choose.
It really should be possible to abstain from proposing.
I think they propose things they know will not pass because you have to propose something.
it's usually easy enough to avert bans to make them not annoying. I always play on epic speed, immortal/emperor on normal/large maps.
If you have Forbidden palace and you are the starting host (neither of which is too hard to get, albeit ai loves hugging palace), you start with enough votes to define the outcome of at least one of the two votes without effort.
Diplomats are the keys to bending (or twisting) the congress the way you want. Before the first congress convenes, you can visit and "persuade" 6 civs (double if you play England), which is all but one on a normal map. The cost of buying votes is usually negligible as well. You can easily make world religion pass on the first one even without palace and starting host, averting a luxury ban is just as easy.
Or you can always propose something you know most ais go for, giving their vote for a yea on yours instead of a lux ban. Good examples are arts funding or cultural heritage sites.
Also, diplomatic hits from congress are miniscule compared to ideology picks, don't worry about them.
This, too! Inca later proposed embargoing the city states. Thankfully it failed.
I don't know why he would propose that, especially since he had four city states as allies.
And then after Greece says Nay to banning marble, so you also Nay banning marble, Greece said "You were responsible for making our proposal fail, I won't take this transgression lightly."
I seldom vote against anything unless the proposer is a sworn enemy who is never going to like me anyway. I just abstain. I also frequently commit a single yes vote to proposals i don't really want to pass, but would quite like a boost with the AI.
The luxury bans are usually targeted at the civ's current rival or enemy. If you are a warmonger expect to be targeted more , if you sit in a corner and play nice, less so, but you can still be collateral damage if most of the Marble in this world belongs to Mongolia but you also have a copy. I've also seen it that when the civ that proposed the ban, captures most of Mongolia's territory (and marble), they propose to repeal the ban a few WC later.
The upside is, you can see this all coming. You can see the proposals as soon as they're made so you have time to put up a few happiness buildings, if any are not yet built.
Bump of old thread, but this is really one of more blanent fun-killing aspects of BNW.
I think it would be better if the randomness were moderated a bit more. For example, the player should be guaranteed to pick a proposal every other congress. (Not sure how that would work for MP.) If a ban fails, then it cannot be proposed again.
Does anyone (not in MP) proposes bans? I can see the short term appeal, but then invarriably the lux comes up needed for WLtKD. Banning luxes, and trade with CS, is always short-sighted. And even trade embargos against an opponent AI work against the player -- since it dampens tourism.
The AIs are overly attracted to the negative proposals. I would have expected tweaks by now to make the affirmative proposals more likely to offered. It is very strange for the expansions to add features to the game, and then have the AIs work to negate them!
I'm not a fan of luxury bans because a lot of the time some civ proposes banning something I have a lot of. At one point I started to feel like I was being specifically targeted. Paranoia aside it turns out that the civs are usually trying to screw over a particular civ they don't like and unfortunately its usually something I have a lot of so I unintentionally suffer too.
Of course if all the civs do actually hate your guts rest assured they will ban all your luxuries in time if you let them. I really hate the World Congress unless I'm the one controlling it.
The crazy one I love involves any resolution, not just luxury bans. An AI passes a resolution, then the next session they propose to repeal it. Although I guess that would make sense if another party got the majority.
I wrote about that issue on this forum once. If a resource must be banned, then it's for the best to be the one YOU have plenty of. Because when trading it away, AI will not check if it was banned or not and pay you anyway. And since you're giving something that has literally no value left, it's free money
That is not correct. Once banned, it will not show up in the trade screens.
Also, the AI does do a check on whether it's banned or not, and will assign the resource a value of 0 if it is.
Separate names with a comma.