[R&F] Alliance meta

[ShallowSeas]

The new alliance system is a great addition to the game, because it finally makes diplomacy worthwhile. The new bonuses are strong enough that I feel playing optimally will require having at least one alliance. As an example, it is hard to imagine why anyone would attempt to win a science victory without a research alliance (or whatever it is called.)

Not only will this new feature actually reward players who pay attention to global politics, but it makes peaceful play more viable. It even provides an incentive not to conquer the weaker civs in the game. Think about it, the bonuses work both ways, so it would be preferable that you give a boost to a weaker civ instead of one that has the potential to win the game.

Warmongering will still be very good of course, but it will come with the adding challenge of conquering without alienating your allies.

How do you guys think the new alliance system will change the game?

 

[Kyro]

With regards to Meta because you mentioned it, very little, because the very nature of meta singles out what is most efficient.

By the looks of how loyalty works, warmongering will still be the most efficient way to play because ICS remains just as important if not even more so and waiting for free cities to flip is too slow compared with harvesting them straight.

I would say the very idea of there being a "meta" is highly questionable given that there must first be multiple, comparable strategies for that term to be coined effectively. When there's only one undisputed best way for the longest time ever it's no longer "meta" because nothing about strategy is changing, significantly at least.

Oh and, there's a building now that grants production boosts everytime a player captures a city...and dedications that pretty much remove warmongering penalties altogether. Which means its very likely you can keep conquering, get production for it and still maintain friendly relations with just one Civilization for whatever alliance benefit you want. Zero Opportunity cost.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What I wanted in Civ for a long time is multiplayer-aware diplomacy. Vanilla Civ6 followed classical approach of diplomatic bonuses/penalties, which don't work in MP at all, since they exist in AI only.
R&F is a huge leap in this direction:
- Alliances with output provide reason to ally with someone.
- Emergencies are a form of alliance against someone, again with bonuses.
- Loyalty is partially a universal warmonger penalty implementation.

It sound fun so far.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The new alliance system looks great, it should go a long way to making diplomacy worthwhile, both against AI and in multiplayer. Could well be the best new feature added in R&F!

 

[Siptah]

I don‘t know how much the new alliances will change what I‘m doing on games where I try to play at my best and most efficient. Maybe not much at all. But I don‘t play like that in most of my games - and I‘m sure I going to use the new alliance features a lot then. Looking forward to the alliances deep dive next week.

 

[Leyrann]

With regards to Meta because you mentioned it, very little, because the very nature of meta singles out what is most efficient.

By the looks of how loyalty works, warmongering will still be the most efficient way to play because ICS remains just as important if not even more so and waiting for free cities to flip is too slow compared with harvesting them straight.

I would say the very idea of there being a "meta" is highly questionable given that there must first be multiple, comparable strategies for that term to be coined effectively. When there's only one undisputed best way for the longest time ever it's no longer "meta" because nothing about strategy is changing, significantly at least.

Oh and, there's a building now that grants production boosts everytime a player captures a city...and dedications that pretty much remove warmongering penalties altogether. Which means its very likely you can keep conquering, get production for it and still maintain friendly relations with just one Civilization for whatever alliance benefit you want. Zero Opportunity cost.

For someone who doesn't like a focus on warfare you're pretty intent on explaining that it's better than anything else... Yes, if you want a domination victory you want to expand as much as possible, but if you're going for a science victory, you'll want a science alliance, and if you're going for a cultural victory, you'll want a cultural alliance. If you're going for a religious victory, you'll want peace so that your heretics aren't getting condemned all the time. And if you want just a single alliance, that means you'll want to not fight too much as no AI will like you if you conquer two or three neighbors.

Just because you can win a domination victory doesn't mean it's best to go for domination, you know. If you're going non-domination, you're gonna have to do one of two things. Either you conquer little or not at all to make sure you can get alliances of the right kind, or alternatively you conquer so much that you don't need those alliances to win your victory, but in that case you're actually doing a fake domination victory.

 

[Kyro]

For someone who doesn't like a focus on warfare you're pretty intent on explaining that it's better than anything else

Sometimes it's difficult to convince people that the water they're drinking from is dirty until you stir the mud within.

When I first brought up the imbalanced state of strategy in the game from the very beginning, ie "meta", people were opposing me on it, claiming it doesn't matter because there were "alternatives" and it doesn't affect how the game is played. The funny thing is they were plain wrong because in all strategy games I know of when something is overpowered it is swiftly dealt with because designers understood the implications of letting overpowered features run wild. You lose diversity, you lose real choices, you lose fun.

So fine, if people can't see what's wrong with it then it'll be better to proliferate the overpowered features until it becomes a problem that needs to be fixed. Guess what I didn't even have to do anything. People started posting sweeping statements about how the game should be played(it just happened again btw), completely backed by efficiency, or game meta and I just watched as people squirmed to try and say they're wrong. On what basis can you state that they are wrong? Fun? Well they're having fun according to game objectives while you're not so who's right here? Then the Cree headman came along and made a sweeping statement on what Civ 6 is about and I watched again as people scrambled to claim he was wrong. Again on what basis? All the power in the game is devoted to the very thing he claims Civ 6 is about, you want to try and convince him otherwise using powerless alternatives?

But enough about why I'm doing this.

Yes, if you want a domination victory you want to expand as much as possible,

That's incorrect because you will want to expand as much as possible no matter what victory condition you're going for because individual cities no longer matter in Civ 6 and it's all about sheer numbers for efficiency now.

but if you're going for a science victory, you'll want a science alliance, and if you're going for a cultural victory, you'll want a cultural alliance. If you're going for a religious victory, you'll want peace so that your heretics aren't getting condemned all the time. And if you want just a single alliance, that means you'll want to not fight too much as no AI will like you if you conquer two or three neighbors.

Well I assure you in R&F you'll see people conquering half the known world and still be allied with somebody. Those aren't mutually exclusive options and there are ways to avoid warmongering penalties altogether.

Just because you can win a domination victory doesn't mean it's best to go for domination, you know. If you're going non-domination, you're gonna have to do one of two things. Either you conquer little or not at all to make sure you can get alliances of the right kind, or alternatively you conquer so much that you don't need those alliances to win your victory, but in that case you're actually doing a fake domination victory.

Oh no I'm not saying it's best to go for a Domination victory all the time. I'm saying warmongering is the most efficient method for any victory condition because it gives you the most cities in the shortest amount of time. "Fake Domination" is a subjective term not recognized by the game.

 

[nzcamel]

That's incorrect because you will want to expand as much as possible no matter what victory condition you're going for because individual cities no longer matter in Civ 6 and it's all about sheer numbers for efficiency now.

Please elaborate Kyro...

 

[Victoria]

I love diplomacy even if it is broken, I may be one of the few, but over half my games I play diplomatically.

I 100% conceded that pure early violence is the way to a fast win for any victory type unless we consider very lucky play.

I am rather let down by what I have seen so far which does indicate Firaxis approves of that design style. There has been no better opportunity to dampen warmonger than an expansion, amd that’s what it needs dampening, not putting out.

There is some dampening there, alliances just are not that possible with high warmonger points beyond befriending a Darwinist. If this is the case then alliances provide some additional strength against warmongers but other areas like governors and ‘emergencies’ counteract those benefits.

Not everything has been revealed and until you play you cannot really say... but currently it seems like a bunch of new mechanics have been added without really changing the direction structure. More choice is great but the outcome seems similar.

 

[Kyro]

Please elaborate Kyro...

You know I've been thinking about this for the longest time and I really think that's the root of all the issues...I understand now why the developers of Civ 5 chose to limit cities the way they did. Why is warmongering so powerful in Civ 6, why are Wonders so Weak, why tall play is irrelevant, why quality no longer matters.

It goes back to Infinite City Spam.

When cities aren't limited and you can have as as many as you are willing to build/conquer, any "Quality" feature your pursue at the cost of additional cities is going to have a huge opportunity cost because of the sheer value of cities. Cities give you districts and districts provide the yields you need for victory. Should I risk this wonder or found two more cities? Cities grow, Wonders don't. Many Wonders in Civ 6 have their value outstripped simply because their benefits can be replaced with additional cities. This also means that in the face of sheer quantity, quality is very insignificant. What is 1 good city in the midst of 20 others or even 2 mediocre ones?

Tall cities have taken a huge hit in Civ 6 because of housing. One City will never grow fast enough to make up for two, and districts are limited by population so the choice here is obvious on whether you should expand or not, the game forces you to do it.

District costs inflate as the game progresses which means if you didn't expand earlier you will need to suffer its consequences.

The fact that every additional city you found is always better for victory than not if you do it right means that the number one directive for all strategies is to get as many cities as possible, as quickly as possible before it gets expensive to build more districts.

This then links to part of the reason why warmongering is so strong because conquering is the fastest way to get more cities in the shortest time frame.

 

[Loderingo]

I agree that conquest is probably the best way to play now. I suspect that in R&F, conquered cities will have very low loyalty, which will force the player to slow down the rate of conquest until cities have been fully integrated.

 

[leandrombraz]

I feel like I'm really luck that I'm not a player who feels the need to play optimally (unless it's a MP game, off course), I really, really don't care if taking the warmonger route is optimal, I actually find it the least enjoyable way to play the game, way too much units to move around. Off course, balance is importante and if one option is considerably stronger than others, that's definitely an issue that need to be addressed, I would love to see a Civ game where peace is just as powerful as war but personally it doesn't affect me that much. If I don't want to conquer, I won't conquer, I don't care how optimal it is, mostly in a game that isn't really challenging to win. If optimal was necessary to win I would care more but it isn't. It get to a point where more cities will give you more yields, sure, you gonna win in less turns but it's just overkill, you don't need it so why bother? I'll just do what I think it's fun.


Alliances won't fix the unbalance between warmongering and playing diplomatically but it will make diplomacy more enjoyable. It always feels good to be rewarded, to get something out of an action and making alliances isn't rewarding as it's, it doesn't do much. The system will make it more enjoyable for people who like to play diplomatically. If you're the kind of player that need to take the most optimal path, alliances certainly won't take you out from the warmongering route, it still the optimal way to play the game for sure. At least loyalty add an extra layer of challenge to warmongering and alliance make diplomacy feel like it's worth it, so both playstyles will improve imo but it'll still be unbalanced, one is considerably better than the other..

 

[tedhebert]

You know I've been thinking about this for the longest time and I really think that's the root of all the issues...I understand now why the developers of Civ 5 chose to limit cities the way they did. Why is warmongering so powerful in Civ 6, why are Wonders so Weak, why tall play is irrelevant, why quality no longer matters.

It goes back to Infinite City Spam.

When cities aren't limited and you can have as as many as you are willing to build/conquer, any "Quality" feature your pursue at the cost of additional cities is going to have a huge opportunity cost because of the sheer value of cities. Cities give you districts and districts provide the yields you need for victory. Should I risk this wonder or found two more cities? Cities grow, Wonders don't. Many Wonders in Civ 6 have their value outstripped simply because their benefits can be replaced with additional cities. This also means that in the face of sheer quantity, quality is very insignificant. What is 1 good city in the midst of 20 others or even 2 mediocre ones?

Tall cities have taken a huge hit in Civ 6 because of housing. One City will never grow fast enough to make up for two, and districts are limited by population so the choice here is obvious on whether you should expand or not, the game forces you to it.

District costs inflate as the game progresses which means if you didn't expand earlier you will need to suffer its consequences.

The fact that every additional city you found is always better for victory than not if you do it right means that the number one directive for all strategies is to get as many cities as possible, as quickly as possible before it gets expensive to build more districts.

This then links to part of the reason why warmongering is so strong because conquering is the fastest way to get more cities in the shortest time frame.

I agree with what Kyro says here, altough I think "infinite" is a little overkill.... There comes a time when most good viable city spots have been taken, and warmongering is not the most useful solution. Or the most fun... I usually build up my empire by at least 2-5 cities gained by very early warmongering, combined with settling all i can around me, then mostly stop doing it unless a civ DOWs me... when that happens, I have no pity ;-)

One extra argument you forgot, Kyro, is that each additional city will also allow you to BUILD aditional stuff... and those additional stuff, while sometimes being useful only in the growth of THAT city, can also become stuff useful for the global game, like workers and military units... or even wonders... that's on top of all the advantages you already mentioned...

 

[Frostburn]

I don‘t know how much the new alliances will change what I‘m doing on games where I try to play at my best and most efficient. Maybe not much at all. But I don‘t play like that in most of my games - and I‘m sure I going to use the new alliance features a lot then. Looking forward to the alliances deep dive next week.

I usually like to be as efficient as humanly possible in strategy games, but with Civ it just feels less fun. Trying to be too efficient in Civ takes away from the immersion, I prefer role playing

 

[local_hero]

While I get the argument with domination and going wide, aren't we yet to see how effectively loyalty will contain it? With dark ages and that amenities will affect loyalty, I can see how one might struggle a bit. Imagine getting an emergency against you (with Gandhi among the members) and to enter a dark age. *Shudder*

It's also possible that some policy cards will reward tall more than before (with the changes to the Simultaneum card in mind).

 

[ChocolateShake]

Alliances are a great addition to the system, and they should make diplomacy a much better and more rewarding experience, but I think it all depends on the other diplomacy tweaks. At present AI agendas still play too much of a role in determining your relationships with them. I think it's a good sign of things to come, as long as they keep building on more diplomatic options that bring tangible benefits.

Trade route benefits are a great way to reward builder style players, and hopefully they find new ways to do that through special buildings or agreements.

 

[Kyro]

While I get the argument with domination and going wide, aren't we yet to see how effectively loyalty will contain it? With dark ages and that amenities will affect loyalty, I can see how one might struggle a bit. Imagine getting an emergency against you (with Gandhi among the members) and to enter a dark age. *Shudder*

It's also possible that some policy cards will reward tall more than before (with the changes to the Simultaneum card in mind).

The thing is cities exert loyalty on each other so having many in close proximity to each other actually aids in maintaining loyalty rather than weakening it.

 

[local_hero]

The thing is cities exert loyalty on each other so having many in close proximity to each other actually aids in maintaining loyalty rather than weakening it.

Of course. I just don't know if that will always be enough if you have negative amenities in your cities. And newly conquered ones start at half. Maybe we have hard numbers that I'm not aware of, but this might otherwise be the focus of future balance changes.

 

[pgm123]

That's incorrect because you will want to expand as much as possible no matter what victory condition you're going for because individual cities no longer matter in Civ 6 and it's all about sheer numbers for efficiency now.

We'll see if the policy card changes that make them more about city population will matter. That could be interesting.

I agree that alliances are warmongering aren't mutually exclusive. If disloyalty came with a strong negative science push, that could punish warmongering. But that might be too extreme and bring back the days of Civ V's anti-wide balance, which I hope people here don't seriously want.

 

[Kyro]

We'll see if the policy card changes that make them more about city population will matter. That could be interesting.

I agree that alliances are warmongering aren't mutually exclusive. If disloyalty came with a strong negative science push, that could punish warmongering. But that might be too extreme and bring back the days of Civ V's anti-wide balance, which I hope people here don't seriously want.

Well no amount of population matters when you can have infinite cities. Civ 5's anti-wide balance was too much, but there needs to be a limit or else quantity outshines everything.