Can/Should Civs be able to leave World Congress?

[KrikkitTwo]

Or you can just deal with the penalties. They just slow you down not stop you.

 

[glenjen75]

The diplomatic game is very much the game of the peacemaker.

I am not quite so sure on this point, although I haven't personally seen enough of the delegate/vote recruitment/influence process for me to say one way or the other. It seems to me having a huge military at a CS's (or other Civ's) borders would be a very good reason for them to vote in line with your views. Also, conquering Civs/CSs that vote against you makes it much easier to get your way the next time the WC convenes.
How effective this type of gunboat diplomacy might be, especially in the single player game, would be dependent on whether relevant dialogue options are available for selection on the pertinent diplomacy screens. The fact that there is an Autocracy pick for "gunship diplomacy" (+ influence w/ CS you could demand tribute from) seems to hint that this is at least a possibility.

 

[Arachnofiend]

And here comes the problem where I agree with pilot00: The diplomatic game is very much the game of the peacemaker. Thus, the warmonger will actually have to out-do the peace-maker in an area of the game that is actually favored for the peace-maker in order to avoid these consequences. Thus, where the peacemaker can get by by being better Diplomacy but being inferior in Military, the warmonger will have to be better in both Military and Diplomacy in order to get by. And that doesn't seem like a fair balance.

If the Warmonger has an option to leave the WC and/or not live up to the resolutions, this gives him an option to shut down the diplomatic game completely, with all the consequences that will have - most likely mass denouncements, possibly mass DOW and guaranteed no trade. Thus, the Warmonger can choose to either endure the resolutions, keeping him in the Diplomatic game even if he is not excelling at it, and thereby sustaining a hit to his military power - or he can chose to leave, and not being hampered in his military, but having to deal with the consequences. And that, to me, seems like the more balanced approach.

Okay, I can follow this argument a lot better and I can see it as a legitimate issue. However, I still don't think simple diplo hits is enough to counteract the advantage gained by defying the World Congress. You were going to get those anyways! You were going to go to war with these people anyways! A diplo hit is no skin off the back of a warmonger and he has no reason to ever play the diplo game in the majority of scenarios.

So here's another suggestion: What if puppeted city-states/completely wiped off civs who's capitals you control automatically vote in your favor? Technically these organizations would still have their own governments and would be able to act as independents even though they clearly are not (think the Balkan nations controlled by the USSR post-WWII). The trade off is that getting enough city-state votes in this manner to have a majority is a horrendously bad idea so you'd still have to play the diplo game to some degree. You'd also be forced to keep the city-states and capitals as puppets (justified by the fact that an annexed city is directly under your control and does not have a government of its own).

 

[Seek]

You don't have to be better in Diplomacy if you're playing for Domination, you just have to be good enough to block the resolutions that will harm you. And it's not that those resolutions will just pop up on you, you have 30 turns to react to them, buy some votes, conquer a city state that allies with your opponent, etc.

This. The point of the mechanic is to make diplomacy more interactive and consequential, which are both criticisms currently held against Civ5. Moreover, Domination victories are also criticized for being too easy. Two birds with one stone..

As KrikkitTwo said as well, it's not like the anti-warmongering resolutions are all that catastrophic.

 

[Biologist]

As I think I stated previously, non-diplo-focused players won't have to dominate the Congress to get what they want, they just need to have enough influence to block unwanted resolutions. That means getting more delegates OR reducing the delegates available to other members. In some ways, this is just a more involved version of the diplo victory vote scramble that we currently have: everyone not in contention for the diplo victory/control of the Congress will attempt to destroy/subvert a few city states/allies from the frontrunner to prevent the winning vote from going through.

There are even more options with the Congress since ideologies, religion, and trade will all factor into delegates. Also, a militaristically aggressive and expansionist civ has a decent shot at contacting all other civs first; it's not implausible that a warmonger/scientific expansionist could seek to found the Congress themselves simply to start with extra delegates.

 

[kaspergm]

Okay, I can follow this argument a lot better and I can see it as a legitimate issue. However, I still don't think simple diplo hits is enough to counteract the advantage gained by defying the World Congress. You were going to get those anyways! You were going to go to war with these people anyways! A diplo hit is no skin off the back of a warmonger and he has no reason to ever play the diplo game in the majority of scenarios.

Yes, I completely agree, that would be a major concern with regards to keeping the WC relevant. I don't feel able to say what would be the better balance without trying the game, and I can only hope that they've done excessive testin and found the correct solution.

So here's another suggestion: What if puppeted city-states/completely wiped off civs who's capitals you control automatically vote in your favor? Technically these organizations would still have their own governments and would be able to act as independents even though they clearly are not (think the Balkan nations controlled by the USSR post-WWII). The trade off is that getting enough city-state votes in this manner to have a majority is a horrendously bad idea so you'd still have to play the diplo game to some degree. You'd also be forced to keep the city-states and capitals as puppets (justified by the fact that an annexed city is directly under your control and does not have a government of its own).

I definitely feel it's worth playing around with different ideas of diplomatic interaction. Not sure if conquered civs voting for you is the perfect solution, it does clash a bit with realism (after all, conquered nations rarely thank you for the effort). I do find it interesting that we have now options in Autocracy to use military power to gain influence with City States, I definitely feel this is going to help you with diplomacy when going warmonger although it will not have much effects with CSs far away.

As for penalties when leaving WC, a complete trade embargo with all Civs currently in the WC plus all CSs not currently allied with you being locked at -60 (but not war) could be a start. Would it be enough? Perhaps not, it's hard to say, again, testing would probably be necessary to find the perfect/best balance.

 

[wigwam]

I don't see any WC resolutions that will really hurt warmongers.

Ban luxury—this could hurt a little, especially if you're struggling to keep your happiness up already.
Embargo city-states—depending on your style (i.e. are you Genghis or are you Alexander?), this one could hurt the most.
Embargo—by the time you're into the Renaissance, you've probably killed half your rivals and are getting ready to attack the rest. Who cares if they embargo you?
Standing army tax—hurts the AI, but not human players; you don't actually need a big army to be an effective warmonger.
Nuclear non-proliferation—if you haven't won by the time nukes come around, you're either about to win or you've already lost.

 

[pilot00]

You would have more chance convincing people if you stopped contradicting yourself.

I have no desire or interest to convince anyone, this thread was made to ask opinions on the mechanic, therefore I said my opinion and when subsequently/checked/asked/whatever I provided my rationale as to why. Simple as that. Also, I am writing this on the fly and truth be told I am not the best at writing a thesis or speech, and as I said kaspergm expresses the core of my arguments a hundredfold better than me.
However oxymoron for someone else to express your opinion for you that may be.

All in all we might have a better argument in general if you were not 100% sure of what you say to be true. I contradict myself because we don't know the specifics yes so I want to keep a door open in the case I am wrong. If anything I am willing to consider the possibility of been wrong.

Ban luxury—this could hurt a little, especially if you're struggling to keep your happiness up already.
Embargo city-states—depending on your style (i.e. are you Genghis or are you Alexander?), this one could hurt the most.
Embargo—by the time you're into the Renaissance, you've probably killed half your rivals and are getting ready to attack the rest. Who cares if they embargo you?
Standing army tax—hurts the AI, but not human players; you don't actually need a big army to be an effective warmonger.
Nuclear non-proliferation—if you haven't won by the time nukes come around, you're either about to win or you've already lost.

What if translate those into multiplayer though? 1-2-3 and 4 can possibly become major issues for any type of victory. Also in higher difficulties I don't think the AI has much of a gold problem

 

[RX2000]

They should handle it the way Galactic Civilizations II handles it......

You can leave the WC, but you take a diplo hit & cant trade with anyone. It would be cool if they made it where you could rejoin later if you want, & start trading again (maybe the other nations would have to vote to agree to let you back in) but the diplo hit would remain. That would be a change from GCII. If you leave the United Planets in that game there's no going back.....

 

[baptismbyfire]

I don't see any WC resolutions that will really hurt warmongers.

Ban luxury—this could hurt a little, especially if you're struggling to keep your happiness up already.
Embargo city-states—depending on your style (i.e. are you Genghis or are you Alexander?), this one could hurt the most.
Embargo—by the time you're into the Renaissance, you've probably killed half your rivals and are getting ready to attack the rest. Who cares if they embargo you?
Standing army tax—hurts the AI, but not human players; you don't actually need a big army to be an effective warmonger.
Nuclear non-proliferation—if you haven't won by the time nukes come around, you're either about to win or you've already lost.

These are actually some pretty good points. Helps to put me a little at ease since I like to go warmonger often. I guess I need to keep in mind that Civ has been through countless iterations and the warmonger path has always remained perfectly viable, even if they've made attempts to weaken it. I am concerned about the ability to choke my gold supply to the extent that I start having units disband, but I guess there are ways of dealing with that, like always.

 

[VainoValkea]

They should handle it the way Galactic Civilizations II handles it......

You can leave the WC, but you take a diplo hit & cant trade with anyone.

"Diplo hit" meaning what, automatic AI hatred against the leaving party? For that to work (particularly in multiplayer where you can't conjure hatred against a player) there should be a huge incentive for players remaining in WC to keep the club intact.

 

[RX2000]

"Diplo hit" meaning what, automatic AI hatred against the leaving party? For that to work (particularly in multiplayer where you can't conjure hatred against a player) there should be a huge incentive for players remaining in WC to keep the club intact.

Yes, diplo hit meaning everyone hates them for leaving. I wish Civ 5 was single player only, like Gal Civs 2. The single player could be 1000x better if they would focus on it.

But yea, you're correct, in a multiplayer BNW game the diplo hit wouldnt be there, it would just be the trade hit. The incentive to stay would be the ability to keep trading. I'm assuming that in BNW trade routes will make up a significant part of your budget, as they usually do in GC2.

 

[VainoValkea]

I disagree, RX2000. I hate magic AI love/hate buttons that have nothing to do with gameplay. I love the AI model that actually tries to win and won't go easy on me just because I share their religion and gave them a tech a century ago. Or, even worse, because a random pop up tells me our two nations had a diplomatic marriage. I think such role playing has a place in Civ V, and that place is City States.

The situation would be very different, though, if the "diplo hit" was associated with concrete penalties to the other members of the Congress - or alternatively, some nice bonus for hunting the rogue states down...

 

[Ll1442]

well, actually Germany, Italy and Japan (the nations of Autocracy) did leave the UN. Never the less its the Order ideology that abandon diplomatic vactory

that being said. I believe it should be possible to leave. but a new option within the WC would be to declare a common war against the civ.
concerning diplomatic victory, the votes required to win should not be decreased, or automaticly set for Nay.

 

[The QC]

that being said. I believe it should be possible to leave. but a new option within the WC would be to declare a common war against the civ.
concerning diplomatic victory, the votes required to win should not be decreased, or automaticly set for Nay.

So, you want to be able to leave and still vote .

 

[Ll1442]

So, you want to be able to leave and still vote .

nope, its just to not make the world leader easier to get.