Civ Discussion - Silla

[Leucarum]

That does seem wasteful…sending then rejecting wastes more of their influence than just sending and accepting or not sending to begin with.

Is it just me this is happening to? I don't play with any mods, and I do find it happening way too often

 

[stealth_nsk]

It definitely irks me that the AI can tank a relationship with you through their own actions with no input from the player. I feel like I should at least get some say as to whether or not I'm all that upset about them settling a certain spot or failing to spy on me. It is definitely frustrated to try and put a bunch of work into making a friend only to see them do everything they can to hurt the relationship.

Back in the days of Civ4 and Civ5, we discussed diplomacy based on "public opinion" where relations between civilizations are affected mechanically and work even for human players. The idea was to make the same diplomacy work in the same way for both AI and human players. We didn't have a clear picture, just a concept and it took Civ7 to actually make it happen, just with different terms.

So, I should say, mechanically those automated drops and increases in relations are fantastic. From roleplay point of view - it's the question. To me it's ok that relation between 2 countries decrease automatically in case of revealed spy operations, without explicit ruler decision - that's how it works in real life in my view. But I understand people to whom it looks differently, immersion is subjective.

 

[Leucarum]

So, I should say, mechanically those automated drops and increases in relations are fantastic. From roleplay point of view - it's the question. To me it's ok that relation between 2 countries decrease automatically in case of revealed spy operations, without explicit ruler decision - that's how it works in real life in my view. But I understand people to whom it looks differently, immersion is subjective.

I think the mechanic is fine, it's just that to me the AI appears to be interacting with it erratically.

 

[UWHabs]

I think the mechanic is fine, it's just that to me the AI appears to be interacting with it erratically.

Yeah, my guess is the code to accept or reject is based too much on like their current status. Ideally, civs should probably have like a "target relationship" - if they want to reconcile and become neutral or friends, they should accept more. Like I've also had cases where they send a reconciliation, they send an endeavour, we get back up to almost neutral, and then I send an open borders and they reject it and put us back into angry.

I think a couple points would help - Silla's ability should probably trigger on "Friendly or Allied", just in case you get close to the top but not quite there. And then yeah, I do think we need a couple more endeavors like the Emile Bell one, which has a big relationship gain if accepted.

It definitely irks me that the AI can tank a relationship with you through their own actions with no input from the player. I feel like I should at least get some say as to whether or not I'm all that upset about them settling a certain spot or failing to spy on me. It is definitely frustrated to try and put a bunch of work into making a friend only to see them do everything they can to hurt the relationship.

This is one place where I feel the game should easily be able to improve - I should be able to spend influence to prevent the AI from spying/forward settling/converting my towns for X amount of turns.

It would add more clicks, but I wouldn't hate it if basically whenever they settled near you or triggered something that caused a big negative spike, you were given 3 options - forgive, accept, and denounce. Like, I don't really care sometimes if my ally settles near me, if it's a settlement I wasn't aiming for anyways. I'd love to just pay 50 influence and be like "sure, no prob sis, go ahead".

 

[Leucarum]

For settlement maybe the penalty for settling close should scale by distance rather than being a binary all or nothing penalty.