Civs for a peacefull Diplomatic game

[Ninal]

Since I just won my first tradition/cultural victory on deity after trying countless times I am now in for a new challenge. So far I have won:
Carthage-Progress-Science
Songhai-Authority-Domination
Arabia-Tradition-Cultural.

I would like to play a mostly peacefull game focussing on a diplomatic victory. I am thinking of Germany or Siam. Do you have any other suggestions or any tips for playing these two at deity level?

 

[Minh Le]

Austria is a beast!

 

[crdvis16]

Portugal and Morocco are natural diplo civs as well. Morocco is naturally defensive so peaceful makes sense for them. Portugal would probably be harder to stay peaceful with because Naus are so fun to spam.

Would you rather be tall or wide? That might help you narrow it down.

 

[tu_79]

Diplomatic peacefully? Isn't it an oxymoron?

Austria is the closest to this.

Morocco also has some interesting trade route strategies that might lead to diplomatic victory. And you could try Byzantium for a diplomatic religion, she's just so flexible.

 

[Galbias]

Diplomatic peacefully? Isn't it an oxymoron?

Pretty much, going for CS alliances will regularly cause other civs to get angry at you and if your empire is too small and you have CS allies that you can't defend, other civs will just go and conquer them. Having a big empire will allow you to protect your CS allies better. You need a lot of production to win United Nations and proposing it will piss off everybody who isn't going for DV. It's certainly possible to do without any conquest, but the process will tend to get other civs angrier at you than Cultural/Scientific victory would.

Also it's been awhile since I've tried to get World Leader votes from other Civs since the process is pretty shaky in the first place, but I believe in VP they'll only vote for you if your score is high enough; so a small empire is going to have problems there too. Not sure offhand if Vassals always vote for their Master or not.

Austria is my personal choice for favorite diplo civ and their UA can get you a lot of extra votes.

 

[Ninal]

I have tried a few starts with Germany because I think the Hanse is really strong. But I have trouble getting started because Germany pretty much starts out without any advantages. I have also considered Siam because it does get some early game advantages if you meet the right City states early.

I am seeing a lot of Austria votes here. Do you guys think Austria can be played progress-wide-peacefull? Since that is what I feel like playing like most now. Also I think that wide is just stronger for Diplomatic victories because you need to produce so many diplomatic units. That might be hard with a small Tradition empire. Do you hava any genereal suggestions on starting strategy with Austria?

 

[Minh Le]

You dont need to be wide, you just need gold, lots of gold. Autria has bonus to its capital so being wide do not have much benefit.

 

[tu_79]

I have tried a few starts with Germany because I think the Hanse is really strong. But I have trouble getting started because Germany pretty much starts out without any advantages. I have also considered Siam because it does get some early game advantages if you meet the right City states early.

I am seeing a lot of Austria votes here. Do you guys think Austria can be played progress-wide-peacefull? Since that is what I feel like playing like most now. Also I think that wide is just stronger for Diplomatic victories because you need to produce so many diplomatic units. That might be hard with a small Tradition empire. Do you hava any genereal suggestions on starting strategy with Austria?

Didn't you want to play diplomatic? Then tall Austria might be your only choice.

Wide is strong for diplomatic victories, but forget about peacefully. Germany has little early bonuses, but you can make it work. Just focus on befriending those city states the sooner the better.
And I insist, try Byzantium, there are some crazy synergies that you can make about diplomacy. You can even purchase great diplomats from the excendent faith points if you like. (Want gold? You have it. Want to play with GPTI? Do it. Just choose the right beliefs, all of them are there for Byzantium). Also, being the head of a reformed religion gives delegates. More if your religion is chosen by the world congress.

 

[Ninal]

Okay so not many peacefull options I hear? That might actually be the only little thing I dislike about VP...
Btw with peacefull I do aggressive wars it doesn't mean I'm not willing to defend what is mine!

I would love to hear more about that Byzantium diplomatic game. I have no idea what that would look like. I always considered Byzantium rather weak with only 1 extra belief instead of a real UA. But than again that's only theorycrafting and often Civs in VP are much stronger than expected when you actually play them...

 

[Workerspam]

I am seeing a lot of Austria votes here. Do you guys think Austria can be played progress-wide-peacefull?

I've played Progress wide Austria and it can be fun and effective. Your great people production will kick in a bit later than if you went Tradition but with enough marriages your capital can still become a GP factory, and you'll be in good shape to churn diplomatic units to ally late game City States. You'll also be better able to field a military capable of protecting your allies.

If your definition of "peaceful" is non-aggressive then yes, you can... sometimes. Mongolia or aggressive Authority civs may warrant offensive wars of protection and/or liberation (though I believe you keep the benefits of a marriage even if the CS is later conquered).

 

[CrazyG]

What do you mean by peaceful? Like that India photojournal currently in progress?

Diplomacy naturally starts a lot of conflicts, so its normal to have wars. Generally I find its easier to attack someone once than to defend four or five times throughout the game. If you are banning yourself from attacking, all of the normal diplomatic civs should work, you are just adding a layer of difficulty.

If you intend to defend all game, a flexible civ with good defense could work, such as Shoshone or Morrocco.

 

[Galbias]

Okay so not many peacefull options I hear? That might actually be the only little thing I dislike about VP...
Btw with peacefull I do aggressive wars it doesn't mean I'm not willing to defend what is mine!

I would love to hear more about that Byzantium diplomatic game. I have no idea what that would look like. I always considered Byzantium rather weak with only 1 extra belief instead of a real UA. But than again that's only theorycrafting and often Civs in VP are much stronger than expected when you actually play them...

For diplomatic Byzantium, key beliefs would probably something along the lines of Universalism (you can't found a religion and start spreading super quickly like Ethiopia or Mayans, so being able to erode existing pressure is key to getting your religion a strong foothold, this also allows you to save your Prophets for Holy Sites) and maybe the Reformation belief that gets you votes from Landmarks and Holy Sites, don't remember the name offhand. Spread your religion aggressively to City-States and any Civ that hasn't founded their own religion, get Borobudur and Hagia Sophia if possible to boost your spreading abilities. You can also spread to other civs that have founded their own religion and give you OB, this will make them mad but it can eventually leave them not able to really recover religion-wise.

Try not to use your ability to found after all religions are founded, one more civ with a religion means one less civ you can easily convert. Follower beliefs and Pantheon shouldn't matter too much, Churches are the best building for pressure but I'm not sure how much of a difference they make offhand versus the others.

If you have enough cities, Orthodoxy has the potential to put a lot of passive pressure on other competing religions or wipe them out entirely. Build roads between all your cities and going out towards the cities you want to convert, this should increase the passive pressure. Orthodoxy and Byzantium's UB both increase pressure from Trade Routes and I believe Trade Route pressure is based on Faith generation in the originating city so your trade routes should deliver some pretty hefty pressure as well. Orthodoxy isn't as worth taking if you're staying small though.

Statecraft vs Fealty is a tough decision, Fealty will help you spread a lot more but Palace of Westminister is too good if you're going for a Diplomatic victory.

I haven't played Byzantium yet but I'm planning on doing something along these lines in my next game maybe and I did something vaguely similar with Ethiopia in the past.

 

[JMA2286]

Well, a Diplomatic victory isn't actually very easy to do in VP without conquest and war, because city-states can be gobbled up quickly, especially if Mongolia is on the map.

If you are trying to do that though, I recommend doing a Terra-style map so that you can use the New World and prioritizing naval techs to settle ideal trade route cities to pair with Statecraft.

I'd say if a Peaceful Diplomatic victory is your goal, that doing a Terra style map with Polynesia is your best bet. You can have a global trade network without even needing Astronomy

 

[Minh Le]

Forget about peaceful, you can do a very strong diplo victory playing as the Greece. They are easier to get alliance with city states and they have bonus combat strength making conquest easier. Take a few vassals and ally as many city states as possible.

 

[JMA2286]

Forget about peaceful, you can do a very strong diplo victory playing as the Greece. They are easier to get alliance with city states and they have bonus combat strength making conquest easier. Take a few vassals and ally as many city states as possible.

I also favor the aggressive approach to Diplomatic. Progress-Statecraft-Industry, use all that cash to build a max supply army that is replenished without much effort, do whatever needs to be done to keep the trade flowing

 

[Ninal]

Bit of a late reply... real life happening in between (work and kids mostly)...

What I meant by 'peacefull' is playing an expansionist game, willing to defend what you have settled and allied but not going on a large conquering spree. If I do go conquering it feels like you win the game militarily first and then decide what "official victory condition" to pursue afterwards. To me it wouldn't feel like a "real" diplomatic victory.

So I started a few Deity, Pangea, progress games with Germany and a few with Siam. I really hated the slow start Germany gets. You basically have no real bonusses early on when you need to establish an empire. My Siam games ('starts' would be the better word) depended a lot on the CS I encountered. They felt stronger than Germany but nevertheless never felt strong enough to continue playing.

I ended up playing Deity Polynesia on an Archipellago map with the intend of going Diplomatic. So far I have had a strong start with a Pearls Monopoly, a large religion and 9 cities. I went progress and have 4/6 Statecraft. I am allied to 7 or 8 CS but just got declared war on by two much stronger military civs. I hope I can survive! Techwise I am leading by a small margin over Russia and a large margin over the rest.

General observation:
In general I feel like most things in Vox Populi are very well ballanced. I do however tend to have more success with the Civs that have early game Bonusses. I am well aware that it is probably my play-style or personal preference but to me it feels like you get so far behind without any early game bonusses that you cannot compensate enough with your late game. At least that is what it felt like when trying Germany, Portugal and Austria.

Do you guys think that the "late bloomers" are still worth it without the early boosts? And if so what am I missing in my play-style? What should I change to utilise these late game Civs?

 

[tu_79]

Do you guys think that the "late bloomers" are still worth it without the early boosts? And if so what am I missing in my play-style? What should I change to utilise these late game Civs?

There's a fundamental balancing flaw. The turns it takes to end a game are different among difficulties. The more difficult the game, the less turns it takes. And it's well known that the more turns you have for maneuvering your units, the more military advantage you can get from AI.
But since you want to play 'peacefully', this should not affect you very much.

One way to recover when you are very behind is focusing on trade routes and spies. You let the early bloomers do the research thing for you (probably you'd think you've lost the game when it's actually still playable). You still need a big army and a bit of diplomacy to avoid enemies, or you won't be able to trade. I think that the only risky thing of late bloomers is starting next to an early warmonger, but you can always pick Authority and play the army in this case (getting bonuses mostly through violence).

 

[CrazyG]

Do you guys think that the "late bloomers" are still worth it without the early boosts? And if so what am I missing in my play-style? What should I change to utilise these late game Civs?

Germany is a really late game civ and he would be among my choices for the best civ in the game.
Portugal has great early game. Trade routes unlock early, the extra science early on makes a huge difference. You unlock all of your unique bonuses by compass, I wouldn't call her a late bloomer at tall.

Austria is a late bloomer and its a big flaw of that civ. With that said, if you reach industrial era and you aren't on fire, you probably will win.

 

[Minh Le]

I find it playing late game civs is actually much more winable than those early civs .

 

[Galbias]

What I meant by 'peacefull' is playing an expansionist game, willing to defend what you have settled and allied but not going on a large conquering spree. If I do go conquering it feels like you win the game militarily first and then decide what "official victory condition" to pursue afterwards. To me it wouldn't feel like a "real" diplomatic victory.

Well, the idea of "peaceful expansive" playstyle is somewhat dependent on luck anyways; sometimes you'll have a large area to expand to without war, sometimes you'll get boxed in and you either have to play on 3 cities or conquer some yourself. But yes, if you do start with enough space to settle a good-sized empire then most of the above choices are good. I don't think Siam's bonuses scale particularly well wide but if you're wide you can theoretically ally more CSes so it evens out, I guess.