Clarifying the new promise mechanic

[KrikkitTwo]

The border warning mechanic seems to be changed. (Uncertain if the other promises changed)

The responses are now
-moving through (presumably a diplo bonus with Big diplo penalty for declaring war in X turns)
-declare war (suppossedly now a Surprise war ?even if already denounced?)
-Ignore (diplo penalty....and then normal effects if you declare war?)

So it seems
-Ignore if you want to get best tactical advantage and don't care about diplomacy
-declare war sacrifices some tactical advantage...but has less diplo penalty
-passing through is best for diplomacy...unless you Do declare war

 

[BrokenBokken]

I was under the impression that ignoring them just gives you a worse modifier with the person you attacked. Where as promising not to attack them and then doing so would make other civs distrust you as well. I'm thinking ignoring them gives the negative whether you attack or not, otherwise there would be no reason to ever say you aren't going to attack.

 

[leandrombraz]

Ignore give a penalty with that Civ for ignoring them, then you can get less warmongering with everybody through a proper Casus Belli option. Declare War you don't get a penalty with that Civ but you get more warmongering because of surprise war, which hurts your relationship with everybody, including the Civ you declared war to.

So:

Ignore - Warmonger penalty with everyone though reduced. The Civ you declared war to hate you a little more than others

Declare War - Surprise War penalty. Everybody hates you equally.


Basically Declare War is always the worse option, unless you're in early game and Warmonger penalty still don't exist. You get no advantages out of it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Ignore give a penalty with that Civ for ignoring them, then you can get less warmongering with everybody through a proper Casus Belli option. Declare War you don't get a penalty with that Civ but you get more warmongering because of surprise war, which hurts your relationship with everybody, including the Civ you declared war to.

So:

Ignore - Warmonger penalty with everyone though reduced. The Civ you declared war to hate you a little more than others

Declare War - Surprise War penalty. Everybody hates you equally.


Basically Declare War is always the worse option, unless you're in early game and Warmonger penalty still don't exist. You get no advantages out of it.

Are we sure that declare war is always Surprise even if you already denounced them?
Also... I don't think you can just "get" a cassus belli... if you denounce it takes 5? turns before you can declare formal war.

You could say if you have Cassus belli available, Ignore is best... otherwise Ignore is best for tactics.

Ignore is also best if you plan to attack in say 5-6 turns.

Declare War might be good if it automatically gave you the best Cassus belli you qualify for.

 

[joncnunn]

Are we sure that declare war is always Surprise even if you already denounced them?

Ed Beach has repeatedly in the videos said that Declare War via this prompt from the AI is always surprise and that you have to wait for your turn for both formal war (which indeed requires denouncing five+ turns before) and the cassus belli ones.

And indeed, declare war from there appears to be a false choice as depending on what you are planning one of the other two is always a better choice. (If positive you aren't planning on DOWing that civ for how ever long the promise is for [rest of the game in Civ V Vanilla / G&K; with one of the last BNW patches 50 turns] then make the promise, otherwise ignore.)

 

[SpoonyGundam]

IIRC, "Passing Through" actually means passing through this time. If your army is still hanging out around their borders X turns later, it counts as a broken promise even if you don't declare war. One of the Youtubers (Quill I think?) ran into that a while back.

 

[usadefcon1]

Seems to me that there's no reason to ever declare war from this prompt... if you're going to war they're going to be mad anyway, so you might as well wait until your units are in the perfect position.

 

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

So here we see that the game presents an option to declare war at an inopportune moment and with no advantageous trade-off.

This feature isn't exactly new to the series, though. In Civ 4, when you met a Civ for the first time, you were immediately prompted to choose whether you wanted to go to war. There is literally no reason to ever choose the WAR option in this screen, because you have every incentive to explore that leader's diplomacy screen before anything else.

Really, the puzzling thing is not why this particular option exists in a screen in Civ 6, but why these sorts of non-choices are still cropping up after so many iterations.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I listened Ed talk about those several times and I'm still amazed how useless those options are. There's absolutely no reason to choose anything other but "ignore".

For clarification (numbers just for reference):

When you "ignore", you get a small negative modifier with that civ (-3) then go on and declare official war (casus belli) and get that small modifier for casus belli war (-6) or less depending on casus belli. You then get minor warmonger penalties (-3) with other civs.

If you say "yes, plis die", you get massive warmonger penalties with all because it is considered surprise war. So let's speculate you get at least (-9) with the target as it must be a higher modifier with it being "surprise war". You then also get a bigger modifier with the world, so at least (-6).

So please tell me, someone... It what scenario would I ever choose "yes, plis die"??? Because I can't come up with one right now.

EDIT: Yes, I'm wondering that too, ThisNameIsTooLo. What is the point of those non-choices.

P.S. the "declare war" right away option during the first interaction is for people who don't really want to play civ at all and find it boring, yet found it necessary to try it in front of you. Criticizing how boring and stupid it is why struggling to hit end turn, every turn, all while trying to attack everything on the map including horses. I bet we all have that friend.

 

[Atlas627]

Here is the case where you want to Surprise War through the Demand screen: you were about to declare a surprise war anyway. This way, you don't ALSO get the "you ignored me" malus.

This malus is a pittance compared to the "you declared a surprise war" modifier... AFTER a certain amount of game time has passed. So if you want to declare war early but not leave a permanent bad impression on the target, you should not ignore their request.

 

[joncnunn]

Here is the case where you want to Surprise War through the Demand screen: you were about to declare a surprise war anyway. This way, you don't ALSO get the "you ignored me" malus.

That still surrenders tactical initiative to the AI for them to make the first strike.

 

[stealth_nsk]

In short:

1. Promising not to attack is the best if you're not going to attack. If you still attack, you'll get big diplomatic hit from everyone. Details unknown.

2. Ignoring request gives immediate diplomatic hit from the civilization which made the request. It looks like the best option if you're going to war.

3. Declaring war right away don't have additional penalties, but it's surprise war, which means you almost never want to use it past classic.

 

[SteveNick]

It seems like the best option if you want to avoid diplomatic penalties is to be upfront about your wars.

If you're amassing on someone's border, you're basically planning a surprise attack.

If you want to use casus belli, then declare war and then move in, instead of border-sneaking them.

The only other change I might like to see is to change it two options:

"Our units are merely passing through."

and

"No, I will not move my units away."

The latter should give the other player casus belli to declare war on you for very low diplomatic penalty, but not force you to DoW on them until you're ready.

 

[pholtz]

Ed Beach has repeatedly in the videos said that Declare War via this prompt from the AI is always surprise and that you have to wait for your turn for both formal war (which indeed requires denouncing five+ turns before) and the cassus belli ones.

Ed had never denounced the civ before this happened (If I am remembering correctly). So if the Civ is already denounced (the prereq number of turns?), it may very well be the case that it is not a surprise war.

 

[Atlas627]

That still surrenders tactical initiative to the AI for them to make the first strike.

Doesn't make it automatically useless, though.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Ed had never denounced the civ before this happened (If I am remembering correctly). So if the Civ is already denounced (the prereq number of turns?), it may very well be the case that it is not a surprise war.

No, in the last video Greeks were denounced.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

IIRC, "Passing Through" actually means passing through this time. If your army is still hanging out around their borders X turns later, it counts as a broken promise even if you don't declare war. One of the Youtubers (Quill I think?) ran into that a while back.

Uh-oh... I hope to God they change this, because this could be the most annoying mechanic of Civ VI (depending on how easy it is to accidentally trigger).

Also, an option that is useless in all situations seems like a total nonsequitur given the other, seemingly well-thought out mechanics of the game. It either means that everything else is screwed up as well, and somehow only appears coherent; that we live in a bizarro world where Beach has deliberately fudged up this one little thing; or that we don't have all the info and are mistaking how the mechanic actually works. I can only hope for the latter.

 

[Josephias]

I would trow a random tought in: note that "ignoring" also provides some tactical initiative to the asking player. Altough maybe not as much as starting the war outhright not promising to go away should be a warning sign to start mobilizing on the defensive, bringing more units to the contested border. While not killing your front line units directly, the asking player would be more prepared to repel them.

If,adding to this, multiple ignores could be considered a casus belli (this is not considered right now, I think, but could be made in in the future - call it preemtive war, maybe), the mechanic would not seem so bad.

 

[MacBalt]

Just a thought: Might this mechanic have more to do with the AI's decision tree than with the player's? For example:

1. Promising not to attack is the best if you're not going to attack. If you still attack, you'll get big diplomatic hit from everyone. Details unknown.

AI makes no changes to its build orders, etc., because it has been assured there will be no attack. Details Unknown.

2. Ignoring request gives immediate diplomatic hit from the civilization which made the request. It looks like the best option if you're going to war.

The AI, having been ignored, now "suspects" something is up and makes some changes to its build orders, etc. in order to prepare for a possible invasion. Details Unknown.

3. Declaring war right away don't have additional penalties, but it's surprise war, which means you almost never want to use it past classic.

The AI is now at war and takes action (in its unfathomable AI way) to address the new situation. Details Unknown.

Wouldn't something like that provide a reasonable explanation for this mechanic regardless of how it impacts the player's diplomatic status?

 

[MacBalt]

...not promising to go away should be a warning sign to start mobilizing on the defensive, bringing more units to the contested border. While not killing your front line units directly, the asking player would be more prepared to repel them.

Yes, this. Sorry, I missed this while preparing my post, but I think you are on the right track.