Could Pact of Secrecy be viable in Civ VI?

[megabearsfan]

I actually really liked the Pact of Secrecy in Civ V - at least, I liked it as a concept. The actual implementation was problematic. The idea of multiple civs agreeing to covertly work against a mutual rival was a good idea - in principle. I think there might be room in Civ VI's diplomacy mechanics for a variation of the Pact of Secrecy to return.

Currently, a civ can denounce another civ in order to obtain a casus beli and declare a "formal war" that reduces warmonger penalties. However, civs are allowed to declare joint wars without a casus beli, and these joint wars appear to count (as far as I can tell) as formal wars. This allows civs to use the joint war to bypass the formal denouncement (or casus beli) in order to effectively surprise declare another player. Further, A.I.s with mostly green diplo modifiers seem far too willing to engage in joint wars against their friends.

So here's the proposal: Use "Pact of Secrecy" as a precursor to a joint war, in the same way that a denouncement is a precursor to a casus beli and formal war. So instead of being able to suddenly declare a Joint War without warning, the two conspiring civs must first establish a Pact of Secrecy against the targeted player. In 5 or 10 turns, they would then be able to declare their joint war. In the meantime, the targeted player (or other players, for that matter) would have a chance of discovering the plot. That likelihood would increase with higher diplomatic visibility.

Alternatively, civs could still be allowed to declare a joint war without a pact of secrecy, but doing so results in higher warmonger penalties as if they'd declared a surprise war.

Thoughts?

 

[Zaarin]

Uh, is this something from a mod? Because I've been playing Civ5 since launch day and I've never heard of such a thing...Sounds like an interesting idea, though, especially if it gets the AI to declare joint wars less frequently.

 

[Arms Longfellow]

It was from the very early days of Civilization 5, but got patched out quickly. If you've been playing it since launch, then you simply forgot about it. It was rather infamous because nobody had any idea wtf it did.

 

[Leyrann]

So basically, Rome, Germany and Poland are in a game, and this happens:

Rome and Germany want to declare a joint war on Poland, but don't want the surprise war penalty. They sign a Pact of Secrecy with one another. No one but they know this.
In the five following turns, Poland as well as any third party has a chance to discover the pact of secrecy, just like how, in CiV, your spies and diplomats might find out someone is planning an invasion.
After those five turns have passed, Rome and Germany can declare a joint war on Poland with only a formal war penalty.

Is that right? I quite like the idea, even if only because I find it just stupid that a joint war is a formal war, which seems to imply that a surprise DoW is wrong, but two surprise DoW's is not (or less so, at least).

 

[megabearsfan]

So basically, Rome, Germany and Poland are in a game, and this happens:

Rome and Germany want to declare a joint war on Poland, but don't want the surprise war penalty. They sign a Pact of Secrecy with one another. No one but they know this.
In the five following turns, Poland as well as any third party has a chance to discover the pact of secrecy, just like how, in CiV, your spies and diplomats might find out someone is planning an invasion.
After those five turns have passed, Rome and Germany can declare a joint war on Poland with only a formal war penalty.

Is that right? I quite like the idea, even if only because I find it just stupid that a joint war is a formal war, which seems to imply that a surprise DoW is wrong, but two surprise DoW's is not (or less so, at least).

Yes, that pretty much nails it. Except that other civs wouldn't need spies and diplomats to discover the pact, as the passive intel system would have a chance of discovering it based on that civ's current diplomatic visibility level with one or both of the pact participants. If you have high visibility with both pact participants, then the chance of discovering the pact would be even higher, since the discovery could come from either civ.

And yes, one of the purposes of the mechanic would be to at least give the person being joint war dec'ed a chance of discovering the plot in advance, so that joint wars don't act like surprise formal wars.

 

[Zaarin]

It was from the very early days of Civilization 5, but got patched out quickly. If you've been playing it since launch, then you simply forgot about it. It was rather infamous because nobody had any idea wtf it did.

Apparently so. I think I may have subconsciously blocked the sad state of the game prior to Gods & Kings...

 

[Victoria]

It is in fact still there with the "gimme 10 turns to get ready" in V
I like the idea, it is a commitment of sorts what always annoyed me about it then and joint wars now is mostly one or neither civ in fact properly go to war despite the serious nature of sich a declaration.

 

[megabearsfan]

It is in fact still there with the "gimme 10 turns to get ready" in V
I like the idea, it is a commitment of sorts what always annoyed me about it then and joint wars now is mostly one or neither civ in fact properly go to war despite the serious nature of sich a declaration.

I hadn't thought of that in quite that way, but yeah, I do miss the "Give me 10 turns to prepare". That's something that I also wouldn't mind seeing return in VI. I still think there's value to having a Pact of Secrecy analog though as a prereq for joint wars. It serves the slightly different function of forcing civs to have to wait, and providing at least the opportunity for the target to potentially catch wind of the plot and take appropriate countermeasures.

In any case, the A.I.s in general need to be better at actually preparing for war, rather than declaring on a whim.

 

[Tdot1]

I really like the idea, and I do miss the 10 turns to prepare, even if it often didn't work quite right.
What I like about it, as you've said, is that it gives the opportunity for the AI to prepare for war, and really, with joint wars becoming more common, that should really help the AI take out a city or two from an enemy, as they seem to be struggling a bit much currently on their own.

 

[megabearsfan]

I really like the idea, and I do miss the 10 turns to prepare, even if it often didn't work quite right.
What I like about it, as you've said, is that it gives the opportunity for the AI to prepare for war, and really, with joint wars becoming more common, that should really help the AI take out a city or two from an enemy, as they seem to be struggling a bit much currently on their own.

It would still require that Firaxis script the A.I.s to actually prepare for war during the Pact of Secrecy's duration; otherwise, the feature does become kind of moot.

 

[Tdot1]

It would still require that Firaxis script the A.I.s to actually prepare for war during the Pact of Secrecy's duration; otherwise, the feature does become kind of moot.

True, but something like this would only realistically happen if it came out in a DLC, this is not a patch content. But remember, those guys do look at these forums for inspiration and so it is possible that they'll put it in. Although only with a DLC expansion which will likely see an overhaul of AI in general, and especially its warring abilities. An area where most of the AI complaints come from, this idea that you cannot really lose due to just how horrible the AI is at war. I thinj this is something that could help the AI a little bit

 

[Leyrann]

I really like the idea, and I do miss the 10 turns to prepare, even if it often didn't work quite right.
What I like about it, as you've said, is that it gives the opportunity for the AI to prepare for war, and really, with joint wars becoming more common, that should really help the AI take out a city or two from an enemy, as they seem to be struggling a bit much currently on their own.

Then you first have to explain the AI how taking a walled city works, as they don't understand that right now. You can play deity, go afk and auto-click end turn and even then they won't be able to conquer your city if you have walls.

 

[Tdot1]

OH yeah. The AI needs some work, but mostly I think it is to do with their inability to take a city down. This will likely happen when they eventually get around to putting out a DLC, although maybe there'll be an AI patch

 

[Leyrann]

OH yeah. The AI needs some work, but mostly I think it is to do with their inability to take a city down. This will likely happen when they eventually get around to putting out a DLC, although maybe there'll be an AI patch

They also need to do something that makes the AI upgrade their units - put more strategic resources on the map, let the AI trade for it more, let them choose cheaper promotions card, just something. And leaf techs need to be taken out because AI often doesn't research them.

 

[megabearsfan]

True, but something like this would only realistically happen if it came out in a DLC, this is not a patch content. But remember, those guys do look at these forums for inspiration and so it is possible that they'll put it in. Although only with a DLC expansion which will likely see an overhaul of AI in general, and especially its warring abilities. An area where most of the AI complaints come from, this idea that you cannot really lose due to just how horrible the AI is at war. I thinj this is something that could help the AI a little bit

I don't think it can be ruled out as patchable. I'm pretty sure that the original Pact of Secrecy in Civ V was removed via a patch. Putting something into the game is probably considerably more work, but if they're going to be reworking some other A.I. behaviors (such as poor war planning in general, the failure to properly use siege units to attack city walls, and the refusal to upgrade units), then it's feasible that something like this could be squeezed in as well.

Then you first have to explain the AI how taking a walled city works, as they don't understand that right now. You can play deity, go afk and auto-click end turn and even then they won't be able to conquer your city if you have walls.

They also need to do something that makes the AI upgrade their units - put more strategic resources on the map, let the AI trade for it more, let them choose cheaper promotions card, just something. And leaf techs need to be taken out because AI often doesn't research them.

I would say that both of these are certainly higher priority than A.I. for handling a Pact of Secrecy. But I do think the pact (with proper A.I. adjustments) could help give the A.I. a buffer period to more appropriately plan out its attacks, rather than declaring on a whim because a player tripped over some flag that makes the A.I. suddenly psychopathic.

 

[Tdot1]

I would say that both of these are certainly higher priority than A.I. for handling a Pact of Secrecy. But I do think the pact (with proper A.I. adjustments) could help give the A.I. a buffer period to more appropriately plan out its attacks, rather than declaring on a whim because a player tripped over some flag that makes the A.I. suddenly psychopathic.

Haha, I really like this. It's so true though, that it seems like you are going fine with Montezuma and then all of a sudden he's denounced you and you can see his un-upgraded eagle warriors moving around

 

[megabearsfan]

Haha, I really like this. It's so true though, that it seems like you are going fine with Montezuma and then all of a sudden he's denounced you and you can see his un-upgraded eagle warriors moving around

Well, he's Montezuma, so I think that's working as intended

But, in all seriousness, one other change from Civ V is that special attributes of unique units don't seem to carry over when the unit is upgraded. So, in the case of Montezuma, there is actually a reason to keep those Eagle Warriors for longer than you might keep a regular warrior. You might still want to use them to finish off wounded units and have a chance at getting the captive builder from them. If I remember correctly, upgrading the Eagle Warrior to the swordsman takes that ability away.

But that's just one isolated example, and the point still remains that the A.I.s need to actually upgrade their dang units!

 

[Leyrann]

Sorta off-topic, but that's what I dislike about Eagle Warriors. If you're going to war, you will want to have as strong an army as possible, and as infantry is the core of the army, you want Swordsmen... Which means that you barely have to time use your Eagle Warriors if you're playing in a style that wants to use them.

 

[megabearsfan]

Sorta off-topic, but that's what I dislike about Eagle Warriors. If you're going to war, you will want to have as strong an army as possible, and as infantry is the core of the army, you want Swordsmen... Which means that you barely have to time use your Eagle Warriors if you're playing in a style that wants to use them.

So just don't upgrade all of the Eagles to swords. When I play as Montezuma, I spam the crap out of Eagle Warriors. Then when I get Iron Working (and some iron), I build new Swordsmen, or I upgrade my unpromoted Eagles. Use the swords and ranged to weaken and enemy, then use one of the handful of remaining (promoted) Eagles to go in for the finishing blow.

 

[Tdot1]

Sorta off-topic, but that's what I dislike about Eagle Warriors. If you're going to war, you will want to have as strong an army as possible, and as infantry is the core of the army, you want Swordsmen... Which means that you barely have to time use your Eagle Warriors if you're playing in a style that wants to use them.

Also, a promoted Eagle should have up to 35 if not more strength, so with a Swordsman or two amongst him, it should be fine to keep a bunch of them still as Eagles, I always delay upgrading my Unique Units. Whether Mamaluks, or War Carts, or Roman Legions