Declarations of Friendship

It costs you diplomatic relations with another civ, because of denouncements.
Sure, but it also gives you diplomatic benefits. Under the status quo I find the binding constraint is nearly always your ability to get DoFs, rather than your willingness to undertake them because of worrying about diplomatic downsides.
 
There's a lot of good ideas floating around in this thread. To try and focus on some concrete analysis, what specific replacement solution would you suggest, and how does it meet these goals? I've seen concepts that meet one or two goals, but all four are important. :)

Let's compare the proposal that started this thread in the first place - an active, vanilla-based RA system balanced for VEM - to the four goals that you would like to reach:

1. Runaway games have always been a part of all Civ versions, and certainly exist in VEM 10.1, so I assume you mean seeking a change that doesn’t make the situation worse. To me, this is just about what combined science % it gives – pick a likely number, then play a few games and gauge the feedback of others.

2. I don’t see why paying for RA’s would not help all playstyles at least as much as the current DoF approach does.

3. I think you’ve already said that it can be done with existing mechanisms, since you’d be diluting what the vanilla mechanic gives.

4. Give DoF’s some other tangible benefit: culture is the most realistic, and gold second. In hindsight, science is the least likely area in which there would be mutually profitable cooperation.
 
I agree that runaway games are a traditional problem of the Civ series, which is the main thing I want to improve on over vanilla.

My ideal solution on the long-term todo list is:

  1. Start with the vanilla system.
  2. Mutual open borders gives 1% combined gold.
  3. Research Agreements give 3% combined science.
  4. Declarations of Friendship increase the reward of trade deals with that player +50%.
#3 requires access to the game core. The last point gives tangible benefits for friendship, without requiring friendship for the deals, and keeps each type of deal focused in scope.
 
I agree that runaway games are a traditional problem of the Civ series, which is the main thing I want to improve on over vanilla. My long-term solution is:

  1. Start with the vanilla system.
  2. Mutual open borders gives 1% combined gold.
  3. Research Agreements give 2% combined science.
  4. Declarations of Friendship increase the reward of trade deals with that player +50%.
#3 requires the game core only Firaxis has access to. The last point gives tangible benefits for friendship, without requiring friendship for the deals, and keeps each type of deal focused in scope.

I like all of this, and #4 is a fabulous idea in its own right. Yes, it's still subject to the vagaries of the AI... but the advantage isn't going to make or break a game, and feels more appropriate than the link to RA's.

I'm confused about #3. I assumed this thread's existence (and the poll) meant you could do something along these lines (or the inverse, to charge more for RA's). What can you do?
 
Our current modding tools have two things available with RAs:

  1. What tech enables RAs.
  2. How much RAs cost per era.
Nothing else can be edited with vanilla system. So I disabled them and created the new method. The mod checks each turn if we have a DoF, and if so, gives science. I not 100% happy with this (temporary!) workaround but I feel it's the lesser of two evils.
 
Our current modding tools have two things available with RAs:

  1. What tech enables RAs.
  2. How much RAs cost per era.
Nothing else can be edited with vanilla system. So I disabled them and created the new method. The mod checks each turn if we have a DoF, and if so, gives science. I not 100% happy with this (temporary!) workaround but I feel it's the lesser of two evils.

Then I guess this thread is for the purpose of being ready for when you can actually do something about the passive RA system. In that case, I think you're all set, based on what you posted above.

In the meantime, I wonder whether vanilla RA's costing more would make them preferable to cheaper DoF-based ones. A higher gold cost would limit excessive proliferation. The question would then be, does this approach too strongly favor one playstyle over another?
 
This thread was also to figure out ways to solve problems brought up earlier like:
The issue with RAs in this mod that I currently have is an issue of choice, and the number of substantive diplomatic decisions I can make.
Discussing this over the past two weeks led to the idea of DoFs enhancing existing deals, which I hadn't thought of before. Enhancing deals instead of requiring DoFs for deals solves the choice problem.

In the short term, I could shift some of the bonus that currently requires DoFs to a more-accessible location, such as mutual open border agreements?
 
In the short term, I could shift some of the bonus that currently requires DoFs to a more-accessible location, such as mutual open border agreements?

To me, this would depend on the choice you make with the "ignore borders" promotion. I currently think the AI uses this to an annoying degree (e.g. "forever" blocking my newly discovered coal resource) and i mentioned this, along with others, in a different thread. if you change this mechanic, open borders are important again and therefore tying it to DoF restricts players choice again based on whims of shifty AI logic.

While I've always liked the gold bonus from a realism perspective, the idea above of adding culture per turn based on DoF is brilliant! though it would have to be scaled so as not to favor non-militaristic playstyles too much, it provides a great tangible benefit distinct from the others.

what would be really cool is if you could make policies your friends already have cheaper... democracies (generally) don't war with democracies, anyone?
 
Is it possible to create new agreements? Such as "Free Trade Agreement" that allows a small gold income and possible enhancements of other agreements. Maybe each one gives a bonus to diplomacy as well so AI is even less likely to DOW/ Back stab.

Possible others:
Green/Recycle Intiative (production)
Farm Coop (food)
Diplomatic Relations (diplomacy points)
International News Agency (gp points)
Great Project (Wonder production)
 
Mutual open borders gives 1% combined gold.
Yay for giving a small economic benefit to open borders!

For all of these diplomatic effects, please consider that the number of neighbours vary wildly in different games. Thus, simply a bonus that scales directly with number of neighbors is bound to have balancing problems. Or you might balance it for some map size, making the mod have bizarre gameplay in others. 5% of combined science might be fine ... until you have 15 other civs to potentially make this ~+10% science deal with, for more than double the science!

While vanilla RAs certainly have this # of others problem, the fact that it's not a simple bonus but a science-for-gold deal, at least theoretically has a stopper there.

Thus me suggesting to make RA such that the less advanced civ pays the more advanced civ in gold for science. It prevents RA's being leveraged for science runaway.
 
4. Give DoF’s some other tangible benefit: culture is the most realistic, and gold second. In hindsight, science is the least likely area in which there would be mutually profitable cooperation.
I think a scientific bonus makes a ton of sense in terms of modelling spillover of ideas between countries. Countries that are open to each other with migrants and travellers inevitably end up sharing ideas, which facilitates scientific development. Just think about how scientific ideas spread around Europe, and so how Europe was more advanced than other areas.

One possibility would be to have a 1% science bonus on open borders, and then have a gold bonus with DoF, representing trade.

Research Agreements give 3% combined science.
I'm a bit unsure how this would work.
Would the research agreement still cost gold? If it cost gold, it might be pretty weak for just 3%. If it was free, what stops you signing it from anyone?
The one advantage of the current DoF system is that you can't get research agreements with everyone.
 
@Dunkah
We cannot add or significantly modify trade deals.

@tlaurila
On a Continents or Pangaea map the number of neighbors is relatively constant. The main problem pointed out earlier in this thread is the neighbors we do have might be more or less willing to trade. Either way, this problem also exists with the vanilla system.

@Ahriman
It'd have the same cost and signing method as vanilla, just with a different reward. The exact number could be adjusted. Since the "ideal solution" requires game core access anyway, we'd be able to adjust things like how willing the AI is to sign the agreement.
 
As an interim step pending the "ideal" solution, I like the 1%/3% approach. I have a hard time imagining what simple numbers would work better.
 
It seems worth a try, as long as the Rationalism/PT bonuses are removed. It is massively harder to balance this kind of thing when the potential is out there for doubling the bonus.
 
Why would they be removed? Their purpose is to double the bonus.
Because it extremely hard to balance all these moving parts, and there is a huge risk that Rationalism unlock/PT end up being overpowered, as they have been in recent builds.

I also think it is weird for Rationalism social policy (which is about science) to necessarily have a synergy with peaceful diplomatic relationships. It stinks that a conqueror can't benefit from the Rationalism unlock.

I could see leaving the PT, as only one player will get that, but I would definitely remove the Rationalism effect.
 
Because it extremely hard to balance all these moving parts, and there is a huge risk that Rationalism unlock/PT end up being overpowered, as they have been in recent builds.

I also think it is weird for Rationalism social policy (which is about science) to necessarily have a synergy with peaceful diplomatic relationships. It stinks that a conqueror can't benefit from the Rationalism unlock.

I could see leaving the PT, as only one player will get that, but I would definitely remove the Rationalism effect.

I don't worry about balancing until something's proven to be seriously unbalanced, which doesn't seem to be the present consensus. But I'm all for close monitoring of the situation!

The low benefit for warmongers with the Rationalism unlock - not many likely DoF's - comes down to whether warmongers need to be restricted in this manner. I don't have a clear view anymore. But the present system has been in effect for many months now - I don't view it as a front-burner problem until it's demonstrated that warmongering is suffering vis-a-vis other Victory Conditions as a result.
 
I don't worry about balancing until something's proven to be seriously unbalanced
I think that is a terrible way to to design. Balance should be a goal from the start, not something you tack on ex post only if there is a serious problem.

The low benefit for warmongers with the Rationalism unlock - not many likely DoF's - comes down to whether warmongers need to be restricted in this manner
Why would you try to push warmongers out of Rationalism? Freedom, maybe, but Rationalism? Many militaristic civilizations have been very pro-science, often arguably more so, since they're often interested in weapon development. Nazis, Soviets, cold-war USA, Japan, all pretty important technological innovators.

But the present system has been in effect for many months now
The present (pre-10.4 nerf) system has had huge problems. I have had games where I have been able to increase my science output by roughly 80% merely through declarations of friendship.
 
1. I think that is a terrible way to to design. Balance should be a goal from the start, not something you tack on ex post only if there is a serious problem.

2. Why would you try to push warmongers out of Rationalism? Freedom, maybe, but Rationalism? Many militaristic civilizations have been very pro-science, often arguably more so, since they're often interested in weapon development. Nazis, Soviets, cold-war USA, Japan, all pretty important technological innovators.

3. The present (pre-10.4 nerf) system has had huge problems. I have had games where I have been able to increase my science output by roughly 80% merely through declarations of friendship.

1. I think balance is a goal from the start. What I meant was that if it proves to be unbalanced, further balancing can be done... so no big deal.

2. Science-Focused Warmongers are one thing - SFW's who actively benefited from international scientific cooperation are another. That aside, the in-game argument for limiting their gain from the rationalism unlock is that they already have plenty going for them, and tall empires need an edge. I think this is probably true, but I'm not certain.

3. I agree that the present system is imperfect for a lot of reasons, which is why I advocated changing it. More specifically, I agree that the passive nature of the DoF system leads to relatively large swings of beakers from game to similar game. I just wouldn't say it has huge problems, because these swings don't push the game outside what I consider to be rough balance (the same way a bad geographic start, island start, or bad neighbor start doesn't).
 
Science-Focused Warmongers are one thing - SFW's who actively benefited from international scientific cooperation are another.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
Why should SFWs get less out of Rationalism than Science-Focused Peaceniks?
I think it is reasonable that international cooperation gives a science bonus, but I don't see why Rationalism science bonuses should depend on international cooperation.

That aside, the in-game argument for limiting their gain from the rationalism unlock is that they already have plenty going for them, and tall empires need an edge. I think this is probably true, but I'm not certain.
First, I don't think warmongers have it particularly easy these days, and if they do it is probably because Honor ends up being very powerful, particularly the gold giveaways, which I think are much too high. You yourself have posted that you don't think conquest victories are particularly easy to achieve.
But second, even supposing that war was too powerful.... blocking them from benefiting from the Rationalism unlock seems like a bizarre way to nerf them.

I just wouldn't say it has huge problems, because these swings don't push the game outside what I consider to be rough balance
I would say that the 5% system had huge balance problems, because I think that 80% science differentials are outside what I consider to be rough balance.
 
Top Bottom