Ornen
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
- Messages
- 623
Let me walk you through a scenario. I, Phoenicia, am allied to Suzerain of Auckland. I am a declared friend of England. England invades Auckland; because we are declared friends, I am helpless to support my city state until 20 turns have passed, at which point I will no longer have any "grievances" against England. England's invasion of my city-state does nothing to change our "friendship", though it should prompt a very serious question: am I committed to my relationship with England, or Auckland?
Or let's say I'm playing as Poland. I'm military allies with Greece. When Mongolia declares war on me, Greece does not join in. So what does my alliance mean, if anything?
The answer is clear and simple: points. Alliances have been turned into a board-gamey way to rack up points. Beakers, coins, what-have-you. At the same time, they have been stripped of their value for meaningful diplomacy. An alliance grants visibility and trading bonuses, it adds a few points to the AI's "like" meter, and it prevents both sides from going to war with each other. But it otherwise does not establish any kind of meaningful diplomatic relationship.
Fundamentally, the devs have made Civ 6 diplomacy too reliant on fiddly point systems and not reliant enough on clear, sensible rules that govern the relationships between world powers in meaningful ways. Relationship "like" points, grievances, envoys, world congress points, diplomatic victory points, and even tied the alliance system into the various other point systems (culture, science, gold, faith).
I'm not saying all points systems should be removed from Civ - this kind of math is written into the game. But these systems should be simplified and reduced, especially as applied to diplomacy. And diplomacy should be refocused on meaningful relationships and the way concrete actions play into those relationships. If you go to war with me, my allies join on my behalf – and maybe yours do too. If my friend invades a protected city-state, my relationships come into conflict, and I must make a decision – not have that decision made for me by the unthoughtful rules of the game.
Let's look back to Civ 4, which not only had a meaningful alliance system, but had vassals as well. Let's say I'm playing as Britain. I have India, Australia, and Egypt as vassals, and I've formed an alliance with France and Russia, chiefly to counter the rising power of Germany and its allies, Austria and Turkey. When war breaks out, it's a world war, with two massive factions clashing against each other. Exciting, right?
Of course, Civ 4 didn't have city states – a great addition to the game, and one we'd want to meaningfully incorporate. To go a step further, city states should serve as the flashpoints for broader conflicts. In the above example, that's the colonial scramble for spheres of influence, and finally the spark of conflict in Serbia that provoked the broader war.
And don't even get me started on the randomly generated world congress -- almost certainly the worst incarnation of this feature in a Civ game. But to be honest, I think the series has traditionally overemphasized the role of the world congress. The UN has never been a dominant force in international diplomacy. Instead, looking at the past decades, the most important international forces have been alliances. NATO. The Warsaw Pact. The Axis and Allies. The Grand Alliance. The Central Powers. The Triple Entente. All of these have shaped world affairs far more drastically and seriously than the UN has.
Diplomatic victory should be about building an alliance so cohesive and unstoppable it becomes a de facto world government; not by gaming a randomized world government system for points.
Anyways. Am I the only one frustrated by this game's diplomacy? It feels like I'm playing a board game with one hand tied behind my back. Alliances don't matter, although they do allow you to take an allies' city states without retribution. Diplomatic victory entails gaming a nonsensical, highly randomized system to earn points.
The thing is, diplomacy *should* matter. In fact, it should be the very thing that livens up an otherwise thoroughly tedious late game. Once the map fills in, things get way more interesting as alliances and counter alliances form, world war ready to ignite at any moment (instead of a bunch of brush wars around the world, most of which the player isn't even aware of). As nuclear weapons develop, the late game gets even more tense, as alliances calcify into high tension cold wars, giving even greater meaning to the space race and culture wars.
So yeah, I'm hoping for another expansion. One that rethinks diplomacy from the ground up, with an eye on meaningful alliances and relationships that will liven up the late game. Pretty please, Firaxis?
Or let's say I'm playing as Poland. I'm military allies with Greece. When Mongolia declares war on me, Greece does not join in. So what does my alliance mean, if anything?
The answer is clear and simple: points. Alliances have been turned into a board-gamey way to rack up points. Beakers, coins, what-have-you. At the same time, they have been stripped of their value for meaningful diplomacy. An alliance grants visibility and trading bonuses, it adds a few points to the AI's "like" meter, and it prevents both sides from going to war with each other. But it otherwise does not establish any kind of meaningful diplomatic relationship.
Fundamentally, the devs have made Civ 6 diplomacy too reliant on fiddly point systems and not reliant enough on clear, sensible rules that govern the relationships between world powers in meaningful ways. Relationship "like" points, grievances, envoys, world congress points, diplomatic victory points, and even tied the alliance system into the various other point systems (culture, science, gold, faith).
I'm not saying all points systems should be removed from Civ - this kind of math is written into the game. But these systems should be simplified and reduced, especially as applied to diplomacy. And diplomacy should be refocused on meaningful relationships and the way concrete actions play into those relationships. If you go to war with me, my allies join on my behalf – and maybe yours do too. If my friend invades a protected city-state, my relationships come into conflict, and I must make a decision – not have that decision made for me by the unthoughtful rules of the game.
Let's look back to Civ 4, which not only had a meaningful alliance system, but had vassals as well. Let's say I'm playing as Britain. I have India, Australia, and Egypt as vassals, and I've formed an alliance with France and Russia, chiefly to counter the rising power of Germany and its allies, Austria and Turkey. When war breaks out, it's a world war, with two massive factions clashing against each other. Exciting, right?
Of course, Civ 4 didn't have city states – a great addition to the game, and one we'd want to meaningfully incorporate. To go a step further, city states should serve as the flashpoints for broader conflicts. In the above example, that's the colonial scramble for spheres of influence, and finally the spark of conflict in Serbia that provoked the broader war.
And don't even get me started on the randomly generated world congress -- almost certainly the worst incarnation of this feature in a Civ game. But to be honest, I think the series has traditionally overemphasized the role of the world congress. The UN has never been a dominant force in international diplomacy. Instead, looking at the past decades, the most important international forces have been alliances. NATO. The Warsaw Pact. The Axis and Allies. The Grand Alliance. The Central Powers. The Triple Entente. All of these have shaped world affairs far more drastically and seriously than the UN has.
Diplomatic victory should be about building an alliance so cohesive and unstoppable it becomes a de facto world government; not by gaming a randomized world government system for points.
Anyways. Am I the only one frustrated by this game's diplomacy? It feels like I'm playing a board game with one hand tied behind my back. Alliances don't matter, although they do allow you to take an allies' city states without retribution. Diplomatic victory entails gaming a nonsensical, highly randomized system to earn points.
The thing is, diplomacy *should* matter. In fact, it should be the very thing that livens up an otherwise thoroughly tedious late game. Once the map fills in, things get way more interesting as alliances and counter alliances form, world war ready to ignite at any moment (instead of a bunch of brush wars around the world, most of which the player isn't even aware of). As nuclear weapons develop, the late game gets even more tense, as alliances calcify into high tension cold wars, giving even greater meaning to the space race and culture wars.
So yeah, I'm hoping for another expansion. One that rethinks diplomacy from the ground up, with an eye on meaningful alliances and relationships that will liven up the late game. Pretty please, Firaxis?
