Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Ashmantious, Sep 27, 2020.
They decay really quickly so it´s nowhere as punishing as a permanent -5 DP per turn.
The fact that they had to implement the occupied capitals penalty is kind of an admission that grievances aren't a sufficient deterrent to warmongering.
Why not tune warmonguering instead?. The DF feels overy restrictive and immersion breaking in terms of gameplay, poorly balanced and inconsistent with regards of all other game mechanics.
A penalty that is so arbitrary, does not decay, and does not take into account any of the factors that model real diplomacy in the game, such us not punishing the ancient age, is just wrong.
I understand is not unworkable, but that does not mean is right. I dont understand why the fact that it does not completely ruin the game is used to defend such a bad mechanic. To be able to work it out the player needs to play in a particular way, that removes much of the freedom a player should have.
It is just a badly implemented mechanic, that was made to avoid reworking grievances properly. The game would be better if they just remove it for the most part if you are not trying to exploit diplomacy, and that is a bad sign.
It is plainly inexcusable imho.
Once you capture a single capitol, diplomacy is a waste of space for most of the rest of the game. I pay no attention it it unless I get 20 DF from a late goodie hut which I sell before it is attritted away.
I have 1 vote in each of 2 resolutions every 30 turns. I vote for myself, sometimes I win because everyone does 1 vote and randomly it goes to me. Sure I could vote for someone else then they get the benefit and I get nothing. No meaningful decisions to make.
I have 1 or no vote in random stuff that happens between other civ's. No meaningful decisions to make.
No interesting decisions. No gameplay involved.
That’s what they did with the -5 DF. It is a warmongering penalty. I disagree with the rest of the comments mainlu because everything else they have tried does not stop warmongering. The lack of DF is actually more immersive to me. yes it hurts me and thats because I am hurting others. Or is immersion about ownership? Sure they could degrade it by 1 point per era, that may be better but the concept just works.
Exactly! Perfectly echoed. Warmongers just treat diplomacy as a waste of space and that was before DF. Now you have DF it was an extra way they could pay for their armies while ignoring diplomacy so of course they should stop them. Good on em!
In my current game I have 15 cities, 7 of them conquered off 2 neighbours and everyone loves me. 25 DF per turn, I am happy.
A warmonger takes out an entire civ because they do not want to bother with short term grievances and medium term diplomacy issues. If they want to do that, wipe out civs, I am sure no civ state would feel comfortable. It is hypocrisy, they do not want to play the grievance or diplomacy parts of the game but want diplomatic favours?
I still play warmonger but *finally* I feel it. Finally I feel punished, my trade routes stop, my GP no longer generate. It is not enough to stop you doing so but it now feels better. I like it to the point of loving it. I no longer have more than a single paltry vote I know wil fail. This was the intention, warmongers are whining because it was not as much fun as it was IMO.
You *can* war and get everyone to like you, just stop wiping people out, work the system, that is what gaming is rather than just running over everything in a faceroll fashion.
Having others like you don't have real benefits I guess.
Maybe easier to unlock trade bugs to buy everything an AI has with a single gold coin, or luxury, or great work, or joint war?
As the trading system is still buggy I prefer banning it.
And this leaves nothing I can get from a friendly AI.
Kinda strange that AI can do nothing to stop your trade routes except starting war.
Spain starts trading with England and the English are worried about the information these traders are passing back to their government. But what can england do IRL? Pretty much nothing apart from go to war.
It is except it is not. Its a penalty for owning capitals.
Does not matter how many cities you raze, wars declare, units kill, civilizations wipe out. This penalty does not punish war or agression, feels too specified and therefore "gamey".
You flip a capital with loyality? -5 DF per turn for the rest of the game, no matter the context, the diplomatic relations you have or the age you are in.
Yes, no doubt that is the appropriate way to implement a warmongering penalty....
Still defending the mechanic by ignoring the actual critizism. The point is:
- Why war needs to be penalyzed more?
- If war needs to be penalized more, why not doing it with grievances, changing them to be more punishing towards war, with a proper dimlomacy based system, instead of an arbitrary one?
Different forms of protectionism has existed for a long time. Just stop the traders at the border?
You can refuse it. The choice is yours, so it is not arbitary.
This double negative just states the obvious, irrelevant apart from the fact that all punishments are not equal which you leave out.
followed by sarcasm and inaccuracy. I did not ignore, I replied.
You said earlier all penalties punish war, yes but already, just like warmongering, once you have 400 warmonger points/grievances you do not bother and you are not really punished for it much.
The irony is this DF clearly is working better because it upset both you and me. And I did say sure it could be better like a 1 point degradation per era.
So a way that actually works which is non arbitary. The context is you always have a choice unless it is buggy.
And if you look at @Lily_Lancer reply earlier, he is pretty right, even with this it is not harsh enough, it still gives the freedom but warmongering is just so powerful in this game that grievances and war weariness and diplomacy trade loss are weak punishments. Implementing DF added something new to the game but quite rightly needs adjustment for warmongering which they did not do originally. It is just natural it should also be added. That is the real context here. Diplomacy punishments stopped gold via trade but DF provided an alternative gold source, a no brainer they had to implement this. surely you can see this.
And as @AriochIV quite rightly said
But it was worse, DF gave warmongers more gold.
You did not address any of the problems I stated about the mechanic. Namely that it fails to represent diplomacy and that it undermines the entire design of the diplomatic game up to this point.
I repeat my point again: Does it make any sense to punish owning capitals in a diplomatic way, in a context where warmongering does not apply or even before diplomacy exist, and ignoring all diplomatic rules of the game?.
Arbitrary as I’m sure you know, means that does not follow any reason. There is no in game reason for this penalty because it does not try to model diplomacy in any reasonable way, and because it goes against all other diplomatic rules in the game. That is why the mechanic is arbitrary, and why stating that war should be punished more does not address the problem, even more if the penalty does not punish specifically war or aggression, as it applies to loyalty flipping too.
Most players that are against the mechanic do not claim that war should not have in game penalties, and think that aggression should make diplomacy more difficult in the context of the diplomacy of the game, and regarding the relationship of the player with other civs. If you want to address the actual argument we are trying to convey, and if you disagree with us. You need clarify why you think that this penalty should be implemented in a way that ignores completely the diplomacy of the game.
Otherwise you are just addresing arguments that we are not making.
Is diplomatic favour a form of diplomacy? Undermines? Diplomacy is ignored by warmongers once they are denounced by all so your dream diplomacy is just not reality. I already said it and so did others. Warmongers do not care about diplomacy. But they could use diplomatic favours as currency.
I really am struggling with your rationalisations and claims. If they completely rewrote diplomacy things would be different. You cannot undermine something more than ignoring it.
I gave you a reason, quite a damn good one. No idea what the relevance of the rest is.
So I am done.
As I see it, 'peaceful' does NOT mean 'good'. Plenty of 'peaceful' takeovers are malicious. They're still takeovers, after all.
This is one of those complaints which I completely disagree on. Even loyalty flipping a capital should have a Diplomatic penalty. You have the capital of a competitor - other players shouldn't be happy about it, regardless of context.
Oh, and it helps stop exploits. People would just be surrounding the capital (and last city), let it flip, and then conquer it. No thank you
Scenario: let's say I start on a continent with one other civ, and all others are somewhere else in the world and cannot be met for another 100 turns. If I wipe out my neighbour on T50, and occupy their capital, I will get -5 diplo favour per turn. The problem with this is that no other civ has any knowledge of this having happened. As far as they are concerned, when they meet me I just own a big empire. There is no reason at all that my ability to bargain with them should be affected at all by the original owner of the city, of whom the other civs should have no knowledge. Indeed, none of them will have any grievances with me, or care whatsoever that I took somebody out.
Having decaying penalties would make more sense, but if we also want to ensure that a penalty still exists (where it should) then perhaps having something like -2 favour per turn per civ that witnessed you wipe somebody out could be used. That way, the penalty is only applied when somebody knows you're a warmonger, but if plenty of civs witness your actions the penalty could end up being more severe than it is currently. Disclaimer - that's just a thought, not necessarily a well-considered, balanced solution.
Indeed, it is not perfect but you understand it had to be implemented. To take your excellent example further, where are you getting DF from? A little bit from your government (I do not know why) and the rest from CS you have met and suzerain. These have seen you wipe out this civ so it is not about the civs on another continent, it is about the source of your DF who knows what you have done.
Yes and I agreed and said that would be better.
The real problem is DF and it’s implementation. You should not even be able to sell it.
Each CS suzerain that knows could decay less over time but all of this requires a lot of programming.
Good, you said warmonguers should be deprived from getting money from DF.
The penalty as currently implemented affects too much players that are not warmonguers per se. The negative DF is a penalty to diplomacy, but it does ignore all diplomatic relations and the rules regarding diplomatic relations in game. So it is not what it should be: A penalty to diplomacy, implemented with diplomacy.
I did not say warmonguers should not be penalysed. Also I did not say DF should be exploited. But you still ignored basically everything I said on why the penalty makes the game worse for everyone else.
I just completely disagree on the argument: Diplomacy is so bad, that the game should abandon any pretense of a cohesive or deep system once you declared a war. And I also don't think warmonguering players are a problem so big, they have to be penalysed even at the cost of making diplomacy worse for everyone.
I care about diplomacy, and I dont think I am a warmonguer. Why you base your entire point in the need of punishing a specific game style (warmonguers that ignore diplomacy) at the expense of everybody else is also beyond me.
Truly this conversation is going nowhere. What I dont know is why I did hit a wall here.
I do agree with your motivation on preventing exploit DF. But not at the cost of making the game worse for the players than dont exploit DF. And I still did not hear anyone say that punishing warmonguering in a way that does not break the game diplomacy rules, or in a way that makes in game sense, or in a way that is handled trough diplomatic relations; would not be a better solution.
As it seems, is not even posible to have a conversation about a point we don't fundamentally disagree with. As if the players more worried about in-game consistency and single player choices cannot have a discussion with the players more worried about multiplayer balance.
Anyway, we should probably stop here.
Hmm, pardon me for focusing on this specific detail, but why shouldn't DF be sellable? Maybe the currency is too abstracted the way it is, but to me whenever I'm arranging deals with DF for gold as an example, what I read into it is something like "I am willing to commit votes towards any agenda of your choice in upcoming sessions, for the gold that you are offering".
iirc in Civ5, one could promise votes towards some agenda in order to get something else in exchange, and imo DF deals don't seem to stray from that kind of exchange.
I think she is right. The problem is that is messes the AI economy and creates a lot of balance issues. The idea of buying and selling influence is not bad. But in practise is just there to be abused, cause the WC is pointless and DF is a very asymetric currency.
The problem is that the DF has value for the AI, causes is codded that way, as if the resolutions of WC are a powerful tool to bend the world to your interest (as it should be). But the player nows that in reality the WC is a quite random system that is more annoying than worth it.
This is quite a valid point but selling DF in the ancient age for a vote in the medieval is a bit stretched.
If you really wanted to fix this, you could bribe people in Congress to vote for you, not do it hundreds of years earlier.
Having both DF and gold saved for Congress makes it more interesting. Especially if different leader personalities also came into play.
Bribery has been such an integral part of history. I do bribe people to joint war with me.
Separate names with a comma.