Diplomacy sounds very cool

[Haig]

Just watching Boesthius' series of Civ VII and episode 3 about diplomacy (and goverment etc) got me really excited.

There's all kinds of cool stuff you can do with influence points on diplomacy, and there's much more interesting choices.

I like how you can give support to a war you aren't part of: Example, Rome and Egypt are in a war (which are now named like emergencies). You can give a diplomatic support to a side which gives more war weariness to the other.

Kind of for example in the Winter war, great powers gave support to Finland without going to do actual fighting.


Here a link to youtube video:
CIV VII Diplomacy - by Boesthius

 

[Ekmek]

I just saw this:

"
Introductions

When you find a civilization for the first time, you have a choice of:

• Friendly Greeting: Reveals nearby capitals and increases Relationship
• Neutral Greeting: No Relationship change
• Hostile Greeting: Reputational decline."

That seems unimaginative.

hostile should give a happiness or defense boost for X turns plus reputation decline

Neutral should not change the relationship but maybe a boost to knowledge or gold since at least know they are there

 

[Krikkit1]

Hostile was decrease Relationship

That is the key part (Relationship management)
Low Relationship =easy war
High Relationship = can cooperate on things

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

This does seem unimaginative, but it might be tough to come up with something that isn't too gamey. I could see Friendly requiring a cost, since gifts were a big part of first contact relationship building.

The one that seems like it might never be helpful is Neutral. Friendly would seem to be the default (especially if it has no cost), unless you plan to go to war with them, in which case Hostile is the right choice.

 

[Zaarin]

The one that seems like it might never be helpful is Neutral.

You choose neutral if you don't want to spend influence or if you're not yet sure whether a hostile or friendly relationship would be most beneficial to you.

 

[Krikkit1]

This does seem unimaginative, but it might be tough to come up with something that isn't too gamey. I could see Friendly requiring a cost, since gifts were a big part of first contact relationship building.

The one that seems like it might never be helpful is Neutral. Friendly would seem to be the default (especially if it has no cost), unless you plan to go to war with them, in which case Hostile is the right choice.

Neutral is Free
Every other diplomatic activity requires a cost of Influence.

Influence is the really big change, you have resources to spend on diplomacy that isn’t a gift to the other player.

(and the AI can spend Influence on the Relationship as well…so your relationship with any other player is based on how you Both spend influence on the Relationship)

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You choose neutral if you don't want to spend influence or if you're not yet sure whether a hostile or friendly relationship would be most beneficial to you.

Ah, so there's an Influence cost to choosing Friendly or Hostile. That would intend make Neutral a valid third option.

 

[Josephias]

Not sure, but I recall that friendly gets refunded if the other party rejects your approach (i.e. you stay neutral but your keep your gifts)

This is friendly has nevertheless lesser cost risk than agressive (if you want to stay friendly, that’s it)

 

[Zaarin]

Not sure, but I recall that friendly gets refunded if the other party rejects your approach (i.e. you stay neutral but your keep your gifts)

This is friendly has nevertheless lesser cost risk than agressive (if you want to stay friendly, that’s it)

That's friendly interactions like cultural exchanges, not friendly greetings.

 

[Josephias]

That's friendly interactions like cultural exchanges, not friendly greetings.

Yes, I may be confused with these. As they provide three options (reject - w/refund, simply accept, or double down - offered civ also pays, bonuses are increased), i looked at them as a different thing.

Indeed, I'm not sure if we have seen a "greeting response" diplomatic menu... ¿have all first meeting interactions in the livestream been started by the player? ¿could there be the case they aren't?


And, I take opportunity to bring this comment from Resource management thread

At least, you need a good relationship with someone to have more than one trade route with them. So not having good relations in a way already reduce the amount of possible trade routes.

In order to identify other potential "benefit" of staying neutral: if you are interested in limiting how much another civ can trade with you.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes, I may be confused with these. As they provide three options (reject - w/refund, simply accept, or double down - offered civ also pays, bonuses are increased), i looked at them as a different thing.

Indeed, I'm not sure if we have seen a "greeting response" diplomatic menu... ¿have all first meeting interactions in the livestream been started by the player? ¿could there be the case they aren't?


And, I take opportunity to bring this comment from Resource management thread


In order to identify other potential "benefit" of staying neutral: if you are interested in limiting how much another civ can trade with you.

I would imagine the Greeting response diplomatic menu is presented to each player, and then resolved simultaneously.

Egypt moves its unit into vision of Rome

Both Egypt and Rome players get the "Greeting" Screen.
They both select a Greeting and when they both have picked one it resolves
Both Friendly: they are both charged Influence and Relationship +2 X
One Friendly, One Neutral: the Friendly one is charged Influence and the Relationship goes +X
One Friendly, One Hostile: they are both charged Influence and the Relationship is at 0

(and the animation plays if one of those is a Human player)

This should be the same regardless of whether these are Human or AIs

 

[King Flevance]

Diplomacy is the aspect of Civ 7 I am most excited about. 5 and 6 were both lacking in this department for my tastes but I am hoping influence is an indicator that diplomacy was prioritized in development. I like the ability to befriend AIs if I foster the relationship instead of them having a player bias. I really enjoy the "friendship networks" in 4.

 

[Morningcalm]

If they made diplomacy more like it was in Civ 4 (replete with the Apostolic Palace and more subtle diplomatic factors) then I would be pleased. For now I just hope it's better than Civ 6's diplomacy, and I'm happy the diplomatic game will be more dynamic this time. Though I'm still concerned they included agendas.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I think agendas can be ok if done with a bit more subtlety. Like, if peaceful Ashoka is a bit suspicious of me because my people are unhappy, that's totally fine provided that a) he doesn't pop up every other turn and blither on about it, and; b) it's a small penalty, so that I can overcome it quite easily if I spend influence to work on building our relationship.

If I ignore the AI, and don't bother to interact or build a relationship, then I don't mind agendas being the thing that tips them one way or the other.

 

[shaglio]

If they made diplomacy more like it was in Civ 4 (replete with the Apostolic Palace and more subtle diplomatic factors) then I would be pleased. For now I just hope it's better than Civ 6's diplomacy, and I'm happy the diplomatic game will be more dynamic this time. Though I'm still concerned they included agendas.

The only thing I liked about Civ 6's diplomacy was the +/- items that caused leaders' opinions of you to change gradually, rather than doing an instant 180 turn.

 

[King Flevance]

The big problem with 6's diplomacy is

+4 Unknown Reason
-7 Unknown Reason
-10 Unknown Reason

Even though I know that -10 has to do with the war with my neighbor. I understand hiding some of this stuff to give weight to espionage but they hid WAAYY too much of these reasons. Even when they denounce you for warmongering it translates into "Unknown Reason" in the diplomacy screen. Most of the time in Civ6, I very rarely give a crap to invest in relations because it all feels random anyway.

If I declare war on a city state and raze it, then wipe out my neighbor, and the surrounding leaders all denounce me to all the regions around me specifically for warmongering and my leader is supposedly sitting there going "I wonder why nobody likes me, it's a mystery".

You can add in personal flavors like "Your cities should have more walls" and hide that behind "Unknown Reason" but instead they freely let you know that one. Civ 4 was done well because you knew ALL of the reasons ALL of the time. This let you learn how to interact with the AI on your first playthrough. 50 turns in you knew where you stood for the most part with the AI and why. I do like that the numbers add up a bit faster in Civ 6 though than 4. Having a -10 was a pretty big deal in 4, but that is nothing in 6.

Weighting these grievances and favors make a world of difference in the gameplay for those of us who value forming real diplomatic relations with the AI. It also makes a big difference not hide these reasons behind a curtain so that we can understand those relationships. It actually makes sense to hide one of the values here and there, but for the most part we should be able to know and understand why our relations with other nations are the way they are.

 

[Krikkit1]

The big problem with 6's diplomacy is

+4 Unknown Reason
-7 Unknown Reason
-10 Unknown Reason

Even though I know that -10 has to do with the war with my neighbor. I understand hiding some of this stuff to give weight to espionage but they hid WAAYY too much of these reasons. Even when they denounce you for warmongering it translates into "Unknown Reason" in the diplomacy screen. Most of the time in Civ6, I very rarely give a crap to invest in relations because it all feels random anyway.

If I declare war on a city state and raze it, then wipe out my neighbor, and the surrounding leaders all denounce me to all the regions around me specifically for warmongering and my leader is supposedly sitting there going "I wonder why nobody likes me, it's a mystery".

You can add in personal flavors like "Your cities should have more walls" and hide that behind "Unknown Reason" but instead they freely let you know that one. Civ 4 was done well because you knew ALL of the reasons ALL of the time. This let you learn how to interact with the AI on your first playthrough. 50 turns in you knew where you stood for the most part with the AI and why. I do like that the numbers add up a bit faster in Civ 6 though than 4. Having a -10 was a pretty big deal in 4, but that is nothing in 6.

Weighting these grievances and favors make a world of difference in the gameplay for those of us who value forming real diplomatic relations with the AI. It also makes a big difference not hide these reasons behind a curtain so that we can understand those relationships. It actually makes sense to hide one of the values here and there, but for the most part we should be able to know and understand why our relations with other nations are the way they are.

The only reason I could see “Unknown Reasons” being justified is if someone (either one of rhe two members of a relationship OR a 3rd party) can spend influence to covertly affect a relationship (or overtly, but then it would be announced)

ie Egypt wants to lower their relationship with me so they can more safely attack me…. but they don’t want me knowing THEY are the reason our relationship is getting worse, (otherwise I might attack first) …so they spend influence and suddenly our relationship gets worse and I don’t know if it is Egypt undermining the relationship or if it is the Mayans or the Han.