[GS] Diplomatic Favor exploitation

[HorseshoeHermit]

So in the preview streams, both from FXS hq and now from the media builds, we've seen that Diplomatic Favor is tradeable. . . but even if the two civs are negotiating peace.

That means Mr. World Slayer can extort the full purse of Favor of a, let's say "optimized Diplomacy game", from another player, as a reward for... reducing him to a beggar through bloody murder and sack.

I don't know how else to say this. It should be obvious this is a terrible oversight that cracks the system. Waging a devastating war, perhaps to annihilation, has the possibility of seizing the entire bank of Favor gained from the defending player, who may have been maximizing that bank. Thus, if a player would have to capitulate, they might have to turn over this massive pool of World Congress points over to a player whose global contribution was genocide, whose main export has been destruction.

This oversight will be unfortunate when Favor trading will be banned in multiplayer (just as you must not choose to vote another player the winner of the game when Civ5 crazily let you do that), but it is an absurdity in the single player game too, ensuring that the most consistent strength in World Congress will be "savagely beat up the nicest civ on the block".

The fix: Diplomatic Favor can only be traded outside of peace deals. You can coerce it from someone, but only without actually flying the flag of war.
Please spam tomorrow's Eleanor livestream questions room with questions of whether this behaviour will be "fixed" for February 14th.

 

[UWHabs]

Just because it can be negotiated in a peace deal doesn't mean it has to be negotiated.

I'm still not even sure I like it being tradeable at all. Or maybe it should only be able to be bartered in specific cases, like if you have a friendship pact with someone maybe only then can you trade favour? Especially since in all the streams, it feels like you're constantly getting spammed with offers for it.

 

[Ziad]

Diplomatic favor isn't a measure of how nice you are. It's a measure of political capital.

By extorting the other civilization's diplomatic favor, you have effectively capitulated them into your will. The favor they amassed is now transferred to you, representing that you have their support for a given number of votes. Had you just destroyed them, all that influence is lost.

So it's not broken, nor is it a bug. It makes sense. That it's potentially exploitable in a given situation is another issue.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Reminds me of noticing that you didn't have enough pop to win UN in civ 4, and solved it by nuking the population of nations that wouldn't vote for you. Suddenly the margins were favorable and you win! Didn't listen to a single complaint!

 

[Weraptor]

Maybe this would be more fleshed out if the civ that trades all of the Diplo favor enters a puppet state relation?

 

[Ziad]

Maybe this would be more fleshed out if the civ that trades all of the Diplo favor enters a puppet state relation?

Well it would be cool if vassals returned in a third expansion to expand on this.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Just because it can be negotiated in a peace deal doesn't mean it has to be negotiated.

My point was that if the alternative is being removed from the game, then yes it has to.

Well it would be cool if vassals returned in a third expansion to expand on this.

I could live with that.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

So in the preview streams, both from FXS hq and now from the media builds, we've seen that Diplomatic Favor is tradeable. . . but even if the two civs are negotiating peace.

That means Mr. World Slayer can extort the full purse of Favor of a, let's say "optimized Diplomacy game", from another player, as a reward for... reducing him to a beggar through bloody murder and sack.

I don't know how else to say this. It should be obvious this is a terrible oversight that cracks the system. Waging a devastating war, perhaps to annihilation, has the possibility of seizing the entire bank of Favor gained from the defending player, who may have been maximizing that bank. Thus, if a player would have to capitulate, they might have to turn over this massive pool of World Congress points over to a player whose global contribution was genocide, whose main export has been destruction.

This oversight will be unfortunate when Favor trading will be banned in multiplayer (just as you must not choose to vote another player the winner of the game when Civ5 crazily let you do that), but it is an absurdity in the single player game too, ensuring that the most consistent strength in World Congress will be "savagely beat up the nicest civ on the block".

The fix: Diplomatic Favor can only be traded outside of peace deals. You can coerce it from someone, but only without actually flying the flag of war.
Please spam tomorrow's Eleanor livestream questions room with questions of whether this behaviour will be "fixed" for February 14th.

Maybe the diplomats that curried the favor were in the cities that the aggressor annexed? Or realized they had been working for the wrong team?

I agree with your general sentiments here though, but also with UWHabs when he says you don't have to take the favor.

 

[bbbt]

The favor is really a mechanism to replace 'vote trading'. So what's happening is essentially saying "support/back me up diplomatically or we take you out".

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I agree with your general sentiments here though, but also with UWHabs when he says you don't have to take the favor.

... I'm at a loss to put across my ... confused reaction to that idea, except to try: The way that someone chooses not to do something in a game could not be less relevant to me.

As far as it goes to reply to the criticism from the OP, I have to say it looks to me like responding to some consumer report that shows a car's driver seat has a good chance to rocket out the sun roof if the vehicle is put in drive, and then consoling the car owners by reminding them "You don't have to turn the car on."

The favor is really a mechanism to replace 'vote trading'. So what's happening is essentially saying "support/back me up diplomatically or we take you out".

I don't think the view of Favor trading as recolored vote trading holds up, because no Favor is destroyed if a civ is eliminated. Their votes would have to die with their delegates, right? Nice thinking though.

 

[bbbt]

I don't think the view of Favor trading as recolored vote trading holds up, because no Favor is destroyed if a civ is eliminated. Their votes would have to die with their delegates, right? Nice thinking though.

It's definitely not 1 to 1 - there's also the issue of the 'free votes' civs get, for example, that aren't traded, but it's the closest equivalent imho. There's no other 'vote trading' in the game like there was in 5 - just trading favor, and now the city states give favor instead of votes like in 5.

As stated by others, I don't think this was intended as 'niceness' victory. Achieving diplo victory assisted by military means is both relatively consistent real world (i.e. the 5 members of the UN security counsel are there through military might (nukes specifically), not because of their reputation as sterling peacemongers). And it's consistent with the rest of the game mechanics - i.e you can demand great works in a peace deal and uses those towards a cultural victory.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

i personally dont see any reason for diplomatic favor to be tradeable at all. If you want to support another civ , fine , vote for it but if you give away your political capital you effectively give your rights to be the ultimate leader of your civ to someone else. If we are allowed to trade entities such as political favor why can we not trade military units?

 

[BarbarianHunter]

... I'm at a loss to put across my ... confused reaction to that idea, except to try: The way that someone chooses not to do something in a game could not be less relevant to me.

As far as it goes to reply to the criticism from the OP, I have to say it looks to me like responding to some consumer report that shows a car's driver seat has a good chance to rocket out the sun roof if the vehicle is put in drive, and then consoling the car owners by reminding them "You don't have to turn the car on."

I'm not certain your analogy is relevant, as it presents an undesired outcome (drivers seat rocketing out through the sunroof) if you take a certain action (put the car in drive). I think an analogy of diplomatic favor raining down like mana from heaven (desired outcome) if I take my tank out of drive and stand down (making peace) is more appropriate. I understand what you're saying, and will grant you that this is a potential problem for gameplay. It adds yet another potential advantage to warmongering.

 

[Stilgar08]

Bribing and Blackmailing never happens in politics and every leader / country always votes freely what they want under all circumstances. Furthermore it never happens that the successor in a war oppresses the will of the loser and diminish his importance in international affairs...

Works as intended I'd say And rightly so.

 

[Vandlys]

Bribing and Blackmailing never happens in politics and every leader / country always votes freely what they want under all circumstances. Furthermore it never happens that the successor in a war oppresses the will of the loser and diminish his importance in international affairs...

Works as intended I'd say And rightly so.

I think the example that OP means, and that you and others here are missing, is the following:
Germany decides to attack France/Netherlands/Denmark and succeeds in conquering them. Germany, in the eyes of the world (let's say USA especially), loses status. However, because they get the diplomatic favour of FR/NL/DK, they can negotiate their way back to the table of worldwide decision-making. That doesn't make sense. The favour the three countries (FR/NL/DK) had with the USA, wouldn't count at all for Germany. USA would be just as mad still.
Did Russia have more diplomatic favour with the EU when they annexed part of the Ukraine? Did the Third Reich have more diplomatic favour with the UK and the USA when they annexed parts of France, and conquered Poland, the Netherlands, etc?

Or do grievances alone counter this mechanic enough? I have stopped watching livestreams and don't follow any streams, because I don't want to spoil too much of the game for myself

 

[Stilgar08]

I think the example that OP means, and that you and others here are missing, is the following:
Germany decides to attack France/Netherlands/Denmark and succeeds in conquering them. Germany, in the eyes of the world (let's say USA especially), loses status. However, because they get the diplomatic favour of FR/NL/DK, they can negotiate their way back to the table of worldwide decision-making. That doesn't make sense. The favour the three countries (FR/NL/DK) had with the USA, wouldn't count at all for Germany. USA would be just as mad still.
Did Russia have more diplomatic favour with the EU when they annexed part of the Ukraine? Did the Third Reich have more diplomatic favour with the UK and the USA when they annexed parts of France, and conquered Poland, the Netherlands, etc?

Or do grievances alone counter this mechanic enough? I have stopped watching livestreams and don't follow any streams, because I don't want to spoil too much of the game for myself

It's not what the USA thinks that's of importance in your example. They can have that because they still have their diplo favor and grievances against Germany. It's about FR/NL/DK not being able anymore to act as a sovereign country when they have been blitzed.

 

[Vandlys]

It's not what the USA thinks that's of importance in your example. They can have that because they still have their diplo favor and grievances against Germany. It's about FR/NL/DK not being able anymore to act as a sovereign country when they have been blitzed.

Yeah, so why should their (FR/NL/DK) diplomatic favour to the USA all of a sudden still be intact? It's not as if Germany then all of a sudden has the representation of multiple leaders.. Diplomatic favour is almost exclusively what another country thinks of you. If they think they owe you; diplomatic favour. If they hold you in high regards; diplomatic favour.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

We'll have to wait for release to see how it plays out.

Thematically it makes sense but from a strategic perspective it would indeed be frustrating to discover that once again, the quickest route to a diplomatic victory was conquest.

 

[Melliores]

This is where the french translation of that variable is very much the one that should have been used in the English version. In French they stuck with Capital Diplomatique.

No favors there - you want us to treat the French/Dutch/Danish/Czechs good ? You remember the time that you allowew us to annex parts of Czechoslovakia or the whole of Austria ?

If anything, the Anschluss is a good example of what they were aiming for - Germany annexing peacefully another country brought them a huge influx of diplomatic capital/strength. The UK and the US were no longer convinced they can deal with Germany only diplomatically, which eventually lead to full scale war, among other things. In game terms this will mean that Germany gained a huge influx of diplomatic currency and the other countries all of a sudden were a lot less cooperative, knowing they will not be able to win anything via the World Congress.

 

[Garry Nixon]

In the FR/NL/DK vs Germany example above, surely the correct response would be to trade that built up diplomatic favour to the USA (whom we are told may be miffed at Germany already) to enter the conflict against Germany. The USA would then gain even more favour by liberating the FR/NL/DK cities, without gaining any grievances, and be in the best position fro a Diplomatic victory?