[GS] Diplomatic Favor exploitation

[Republic of San Montuoso]

It's always the same fight: gameplay vs. roleplay.

From a roleplay perspective, it makes sense: USA, China and Russia have a big influence in diplomatic affairs, but that's not because they work toward international cooperation, but rather because they have a big military (or a big economy). If USA were really for international cooperation, they would have participate in the League of Nations, they would a ratified the Climate Accords and, most of all, they would have embrace the metric system and abandon ****** units. But, despite the fact that USA are not for international cooperation (well, they're not completely against neither) and they do not really play the diplomatic game, USA are ones who have the most diplomatic and political power. The only to fight them, perhaps, are France (first consular network in the world) and it's because it's a long history and tradition to maintain everybody under French hegemony.
Why does Iceland, Nepal or Nauru are quiet on the international scene? Because despite a strong diplomacy, they do not have a strong economy or military, and thus are considered like pretty nothing.

But for a gameplay perspective, this system is wrong. Each Victory should reward a specific gameplay. I know you can win others victories by conquest: raze heathen cities to make, by comparison, your religion predominant; steal cities with wonders, national parks, seaside resorts and great works; destroy cities with spaceports; and of course, the DomV. But the Diplomatic Victory should be about all BUT conquest (even if it makes sense in a RP perspective). It should rewards players that are not only peaceful but helpful about others: emergencies, climate change, protecting city-states, make alliances... Because we all know it should be gameplay before roleplay. Why Canada cannot be the target of a surprise war? Why Maori will never have any written history despite discovering writing? Why nobody but Phoenician can move their capital to better fit in their empire? All GP reason before RP reasons. And it should be the same for Diplomatic Favors. Because conquering everybody to steal their diplomatic favors is the antithesis of what DipV is aiming for.
A possible compromise could be that the winner of the war could decide to destroy all or a part of the DF of the loser. It can allow for conqueror to slow down possible people aiming for DipV but not give them a real advantage at it.

 

[Victoria]

Diplomatic favour is a very heavily used currency in real life, I think there is a general consensus on that.
What happens in real life though is people disobey the rulings of such gatherings to the point they are useful only when it suits the need of the powerful.
The game needs a rigid mechanic for it to be of any use and therefore it is no longer considered real. There is a time in civ when you just have to accept helicopters cannot fly over water larger than rivers.
What should happen is along the lines of, if a civ becomes too powerful as a single entity the world congress is abandoned as pointless. This would avoid it remaining farcical until its completion and force people that want a diplomatic victory to take a more diplomatic route. Yo could include grievances into the decision but I cannot see any other mechanic working.

It is worse than just taking diplomacy off those you conquer, Free the city states along the way, you are larger and get more culture so have more envoys also.
Hattusa has 20 envoys from different countries, Capture it, let it flip to a free city and then capture that and liberate it for 100 diplomacy, You now are the only person getting diplomacy from it and reduced everyone else's bucket. Free cities cause such issue in this game.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

@OP - this definitionally isn't a bug. It's a design decision you don't care for, which a completely different thing.

While it can be exploitative, it fits very well with how they're implementing diplomatic favor. It isn't really specific favors owed to other nations, its influence to get things done their way. A successful conqueror definitely has that.

Grievances don't destroy favor (though perhaps they should), they're a completely separate system.

 

[Stilgar08]

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.

Regarding this (rather inept) example; It's not really like Germany won after they conquered FR/NL/DK and therefore gained diplo favor in a peace treaty right? What would have happened if war ended after that and didn't go on?
One could assume Germany accumulated lots of grievances, but after "winning the war"against FR/NL/DK would be regarded as even more influencial than before, no? Remember:it would be peace and Germany would rule most of central Europe...
OTOH the Allies won in the end. How did that work out for their lvl of influence? Quite good you could say...
That gamewise this gets done via diplo favour points transfer seems reasonable to me. Sorry about quoting myself:

Works as intended I'd say And rightly so

 

[Craig_Sutter]

Perhaps Diplomatic favor should have a cap similar to strategic resources... for example, goveenment plaza, embassies, delegations and alliances in play could add to the cap. That way, you need to play the diplomatic game more to achieve a victory that way.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

@OP - this definitionally isn't a bug. It's a design decision you don't care for, which a completely different thing.

While it can be exploitative, it fits very well with how they're implementing diplomatic favor. It isn't really specific favors owed to other nations, its influence to get things done their way. A successful conqueror definitely has that.

Grievances don't destroy favor (though perhaps they should), they're a completely separate system.

Ok, but you attacking and killing my friend isn't going to make me more likely to go along with what you say. Favor is an "I owe you one" kind of thing and I don't think it should be traded this way. I agree that it was a choice they made, but I don't really like it.

 

[pgm123]

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.

Right. It's turning them into a vassal.

Not only is this not a bug, I thought it was clearly intentional.

 

[Ziad]

Right. It's turning them into a vassal.

Not only is this not a bug, I thought it was clearly intentional.

Well it's not officially marked as vassalization. In the future, if they do implement it, perhaps it would be a type of Alliance where all their favor is effectively transferred to you as they only vote on what you vote.

 

[pgm123]

Well it's not officially marked as vassalization. In the future, if they do implement it, perhaps it would be a type of Alliance where all their favor is effectively transferred to you as they only vote on what you vote.

Right. I mean unofficially. Though vassals have never been reliable enough for automatic voting. It should probably be a situation where you make a demand and they have to renounce your protection (war) in order to disobey.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Ok, but you attacking and killing my friend isn't going to make me more likely to go along with what you say. Favor is an "I owe you one" kind of thing and I don't think it should be traded this way. I agree that it was a choice they made, but I don't really like it.

It isn't 'I owe you' at all. It's favor as in 'influence.' So, 'We butchered your friend and can do the same to you' is just as valid. It pretty much models both approaches to Cold War diplomacy (which both sides used): 'you're safer with us on your side' and 'we will topple you if you don't so what we say.'

Its worth noting that both sides of the Cold War got that influence from winning a war and dismembering the losers.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It isn't 'I owe you' at all. It's favor as in 'influence.' So, 'We butchered your friend and can do the same to you' is just as valid. It pretty much models both approaches to Cold War diplomacy (which both sides used): 'you're safer with us on your side' and 'we will topple you if you don't so what we say.'

Its worth noting that both sides of the Cold War got that influence from winning a war and dismembering the losers.

Okay, but they didn't get that by beating up Germany and taking theirs. They earned their own during the course of the act of beating up Germany (participating in an emergency)? Germany's favor went away--they didn't give it to the US for future use in UN elections.

 

[Stilgar08]

Ok, but you attacking and killing my friend isn't going to make me more likely to go along with what you say...

That's what grievance is for I'd say....

 

[Victoria]

Germany's favor went away-

... so maybe the problem with the design is grievances are specific but the favour is general.
People that had German favour had it removed by grievances which does not happen in Civ VI

 

[Vandlys]

Diplomatic favour in Civ VI is a resource that can be traded with everyone, which is in and of itself weird but so be it. But let's consider this in-game example:

Gandhi asks gold from Harald for diplomatic favour. Gandhi receives 50 gold, and Harald receives 50 favour. The world sees this trade, and agrees. Gandhi needed money, Harald gave it, diplomacy is favoured with Harald. In game, this would translate to: In an event concerning international matters, Harald can say "Hold up, I need a favour from you people. Remember how I helped Gandhi? That was a good move right? Now, because of that, you like me, and you'll help me with [insert matter]". Depending on the severity of the matter at hand, diplomatic favour goes up, logically.

Now, let's say Gandhi has his 50 gold, and Harald has his 50 favour. The world likes it, but shortly after this exchange, Harald's neighbour and longtime enemy Gilgamesh has had enough of Harald's close proximity, and takes Harald's tiny country of four cities. Harald, and his country of Norway, are no more. Now Gilgamesh has 50 extra favour, because... ? ? ?
Because Gandhi got 50 gold from Harald? And people liked Harald for this? But now people favour Gilgamesh, because Harald gave money to Gandhi? Gilgamesh, who has been selfish and reckless in this fictional world I'm using as an example, got diplomatic favour for destroying someone who gave money.

Grievances might go a long way to justifying being angry at Gilgamesh, but in a world congress scenario, would grievances count (actual question, I have no clue)? If not, then it's weird that Gilgamesh still can use Harald's favour that Harald gained for helping someone.

Please, tell me how that makes sense?

 

[Stringer1313]

It should not be tradeable period. It’s immersion breaking and doesn’t make players work hard for the precious favor

 

[Victoria]

Please, tell me how that makes sense?

Because this supposedly makes sense?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Because this supposedly makes sense?
View attachment 517145

They like to feel safe.

 

[UWHabs]

Diplomatic favour in Civ VI is a resource that can be traded with everyone, which is in and of itself weird but so be it. But let's consider this in-game example:

Gandhi asks gold from Harald for diplomatic favour. Gandhi receives 50 gold, and Harald receives 50 favour. The world sees this trade, and agrees. Gandhi needed money, Harald gave it, diplomacy is favoured with Harald. In game, this would translate to: In an event concerning international matters, Harald can say "Hold up, I need a favour from you people. Remember how I helped Gandhi? That was a good move right? Now, because of that, you like me, and you'll help me with [insert matter]". Depending on the severity of the matter at hand, diplomatic favour goes up, logically.

Now, let's say Gandhi has his 50 gold, and Harald has his 50 favour. The world likes it, but shortly after this exchange, Harald's neighbour and longtime enemy Gilgamesh has had enough of Harald's close proximity, and takes Harald's tiny country of four cities. Harald, and his country of Norway, are no more. Now Gilgamesh has 50 extra favour, because... ? ? ?
Because Gandhi got 50 gold from Harald? And people liked Harald for this? But now people favour Gilgamesh, because Harald gave money to Gandhi? Gilgamesh, who has been selfish and reckless in this fictional world I'm using as an example, got diplomatic favour for destroying someone who gave money.

Grievances might go a long way to justifying being angry at Gilgamesh, but in a world congress scenario, would grievances count (actual question, I have no clue)? If not, then it's weird that Gilgamesh still can use Harald's favour that Harald gained for helping someone.

Please, tell me how that makes sense?

Well, you only get that favour if they agree to it in the peace deal. So basically it would be the reward for not completely wiping them out.

 

[Stilgar08]

It should not be tradeable period. It’s immersion breaking and doesn’t make players work hard for the precious favor

Disagree. Period.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Seems I opened a can of worms.

I completely support trading for Favor. I guess this is because of the metaphor I take Favor to be. But I don't take issue either with interpretations where aggressive action can give some, or a lot, of this Favor. As has been said, power begets power, and diplomatic capital has plenteous historical associations with posturing and threat.

What concerns me is that whatever metaphor I have—which indeed I'll be taking more time to bring into conscious articulation—I am boxed in to where the view of what advantage a civ has overall, from Favor, is shattered in the specific, narrow case of a terminal extortion of one civ with a lot of it. edit: sorry, that's ambiguous. I'm not referring to the Favored civ losing its 'advantage'. I mean my ability to interpret DF is shattered where this mathematical transformation is part of DF's behaviour.

Probably FXS design of this system is pure mathematics, with only a gestural concern for a correspondence to anything real in particular. That's a fine design methodology to defeat at least paralytic perfectionism; I don't begrudge it in this instance... exactly. But whatever Favor is, how can it be transferred to the Scourge of [your civ here], at the doorstep of your annihilation, with no limit or proviso , acting no different from the award of world honor for a generous aid package?

thanks to @Vandlys for the clear case study