- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,128
What do you mean by 'the new ability to war and have allies and trade' ?
[GS] Does anyone else hate the World Congress?
- Thread starter Staal
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
The old warmonger ways made it hard to war and be liked, even with your ‘friends’
With the new grievance system and pillaging benefits it seems a much more enjoyable game to ‘dabble’ at war.
For example, just playing a game as Poland, the terrain I have suits seaside resorts so I thought that would be nice. I had Gorgo on my right and Gilga on my left.
I early suze Kumasi next to a Gorgo as she declared war on it and I rushed to defensive tactics. I then declared a protectorate war against Gorgo (nice inspiration) and took one of her cities and pillaged half her lands. The city I took had her only theater and so she only managed to move 1 writing out. I then took another city and made peace for the second city back in return I got the second writing and some gold... I no longer have a -18 as I gave a city back, have removed her writings, have penned her in and as it was only 100 grievances these were gone in 5 turns and we are now friends.
Now I have declared on Gilga with horses and xbow and a general coming. I will take none of his cities as his ziggurats are currently netting me 300 gold each and he has 12. I would much rather farm him then sure for peace and back off ... BUT...if I see a chance at loyalty flipping some cities I may take his cap. The important thing is not to take a lot of cities as that = grievance = no more dip favour, either gaining or selling. I am now buying my libraries and have winged huzzars on the way to visit Tomyris with. Pillaging campuses gives huge science and after the first pillage round a civ will often later fall into a dark age where it is easier to flip their cities but even if not, they kindly rebuild their infra for me to pillage again and as they fall behind colonial war and 50% gold for killing earlier units card can be used
Rule 1. Do not get a classic golden, they are more fun later for flipping... and you get a lot of faith pillaging, thousands of points.
Rule 2. Stay below 150 grievances if possible.
Just makes for quite a different and quite engaging game, and you can stay allies with people.
Last edited:
Thought you couldn't net science from pillaging anymore (except for vikings)?
Yeah, V was better in this respect. One big problem with agendas is that they don't guide their behavior so much as their reaction to other players' behavior.
Another is that the penalties for transgressing seem easily outweighed. Just start along the friendship chain and soon everyone is hunky-dory, agendas be damned.
Last edited:
Staal
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 192
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
1 campus will net you over 1K in the middle of the game.
No thread in it apart from via the twins, as it has some similiarities. And yes, vaguely historical.
Buni0ns
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2016
- Messages
- 136
My best friend hates World Congress, but that's because of me. Every time we play together in the living room I shout "World Congress, World Congress, World Congress! 3 or 4 times loudly and rapidly. Its especially effective because my computer is faster than hers so I process turns sooner so I always notice it is coming up before she does. She gets quite exasperated with me sometimes. 
Builderphile
Chieftain
I love Civ 6, but I guess I do hate World Congress because it actually annoys me when it pops up and I usually just rush my votes without doing any research as to what I should vote for.
So, basically, it just gets in the way of the other (good) parts of the game.
So, basically, it just gets in the way of the other (good) parts of the game.
Tiger Genocide
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2016
- Messages
- 357
Exactly!! Alexander's agenda is that he wants to see you at war with other civs. Okay. Then when I take 2 cities from another Civ, he denounces me for causing grievances to other AIs? Are you kidding me? In civ5 certain warmongers like Mongolia, The Huns, Shaka, etc. could give a flip less how much war you inflicted, to a point. They had much higher tolerances for warmongering. That made them much less of a hypocrite. It's so immersion killing when I play a game, and Alexander has taken more cities than me, but denounces me for taking even less. Also, since denouncements are 2-way and not 1 way like Civ5, it counts like I as if I denounced him too, so now we cannot trade open borders or anything else more or less.
It's utterly ridiculous how lazy this diplomacy was designed. If they cannot give different weights for grievances to different AIs, why bother implementing it? Just rip it out of the game!
I have 1300+ hours on Civ6 and maybe I just need to walk away at this point. It's not going to get better. I'm still personally very, very salty about how none of my 7 friends from different social circles refuse to play this game with me. One of them last year offered to play 5 with me again instead of Civ6. This is one of the friends that I BOUGHT a copy of civ6 for. Even if multiplayer is still okay, nobody wants to play the game because the AI and diplomacy is terrible when they practice alone. They are the same friends that begged me to play 5 years ago and I never played these games before. They been playing civ since Civ2. Not me!
Sorry for the rants, maybe I am just finally getting fed up with this game's shortcomings. Everyone says the same thing though, "This game has amazing potential!" Yeah like everyone's kids.... Unfortunately the result just fell very flat.
No more science from pillaging improvements (except vikings), but still earn science from pillaging campuses and campus buildings.
Luddify
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2018
- Messages
- 35
It just seems half-baked in every aspect, from integration with the diplomacy system to the design of the voting screens. Do I spend three or thirty diplomatic points on a vote? No idea. Can I go back to see which type of city state I want to approve bonus resources for? No, can't do. Every time this pops up it is immersion-breaking and an absolute chore that I would click through in an instant if I could. While it wasn't perfect I liked the system in Civ V - it was something to shoot for and at least it added some flavor to the late game. Now it's just a tacked-on chore that appears out of the blue much too early. I can only hope there's a third expansion with this (and the rest of the diplomacy system) as its focus. Otherwise at least give us the option to disable.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
You can, close the voting screen with the top right
Do whatever actions you want as per usual to check which CS you want.
Open again by clicking on the congress icon
One less hole in a sinking ship does not help much though
Good to vent sometimes, and nothing wrong with it if it's done in an appropriate way. Firaxis monitors threads, so we should articulate frustration in a way that gives them something to consider.
Certainly it is asinine for a civ like Alexander or Gorgo to weigh grievances as negatively as any other civ despite their agendas expressly approving warmongering. Seems like this was a programming oversight.
I would tend to think that to have symmetry with grievances you'd also have an opposite type of currency--"good will", "commendations", "praise", or something like that.
Last edited:
Askia Muhammad
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 128
I find it a lot more dull than V's iteration. I really don't like the randomness. I feel that many of the proposals are boring or inconsequential.
Introduce a mechanic for picking two leading Civs to introduce proposals again (like V) and make the resolutions have a much larger impact.
Overall, I think the game could use a third expansion pack or some DLC specifically focused around fleshing out diplomacy. WC to me is very bare bones and need some iteration. Diplomatic options are also quite limited in general. I'd like to see vassalage make a return as well as some other diplomatic options in general.
I really enjoy VI but one major aspect of the game I dislike is that a lot of things feel very gamey and the fact that wide is just always better. period. I think V had a much more elegant balance, perhaps too far in favor of tall but still a better balance than what we have now.
Introduce a mechanic for picking two leading Civs to introduce proposals again (like V) and make the resolutions have a much larger impact.
Overall, I think the game could use a third expansion pack or some DLC specifically focused around fleshing out diplomacy. WC to me is very bare bones and need some iteration. Diplomatic options are also quite limited in general. I'd like to see vassalage make a return as well as some other diplomatic options in general.
I really enjoy VI but one major aspect of the game I dislike is that a lot of things feel very gamey and the fact that wide is just always better. period. I think V had a much more elegant balance, perhaps too far in favor of tall but still a better balance than what we have now.
Council 13
Chieftain
It feels extremely tacked on and detached from the flow of the game. It should be a grand moment in history when its founded, and it should evolve in look, flavor and function throughout the ages. It does none of that. I hope its fixed at some point in the future.
RohirrimElf
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,263
(Just responding to the opening post)
I`m starting to like the world concress the more i play. But it still feels meaningless at times and does not excite me enough.
I would like to make decisions mixed in that could shape the world in a more impactfull way. It could still have a big effect on some of them.
But if it does not do enough for me it just feels as more micromanagement. All in all it is an improvement but not what it should be. I would like to feel excited whenever a new one pops up.
I`m starting to like the world concress the more i play. But it still feels meaningless at times and does not excite me enough.
I would like to make decisions mixed in that could shape the world in a more impactfull way. It could still have a big effect on some of them.
But if it does not do enough for me it just feels as more micromanagement. All in all it is an improvement but not what it should be. I would like to feel excited whenever a new one pops up.
Lily_Lancer
Deity
The current world congress system is that
You can only choose outcome A or B, and it first decides whether to have outcome A or B, then decide which one being the target.
The problem is that
1. you cannot downvote to maintain the current situation, and have to choose from A or B.
2. If you choose A then your vote count for every outcome of A, which may include outcomes that you're not willing to see.
For example, A: A certain Religion get culture bomb when building district. B. A certain Religion cannot spread.
You definitely want your religion to get A, while preferring B to target other religions when the final target of A not being your religion. However, upvoting A for your religion upvotes the whole A, helping A to beat B, and, in A your religion does not get enough vote, other religions get that bonus, nothing good to you.
Your vote, your works on diplomacy, although you vote for your goodness, it actually helps other religions to gain A, which is negative for your development. This design is bad .
You can only choose outcome A or B, and it first decides whether to have outcome A or B, then decide which one being the target.
The problem is that
1. you cannot downvote to maintain the current situation, and have to choose from A or B.
2. If you choose A then your vote count for every outcome of A, which may include outcomes that you're not willing to see.
For example, A: A certain Religion get culture bomb when building district. B. A certain Religion cannot spread.
You definitely want your religion to get A, while preferring B to target other religions when the final target of A not being your religion. However, upvoting A for your religion upvotes the whole A, helping A to beat B, and, in A your religion does not get enough vote, other religions get that bonus, nothing good to you.
Your vote, your works on diplomacy, although you vote for your goodness, it actually helps other religions to gain A, which is negative for your development. This design is bad .
DWilson
Where am I? What turn is it?
I like it, because it ensures it's active, if a bit hard to predict.
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
Why all the hate for the WC recently?
I think the resolution voting is currently set up specifically to avoid status quo and to provide some unpredictability for outcomes (e.g. you vote for culturing bombing wanting that ability for yourself, but someone else gets it).
I'm okay with both goals and the implementation of them, but I think it keeps coming back to the resolutions themselves needing more work. The resolutions where there is this a laundry list of targets are pretty rubbish (eg buffing units). And, as I've said too many times already, many resolutions are two narrow / binary to be very interesting.
(Although. Sometimes it's just about find another perspective. Someone pointed out that the +CS for Religion is something you might vote for even if you don't have a religion, because you want say religion X to spread more. That's a good point, and one I hadn't thought of.)
More emergencies will also improve things, because emergencies are more where you getting to initiate things or try to maintain status quo. I've had a few situations where I ruthlessly captured some cities or whatever, and was able to vote down an emergency against me. That's very satisfying.
Anyway. WC is basically pretty good. It just needs some tweaking around resolutions and a bit of expansion (particularly around roleplay things, like not having it just automatically start in the Medieval Era and or having it upgrade to the UN in the Modern Era - that sort of stuff).
I think the resolution voting is currently set up specifically to avoid status quo and to provide some unpredictability for outcomes (e.g. you vote for culturing bombing wanting that ability for yourself, but someone else gets it).
I'm okay with both goals and the implementation of them, but I think it keeps coming back to the resolutions themselves needing more work. The resolutions where there is this a laundry list of targets are pretty rubbish (eg buffing units). And, as I've said too many times already, many resolutions are two narrow / binary to be very interesting.
(Although. Sometimes it's just about find another perspective. Someone pointed out that the +CS for Religion is something you might vote for even if you don't have a religion, because you want say religion X to spread more. That's a good point, and one I hadn't thought of.)
More emergencies will also improve things, because emergencies are more where you getting to initiate things or try to maintain status quo. I've had a few situations where I ruthlessly captured some cities or whatever, and was able to vote down an emergency against me. That's very satisfying.
Anyway. WC is basically pretty good. It just needs some tweaking around resolutions and a bit of expansion (particularly around roleplay things, like not having it just automatically start in the Medieval Era and or having it upgrade to the UN in the Modern Era - that sort of stuff).
