[R&F] Emergencies seems to work oppositely of what was marketed

[drubell]

Something that has bothered me since the Georgia Emergencies stream is something that appears to direct conflict with how Emergencies were marketed on the store page and how Emergencies trigger, based on how they were described in the stream. Emergencies are marketed as “when a civilization grows too powerful, other civilizations can join a pact against the threatening civilization, and earn rewards, or penalties, when the Emergency ends.”

When I read that, I get the impression that if a Civ is “grow[ing] too powerful,” an Emergency is declared to stop the “threatening civilization” from being on the brink from winning the game, i.e. “growing too powerful.” I don’t think I’m off target by claiming that the intention of Emergencies are largely to create a priority for multiple players/AI to oppose a powerful runaway civ that will win without intervention.

So I want to focus on two of the five Emergencies that I feel are mostly likely to be the cause for Emergencies in a game: Military Emergency and Betrayal Emergency. As far as I understood on the stream, the Military Emergency triggers if someone leading in a victory type attacks and holds a civ’s city. The Betrayal Emergency triggers from declaring war on a civ they have an alliance with.

The issue I have with these particular Emergencies is that they both seem to be triggered by starting a war (which also seems to be the case for the City-State and Nuclear Emergencies) rather than being triggered by stopping a runaway AI. This seems to make the Emergency mechanic more anti-war than anti-runaway. I argue that, in fact, the best way to deal with a runaway civ is to declare war on them and either take their cities, cut off an alliance to attack them, attack their city-states, or nuke them. If I become the target of an Emergency for trying to STOP a runaway civ, then that appears to be a direct conflict of how Emergencies were marketed.

Here’s an example: Say that Brazil is on the path to winning a Cultural Victory in 20 turns and is closest than any other civ to winning the game. Brazil is unlikely to declare a war on another civ, because the path of least resistance is to just to ensure the victory happens in 20 turns; starting a war only threatens to slow down the Cultural Victory by destroying trade routes or open border agreements.

Now imagine I am England. Perhaps I’m leading in the Science Victory but I am 50 turns away from winning it compared to Brazil’s 20 turns to Cultural Victory. Or perhaps I’m in the middle of the pack as far as Demographics goes, but I am leading in Domination because I wiped out America back in the Classical Era. According to way the Emergencies were explained, this means that if I declare war on Brazil and take a city or multiple cities to stop Brazil from winning, I will have a Military Emergency declared on ME, not the civ who’s going to win in 20 turns. Similarly, if I was allied to Brazil and I wanted to cut that alliance off and declare war on Brazil to prevent Brazil’s imminent victory, I will have a Betrayal Emergency declared on ME, not the civ who’s going to win in 20 turns.

My major point here is that attempting to stop a runaway civ through a declaration of war means that Emergencies trigger on the civs trying to stop a runaway civ, rather than on the runaway civ itself.

When a civ like Brazil in this scenario has a pending win, then if the other civs want to prevent such a win, they should do whatever action is required to stop Brazil from winning. I think it’s hard to argue that war isn’t the best option. I also think it’s hard to argue that breaking an alliance with an imminent winner to attack and prevent its win isn’t a bad option other.

So going back to the way Emergencies were marketed, if a civ like Brazil “grew too powerful” and is about to win that Cultural Victory, then other civilizations like me (England) should “join a pact against the threatening civilization, and earn rewards, or penalties, when the Emergency ends." But that seems to be in direct contrast how a Military or Betrayal Emergency would work. Attempting to stop Brazil, the “threatening civilization” about to win the game, through war (arguably the best way to stop a civ from winning), would trigger an Emergency on me as a direct result of trying to prevent its win. Again, Brazil is unlikely to trigger an Emergency himself because he'll win his Cultural Victory faster by not declaring a war.

From the way Emergencies were marketed, it appeared that a runaway civ would have to face conflicts from other civs uniting to stop the runaway from winning. But the Emergency system seems to work oppositely from that system, where the civ trying to stop the runaway from winning triggers the Emergency on the non-runaway civ instead.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

That can be the case, but if you are helping the runaway civ, or are yourself a runaway (or close) then the emergencies will be hindering to your win. I don't see much issue with that. Additionally, these are simply two ways to hinder a civ from winning via domination. Each seems pretty specialized so while they do little to stop a religious runaway, the religious emergency will. In addition, the emergencies are not, nor should, be a rubberband mechanic simply pulling back a civ for playing well. They require situational awareness to be properly effective, for instance, the when a civ takes over a city-state the emergency only kicks over to those actually impacted by it (i.e. those with envoys) so its not simply the civ took a city let's punish them, its this civ took over a strategically important asset, you can punish them.

 

[drubell]

I don't think it's fair to blame civs and players for using the Alliance system that will roll out when R&F launches. The bonuses conferred by using alliances are too valuable to ignore. Yet Civ 6 remains a game where one player takes all; there is no vassalage system or anything of the kind. So when the bonuses for alliances are valuable, and alliances confer stronger bonuses the longer you remain in those alliances, yet only one civ can win, I don't think it's unreasonable to be allied with a civ that can offer you good trades and good alliance bonuses until there's a clear point that the alliance must end to prevent a stronger civ from winning. The civ that's winning isn't going to end that alliance because they keep getting bonuses; the only time that won't be the case is if the winning civ is going for a Domination Victory and you still have your capital.

So the idea of blaming people for using alliances that help a runaway (especially before it's clear that there IS a runaway) seems like a questionable response due to the nature of R&F alliances in general.

Referring to the City-State Emergency, this is still a matter of Emergencies being a case of being anti-war rather than anti-"threatening civilization" or anti-"growing too powerful." The only time, when you look at a civ game from a macro state, when a civ is threatening or too powerful in the eyes of the player is when that civ will win instead of instead of the player. So in the case of the city-state, if I go back to the Brazil example, if there is a key city-state that is significantly affecting Brazil's win and there's no reasonable way to peacefully use envoys to overtake that city-state, the military option of taking that city-state over is not just beneficial for me as England, but anyone else who has envoys there. You're claiming everyone who has an envoy in that city-state should be upset enough to throw an Emergency on me for taking the city-state, but I argue that if the city-state is the reason Brazil is going to win, why shouldn't that be a benefit for everyone who isn't Brazil? Instead, the Emergency is declared on England for stopping Brazil from its runaway position. While on that example, Brazil isn't going to attack a city-state and trigger an Emergency either, since it's still poised to win if it doesn't trigger an Emergency.

That's why I claim that the Emergency system comes off as inconsistent and opposite of how it was marketed. Either it's a system that, as I would say you infer, creates an implementation of stopping a problem that should have the interest of several civs despite the civs' relative positions (as the stream video's message came off as), or it's a pact of weaker civs that specifically targets those who are "too powerful" and "threatening" as the expansion marketing claims. There's a dissonance between the system and the marketing that I feel I've articulated here, and I posit that many of the Emergencies trigger would appear to trigger on any civ EXCEPT the civ that is likely to win, which is directly contrary to the Emergency system's marketing claims.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Perhaps there need to be harder counters to the victory conditions that don't require conquest. Stopping a runaway culture civ might be as easy as pulling a USSR and dropping an Iron curtain. Not really sure what to do about the science victory though.

 

[drubell]

Perhaps there need to be harder counters to the victory conditions that don't require conquest. Stopping a runaway culture civ might be as easy as pulling a USSR and dropping an Iron curtain. Not really sure what to do about the science victory though.

Is there much that can be "peacefully" be done about the Science Victory outside of spies? With the new spy missions they can at least remove envoys that help their science victory, and breaking Spaceports has always been an option.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Is there much that can be "peacefully" be done about the Science Victory outside of spies? With the new spy missions they can at least remove envoys that help their science victory, and breaking Spaceports has always been an option.

Having an emergency for science is kind of hard... What are you saying with that? "NO! Screw human technological advancement! We were born in the dirt on THIS dirt and we should be happy with that!"

Come to think of it, there might be an argument for a fundamentalist response to the science victory, that trying to reach the heavens is somehow an affront against your faith.

Another option might be to try to combat the science victory with propaganda: if you're culturally influential enough, you try to spread the idea that their moon landing was fake, or that they haven't landed on mars or whatever. Maybe that prevents the science victory from finishing (science is all about proof and empirical evidence, right? So they should have to prove to everyone that they've really done what they say they're doing).

 

[legalizefreedom]

Stopping a runaway civ is not the only purpose of emergencies and I don't believe it was marketed that way.

Right now if someone does something wicked it really just goes by with a whimper. A savvy player will see the notification and say "Oh, that's cold", but that's about it.

Emergencies give gravity to the situation and make it ongoing so the world gets engaged and the offender potentially gets his/her due. They don't have to be leading or even that powerful.

 

[clapyourhands]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard of the Military Emergency it was phrased as follows: "War against someone leading in a victory type who conquers another Civ's city". This was early on in the stream, but if this is true, wouldn't it still trigger for Brazil's culture victory in your example? The game does have ways of tracking progress to each victory type in one of the panels, so I would think it has a chance of triggering when a civ passes the, say, 90% mark to any one victory condition.

In any case, I don't see it a solely a rubber banding mechanic as much as an ultimatum. Two issues people had with the game was 1) runaway civs that were impossible to catch up with and 2) games that dragged on when the winner was already known. Emergencies would be one last push for the other civs to catch up, and if they failed, then the civ that was ahead would get a bonus to finish up the game quickly.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Stealth Buff to peaceful victories, it would seem. =p

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Just a note.

Being "50 turns away from SV" actually means you're at some point around just finished your first industry-era tech--industrialization.

Being "20 turns away from CV" actually means you have just unlocked museums and is a few turns to unlocking archealogists.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That can be the case, but if you are helping the runaway civ, or are yourself a runaway (or close) then the emergencies will be hindering to your win. I don't see much issue with that. Additionally, these are simply two ways to hinder a civ from winning via domination. Each seems pretty specialized so while they do little to stop a religious runaway, the religious emergency will. In addition, the emergencies are not, nor should, be a rubberband mechanic simply pulling back a civ for playing well. They require situational awareness to be properly effective, for instance, the when a civ takes over a city-state the emergency only kicks over to those actually impacted by it (i.e. those with envoys) so its not simply the civ took a city let's punish them, its this civ took over a strategically important asset, you can punish them.

Actively gamethrowing by players in a game is an objective issue with it.

Emergencies will result in that if they work exactly as they've been stated to this point. Under current civ 6 rules, anybody other than permanent allies helping Brazil win a culture victory by defending them is objectively throwing the game. Permanent allies don't need an emergency to understand they should probably defend themselves.

Perhaps there need to be harder counters to the victory conditions that don't require conquest. Stopping a runaway culture civ might be as easy as pulling a USSR and dropping an Iron curtain. Not really sure what to do about the science victory though.

Pseudo victory conditions are best used to break a tie, not to have AI nations set up in a way where they lose on purpose to prop someone up.

Having an emergency for science is kind of hard... What are you saying with that? "NO! Screw human technological advancement! We were born in the dirt on THIS dirt and we should be happy with that!"

How about trying to win the game? Just hand-wave it by saying that other nations don't want just one to have uncontested control over what happens in space.

Emergencies give gravity to the situation and make it ongoing so the world gets engaged and the offender potentially gets his/her due. They don't have to be leading or even that powerful.

Emergencies are okay if they work with game incentives (victory conditions). As stated, they will cause AI nations to actively work against those incentives. Civ 6 needs to bring back Civ 4's better controls, not its tendency for Soren's "fun AI" (quoted with disdain) to game throw because reasons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard of the Military Emergency it was phrased as follows: "War against someone leading in a victory type who conquers another Civ's city". This was early on in the stream, but if this is true, wouldn't it still trigger for Brazil's culture victory in your example? The game does have ways of tracking progress to each victory type in one of the panels, so I would think it has a chance of triggering when a civ passes the, say, 90% mark to any one victory condition.

In any case, I don't see it a solely a rubber banding mechanic as much as an ultimatum. Two issues people had with the game was 1) runaway civs that were impossible to catch up with and 2) games that dragged on when the winner was already known. Emergencies would be one last push for the other civs to catch up, and if they failed, then the civ that was ahead would get a bonus to finish up the game quickly.

If nobody has lost a capital you're in an all-way tie for domination. Maybe that will be ignored. Brazil isn't taking a city in his example, but it's about to win and any player making a credible attempt to win the game should be going all-in to put that down unless they're even closer to a VC themselves.

If the mechanics work as stated emergencies will not only trigger on runaways and could potentially assist them.

Stealth Buff to peaceful victories, it would seem. =p

Not so stealthy, but pseudo victory conditions should be earned, not have the victory thrown to them.

Being "50 turns away from SV" actually means you're at some point around just finished your first industry-era tech--industrialization.

Being "20 turns away from CV" actually means you have just unlocked museums and is a few turns to unlocking archealogists.

Being 50 turns from SV means you're < 50 turns from nuking everyone into the stone age.

Being 20 turns away from CV means you should have a target on your back screaming "I'm not prioritizing military, what are you going to do about it, world?"

 

[dunkleosteus]

Actively gamethrowing by players in a game is an objective issue with it.

Emergencies will result in that if they work exactly as they've been stated to this point. Under current civ 6 rules, anybody other than permanent allies helping Brazil win a culture victory by defending them is objectively throwing the game. Permanent allies don't need an emergency to understand they should probably defend themselves.



Pseudo victory conditions are best used to break a tie, not to have AI nations set up in a way where they lose on purpose to prop someone up.



How about trying to win the game? Just hand-wave it by saying that other nations don't want just one to have uncontested control over what happens in space.



Emergencies are okay if they work with game incentives (victory conditions). As stated, they will cause AI nations to actively work against those incentives. Civ 6 needs to bring back Civ 4's better controls, not its tendency for Soren's "fun AI" (quoted with disdain) to game throw because reasons.



If nobody has lost a capital you're in an all-way tie for domination. Maybe that will be ignored. Brazil isn't taking a city in his example, but it's about to win and any player making a credible attempt to win the game should be going all-in to put that down unless they're even closer to a VC themselves.

If the mechanics work as stated emergencies will not only trigger on runaways and could potentially assist them.



Not so stealthy, but pseudo victory conditions should be earned, not have the victory thrown to them.



Being 50 turns from SV means you're < 50 turns from nuking everyone into the stone age.

Being 20 turns away from CV means you should have a target on your back screaming "I'm not prioritizing military, what are you going to do about it, world?"

As soon as you have to say "hand wave" you lose the guise of history that firaxis clings to so tightly. Any world an artist or author or game designer creates should be self-consistent, and when you hit an obstacle, you have to try harder to work with the world you've created, not against it.

 

[steveg700]

Having an emergency for science is kind of hard... What are you saying with that? "NO! Screw human technological advancement! We were born in the dirt on THIS dirt and we should be happy with that!"

Come to think of it, there might be an argument for a fundamentalist response to the science victory, that trying to reach the heavens is somehow an affront against your faith.

Another option might be to try to combat the science victory with propaganda: if you're culturally influential enough, you try to spread the idea that their moon landing was fake, or that they haven't landed on mars or whatever. Maybe that prevents the science victory from finishing (science is all about proof and empirical evidence, right? So they should have to prove to everyone that they've really done what they say they're doing).

Well, the emergency can just have other civilizations contribute science, production, gold. etc. into some pot to launch an international space station or some such McGuffin for giving the participants beelines to building spaceports easier, getting cheaper research labs, faster space projects, etc.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As soon as you have to say "hand wave" you lose the guise of history that firaxis clings to so tightly. Any world an artist or author or game designer creates should be self-consistent, and when you hit an obstacle, you have to try harder to work with the world you've created, not against it.

The guise of history isn't even respectably plausible at this point. I'm okay with that. It's a game first, and its premise always precluded reasonable alignment to historical causality.

The mere existence of "victory conditions" requires greater hand waving than anything I've said to this point. If they wanted this world to be self-consistent, they should have started by making CPU players not throw the game away by ignoring its most important rules (victory conditions/requirements to win). Show me a sane historical ruler who would intentionally self-harm his country if he expected to continue leading it.

Leaders in this game do that without batting an eye, and dogpiling an aggressor seeking to prevent a culture victory due to an "emergency" would be another example of that. That is a necessarily self-inconsistent world and OP's concern about it is plenty justified; this was one of the biggest problems with Civ 4's AI.

Couldn't they have copied Civ 4's city list screen, unit cycling (without the sticky pretend-alt), or city management rather than one of its flaws ?

 

[Trengilly]

Well as a human player I'm going to love triggering emergencies - since the AI will be utterly incapable of successfully completing them against a human player and the human will get the rewards.

 

[TomKQT]

Well as a human player I'm going to love triggering emergencies - since the AI will be utterly incapable of successfully completing them against a human player and the human will get the rewards.

This is exactly my thoughts and this is what I first this thread was about when I saw the title (before reading the first post).
If an emergency is started by some AI players against you as a human player, then it will be not a way how to stop a run-away civ, but a way how to give the civ even more power (because the AI's will lose and you will get the bonus). I really WISH I was wrong and the AI was really capable of making a good effort of wining the emergency, but I honestly don't belive it...

 

[Goliht]

I think people are reading too much into emergencies, they seem to only affect bordering nations, so if the winning or leading civ is on another continent, chances are you won't be invited to the emergency. Unless maybe you have a city nearby or maybe are allied in some cases. Also a Civ leading, even 1 turn from winning isn't really an emergency.. if it isn't you, it means you've done something wrong.

 

[Victoria]

I feel that these have been designed to try and limit the military answer to each victory. Currently by far the best way to get any victory is violence. The emergencies to me seem to have some form of historical match while there is no “you are winning a SV Kongo by a long way and even though you have done nothing wrong we are now going to gang up on you”

I have no real issue with them beyond the point where they likely will not make much difference to a very strong Dom civ. They may even help.

I do think all these new mechanics will slow down a Dom approach and will speed up AI victory contention on higher levels and so the game will hopefully be in a better place. I know how much the AI already trades and does agreements because I have watched the logs. Now Kongo on deity is going to get a science alliance with gilga and with those bonuses in place at deity they will be mighty hard to stop.

Of all of the new mechanics, Emergencies do feel the most fabricated and indeed likely to encourage a runaway to finish faster.

 

[Inlex]

Having an emergency for science is kind of hard... What are you saying with that? "NO! Screw human technological advancement! We were born in the dirt on THIS dirt and we should be happy with that!"

Come to think of it, there might be an argument for a fundamentalist response to the science victory, that trying to reach the heavens is somehow an affront against your faith.

Have you ever heard of the Amish?
(Don't worry, it's not offensive. They will never read this)

 

[God of Kings]

Have you ever heard of the Amish?
(Don't worry, it's not offensive. They will never read this)

The Amish are actually in favour of using modern technology, as long as it isn't communication-related or transportation-related to avoid contact with the outside world.

For example, the Amish are strongly in favour of installing solar panels.