Everything that doesn't work with diplomacy right now
- Thread starter DrCron
- Start date
Ferocitus
Deity
1. Well made arguments!
But I have a minor issue with what you think "Friendly" means.
For me, "Friendly" means that there are some bonuses to trade, or that you will
be considered before civs they are unfriendly towards; it's not a guarantee that
they won't attack you.
Nations don't have friends - they have interests - Charles de Gaulle.
2. If Greece is an ally of Russia, or someone else, then it knows about your
warmongering even if they haven't met you.
Do you know all of their allies, and their hidden agenda which might be
affecting the penalties?
3. You are a warmonger.
You said often that "I want to weaken China or Russia or India etc" by attacking them.
They retaliated by weakening you via warmongering penalties.
I'm not saying that the AI is not weak in diplomacy, it is in many aspects,
but there are some reasons for penalties that aren't always obvious.
But I have a minor issue with what you think "Friendly" means.
For me, "Friendly" means that there are some bonuses to trade, or that you will
be considered before civs they are unfriendly towards; it's not a guarantee that
they won't attack you.
Nations don't have friends - they have interests - Charles de Gaulle.
2. If Greece is an ally of Russia, or someone else, then it knows about your
warmongering even if they haven't met you.
Do you know all of their allies, and their hidden agenda which might be
affecting the penalties?
3. You are a warmonger.
You said often that "I want to weaken China or Russia or India etc" by attacking them.
They retaliated by weakening you via warmongering penalties.
I'm not saying that the AI is not weak in diplomacy, it is in many aspects,
but there are some reasons for penalties that aren't always obvious.
DrCron
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2012
- Messages
- 449
1. Well made arguments!
But I have a minor issue with what you think "Friendly" means.
For me, "Friendly" means that there are some bonuses to trade, or that you will
be considered before civs they are unfriendly towards; it's not a guarantee that
they won't attack you.
Nations don't have friends - they have interests - Charles de Gaulle.
2. If Greece is an ally of Russia, or someone else, then it knows about your
warmongering even if they haven't met you.
Do you know all of their allies, and their hidden agenda which might be
affecting the penalties?
3. You are a warmonger.
You said often that "I want to weaken China or Russia or India etc" by attacking them.
They retaliated by weakening you via warmongering penalties.
I'm not saying that the AI is not weak in diplomacy, it is in many aspects,
but there are some reasons for penalties that aren't always obvious.
1) In CIV 4 "friendly" AIs wouldn't attack you (except Catherine if she was bribed) which worked in-game. You need a relevant in-game motivation for "friendly" status to be relevant, disregarding what someone considers "friendly" in real-life diplomacy. Also, yes, nations have interests, but that should mean that nations that are trading with you should get a positive diplo modifier and be less likely to attack you, which at the time isn't happening.
2) You can see at 7:07 that Greece doesn't have allies. They denounced England and are unfriendly with India. They haven't met China which at that moment is the only civ I took cities from. They haven't met Russia either. You can see at 19:50 that Pericles' hidden agenda was "standing army" (which actually gives me a positive modifier).
3) I never said I wanted to weaken India. I did say that I HAD to keep Chinese and Russian cities to be able to stop them from attacking me, because there is simply no other way to guarantee peace with them. This is what I mean when I say diplomacy doesn't work. In CIV 4 you could win games without ever being attacked, even without building an army, by playing your diplomacy right (unless your closest neighbor was Genghis or someone like that). In CIV 6 this is completely impossible.
The Highwayman
King
Thanks for posting this. I'm experiencing the exact same thing in all my games. There are so many issues to contend with: I set the map to HUGE. I cut the number of civs in HALF. AIs still spawn in my lap. So when I expand, it's obviously near the opposition since their only goal is to forward settle me even when they're not right on top of me. Bam, they declare war of territorial expansion. I must use resources to fend them off....kill their units, take some cities so they'll leave me alone and I can actually get a return on investment and expand myself because I was given zero room to begin with....and all the problems you pointed out present themselves. Combine the fact it's not real time and changes too slowly, as you stated, and we have a system that favors aggression and not much else.
I think these things can definitely be addressed though.
I think these things can definitely be addressed though.
- Make the positive modifiers more + each turn.
- Make the current standing more clear to the user in the menu.
- Wars against other war mongers don't incur a severe penalty, if one at all. After all, preemptive action is better than sitting back and letting a known warmonger come to your doorstep.
- Make it to where open borders don't allow one to let their units linger in others' territory for more than X amount of turns. Really, open borders is a license to cover up all my tiles so I cannot move units around. No incentive there. Now I have to kill you to create this plantation guys, sorry.
- And tweak the agendas so that we can actually take action to prevent being denounced. Catherine tells me I'm weak in espionage turn 25. Kongo asks me to spread a religion to him when I don't have one and couldn't have possibly created units and sent them to his cities in that time frame even if I did. Peter says I'm behind in science turn 10 when they start with 3 settlers, a handful of techs, and a % per turn advantage. I have more cities than Trajan but I haven't expanded enough. Perhaps program it to where certain agendas don't go into effect until x amount of turns, or simply fix them.
DrCron
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2012
- Messages
- 449
Ah yes, another 2 ridiculous issues that I forgot to mention. Both military units (with open borders) and religious units in your land stop you from moving builders. This is absurd. And agendas should work in a way that the player can always do something about them, otherwise they are just arbitrary penalties.
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
You can make a declaration of friendship/alliance, which will prevent them from attacking, give a bonus (+9 for friendship and +18 for alliance), which normally is enough to to cover smalller warmonger penalties and will guarantee good relationship for the rest of the game, unless you <snip>.
You make valid points, mostly on how warmongering works (Greece really shouldn't care about your attacks on a Civ they didn't met) but your game goes wrong because you refuse to play the diplomatic game in the way it works and just go try to solve the problem with war. Make sure you keep the diplomatic balance positive, then try to make some alliances, there you go, easy peaceful match. My last game I got 7 allies out of 14 Civs, even though I was getting penalties from the fact that I allied with their enemies and penalty from religion conversion (I was going for religious). Once they are your allies, its hard to lose the status.
If you had insisted on a declaration of friendship with China, you would get him as Ally, then you wouldn't have warmongering messing up your relation with everybody else, which would likely lead to more alliances and a peaceful match. Even if he declare war on you, that don't affect the relationship, just peace out and ask for his friendship to prevent future conflicts.
Moderator Action: Please help keep the forums family friendly by making your point without swearing.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Last edited by a moderator:
I largely disagree with the OP. I don't think most of these are issues.
On being attacked while Friendly: I feel like this is the developers' attempts to make the AI more opportunistic and more like human players. In Civ V you had a lot of complaints about AI diplomacy where people thought the AI's were being too unpredictable when they were actually being more like human players.
In Civ VI, the game is heavily oriented towards war in the early game. As a result, I tend to attack whoever spawns closest to me, regardless of what civ they are and whether or not I like them. It seems like the AI is doing the same thing.
Also, the developers made it clear that they were trying to simulate different eras, especially emphasizing that Ancient/Classical warfare was a lot more common. I think they did a good job at that. In Civ VI, you do A LOT of early warfare, and get declared on a lot early on. But as you progress through the eras, war becomes less common.
So being declared on while being Friendly in the Ancient/Classical era, is A LOT different than being declared on while being Friendly in the Modern/Atomic era. So I think you are conflating two separate issues.
You also did major warmongering by taking so many Chinese cities. There are actually plenty of ways around warmongering or to keep it under control, so it doesn't look like you really understand the system.
In Civ V, there was also argument over whether civs should get angry at you if you conquer a civ they haven't met yet. However, with the rumor/diplomatic visibility system, it makes more sense that they would hear about that and be displeased, even if you don't know any of those civs. If, for example, we met an alien civilization and we learn that it previously conquered 100 other alien civilizations, none of which we knew, I think that would definitely be a cause for alarm and we would consider them warmongers.
You also point out how England is angry at you for warmongering even though it has denounced China. That is fine and consistent. In a situation with multiple poles, you *don't* want one of your enemies completely defeating and absorbing another. That would be too much of a power gain. So during the Cold War, while the U.S. might want Russia and China to be fighting each other, they *don't* want one to completely win and absorb the other - that would be a major threat.
You seem to reference Civ IV a lot. I liked Civ IV, but it had plenty of issues as well. One annoying thing was how each civ had another civ they hated the most, and if you traded with that one civ, you'd get a diplomatic penalty. But it was hard keeping track of which civ they hated the most at the current moment. And while I liked the attempt at Permanent Alliances, it got messy when diplomatic penalties were applied (since the other AI's might hate your new alliance partner).
I think the current relationship system works just fine. I don't agree with your comments that "it isn't working" or with your need for real-time information and instant gratification. The modifiers simply show a snapshot of what is affecting things but it builds up over time so the Relationship tracks things over time.
Mathematically, it's like the relationship is the integral over time, while the modifiers are the derivative which show the current direction and magnitude of change.
If anything that is more realistic since relationships need to be built up over time, rather than doing a complete 180 because of something that just happened. In Civ VI, I feel like I have to work more towards building a relationship than in Civ V. (Though there aren't as many clear benefits at the moment).
If you look at actual geopolitics (and human relationships), centuries of enmity and conflict aren't so easily overcome.
In your case, this all goes back to your MAJOR warmongering which took place over centuries. That was negatively impacting your relationship over time. Think about the -100 warmonger penalty building up over 100 turns. That is a lot.
You claim that people don't care about what happened centuries or a thousand years ago. I disagree.
The U.S. and Australia still get flak about their warmongering against native tribes and that was centuries ago.
There are some in Mexico who still want the territory that the U.S. took 150 years ago.
The U.K. still gets accused of its imperialistic past which was centuries ago.
Argentina still wants the Falkland Islands from the U.K., even though this issue is centuries old (and it was unclaimed at the time).
Germany and Japan still get reminded of their WW2 warmongering which was 70 years ago.
Israel took (or reclaimed) territory 60-70 years ago. You think the Muslim world is going to let that go any time soon? What is more, a lot of countries who have never had any issue with Israel, nonetheless have denounced Israel because of their economic/diplomatic ties with Muslim countries. Sort of like how Gandhi/India denounced you because they are friends with China and you have Chinese cities.
As a passionate Byzantinist, I still have grudges against Venice and Turkey over the Fourth Crusade (800 years ago) and over Turkish-occupied Anatolia and the takeover of glorious Constantinople (600 years ago).
There are lots of nationalistic irredentist groups who want to reform Greater X, consisting of past territories that the people used to control. This is the perfect example of those who still care about things that happened centuries (or millennia) ago.
In Islam, there is the concept of Dar al-Islam. On the extreme side, some consider any territory that used to be Islamic to fall under this category, including Spain (when it was Al-Andalus 500+ years ago).
On being attacked while Friendly: I feel like this is the developers' attempts to make the AI more opportunistic and more like human players. In Civ V you had a lot of complaints about AI diplomacy where people thought the AI's were being too unpredictable when they were actually being more like human players.
In Civ VI, the game is heavily oriented towards war in the early game. As a result, I tend to attack whoever spawns closest to me, regardless of what civ they are and whether or not I like them. It seems like the AI is doing the same thing.
Also, the developers made it clear that they were trying to simulate different eras, especially emphasizing that Ancient/Classical warfare was a lot more common. I think they did a good job at that. In Civ VI, you do A LOT of early warfare, and get declared on a lot early on. But as you progress through the eras, war becomes less common.
So being declared on while being Friendly in the Ancient/Classical era, is A LOT different than being declared on while being Friendly in the Modern/Atomic era. So I think you are conflating two separate issues.
You also did major warmongering by taking so many Chinese cities. There are actually plenty of ways around warmongering or to keep it under control, so it doesn't look like you really understand the system.
In Civ V, there was also argument over whether civs should get angry at you if you conquer a civ they haven't met yet. However, with the rumor/diplomatic visibility system, it makes more sense that they would hear about that and be displeased, even if you don't know any of those civs. If, for example, we met an alien civilization and we learn that it previously conquered 100 other alien civilizations, none of which we knew, I think that would definitely be a cause for alarm and we would consider them warmongers.
You also point out how England is angry at you for warmongering even though it has denounced China. That is fine and consistent. In a situation with multiple poles, you *don't* want one of your enemies completely defeating and absorbing another. That would be too much of a power gain. So during the Cold War, while the U.S. might want Russia and China to be fighting each other, they *don't* want one to completely win and absorb the other - that would be a major threat.
You seem to reference Civ IV a lot. I liked Civ IV, but it had plenty of issues as well. One annoying thing was how each civ had another civ they hated the most, and if you traded with that one civ, you'd get a diplomatic penalty. But it was hard keeping track of which civ they hated the most at the current moment. And while I liked the attempt at Permanent Alliances, it got messy when diplomatic penalties were applied (since the other AI's might hate your new alliance partner).
I think the current relationship system works just fine. I don't agree with your comments that "it isn't working" or with your need for real-time information and instant gratification. The modifiers simply show a snapshot of what is affecting things but it builds up over time so the Relationship tracks things over time.
Mathematically, it's like the relationship is the integral over time, while the modifiers are the derivative which show the current direction and magnitude of change.
If anything that is more realistic since relationships need to be built up over time, rather than doing a complete 180 because of something that just happened. In Civ VI, I feel like I have to work more towards building a relationship than in Civ V. (Though there aren't as many clear benefits at the moment).
If you look at actual geopolitics (and human relationships), centuries of enmity and conflict aren't so easily overcome.
In your case, this all goes back to your MAJOR warmongering which took place over centuries. That was negatively impacting your relationship over time. Think about the -100 warmonger penalty building up over 100 turns. That is a lot.
You claim that people don't care about what happened centuries or a thousand years ago. I disagree.
The U.S. and Australia still get flak about their warmongering against native tribes and that was centuries ago.
There are some in Mexico who still want the territory that the U.S. took 150 years ago.
The U.K. still gets accused of its imperialistic past which was centuries ago.
Argentina still wants the Falkland Islands from the U.K., even though this issue is centuries old (and it was unclaimed at the time).
Germany and Japan still get reminded of their WW2 warmongering which was 70 years ago.
Israel took (or reclaimed) territory 60-70 years ago. You think the Muslim world is going to let that go any time soon? What is more, a lot of countries who have never had any issue with Israel, nonetheless have denounced Israel because of their economic/diplomatic ties with Muslim countries. Sort of like how Gandhi/India denounced you because they are friends with China and you have Chinese cities.
As a passionate Byzantinist, I still have grudges against Venice and Turkey over the Fourth Crusade (800 years ago) and over Turkish-occupied Anatolia and the takeover of glorious Constantinople (600 years ago).
There are lots of nationalistic irredentist groups who want to reform Greater X, consisting of past territories that the people used to control. This is the perfect example of those who still care about things that happened centuries (or millennia) ago.
In Islam, there is the concept of Dar al-Islam. On the extreme side, some consider any territory that used to be Islamic to fall under this category, including Spain (when it was Al-Andalus 500+ years ago).
Last edited:
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,829
I think there's a distinction between being "friendly" and being "declared friends". If I'm not mistaken, in the case in the video, China is "friendly" but not a declared friend. I don't see a problem with a civ who's friendly declaring war - as Gimper42 says, in fact in Civ5, often a civ who disliked you would play deceptive and show up as friendly shortly before DoW'ing you, which I think is fine. Of course, they should be less likely to do it if you have a good relationship than if they dislike you, but I don't mind the AI being a bit opportunistic also. On the other hand, if you're declared friend with someone, they should only attack (backstab) you in very extreme cases. Civ5 never got that part right, and Civ6 probably hasn't either (although it's hard to say, given that obtaining a DoF with an AI is next to impossible in this game). I liked the part in the Community Patch in Civ5 where you could not bribe a civ to DoW someone they had a DoF with - the same should be the case for joint wars in Civ6.
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
If you have a declaration of friendship they can't declare war on you and you can't declare war on them, the AI can't backstab a declared friend.
There are plenty of cases where geopolitical factors or diplomatic commitments, force two parties into war who are otherwise on friendly terms.
Prior to World War 1, England and Germany were both on extremely friendly terms (reciprocated both ways). Yet they ended up at war.
World War 2 was a little more complicated. England disliked Germany, but I've read that Germany was not that interested in fighting with England since they were of Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) stock. So maybe you could characterize it as Germany being friendly towards England, and England being unfriendly/denouncing back. But that still didn't prevent them from warring (though technically, England declared war on Germany).
In Civ V, you could bribe AI's to war with each other while keeping your hands clean. It was fun, but very exploitable. In Beyond Earth and Civ VI, if you want someone to war, you have to be a participant in the war as well, which is a bit more balanced.
Though they can still get paranoid about troop movements. I have had cases where Friends and Allies will ask me if I am planning to sneak attack them because I am moving my troops (to attack someone else). I'm like "I'm not even *allowed* to declare war on you, so why are you asking?"
Though in truth, there was one case where the moment my Friendship with an AI ended, he immediately declared war on me. I imagine human players do the same from time to time.
At the risk of getting too far off OP's original topic, I'd like to add some context to explain why this is a rather inaccurate appraisal of the relationship between the British Empire (what you're really referring to I assume when you say "England") and Germany.
The Westphalian system of states and diplomatic relationships was specifically established (among other reasons) to create a divided but (relatively) peaceful Central Europe, i.e. Germany, with even the nascent nation-states of the 17th century realizing that a united German people would pose a formidable and possibly existential threat to their existence. Through a complicated series of event, a unified Germany become a reality, of course.
Germany's foreign policy under Wilhelm was very aggressive. I think most people who know a bit about World War I are familiar with the naval arms between Germany and the British Empire prior to the war's start. This should not be overlooked: a considerable expansion of Germany's naval forces was a direct challenge to the "traditional" British command of the seas, and was seen as such by the British. The British Empire and Germany also very nearly came to war during the Moroccan Crisis.
The British Empire's foreign policy up to and including World War I was highly opportunistic and shrewd. It sided with weaker powers against stronger powers in order to preserve some sense of the inter-state balance that the Westphalian system sought to maintain. This partly explains why it honored a nearly 100 year old treaty to protect Belgium when it was invaded by Germany in 1914.
As for Hitler and World War II, it is true that he professed admiration for the British Empire, and there is some historical debate as to how much he would have preferred not to go to war with it (the actual realities of such desires being another debate). This points to another topic: that there has of course been considerable interaction between the two nation's cultures over the past couple centuries in particular, and there was of course blood relations between their respective imperial families. But that should not confuse an outside observer into thinking that the STATE relationship (which I think is what we are really discussing when comparing real world diplomacy with that of Civ diplomacy) between the British and German Empires could be characterized as "friendly" prior to the starts of both World Wars, and most certainly not "extremely friendly."
I admit that was an oversimplification and I personally prefer medieval history over 20th century history, so I will acknowledge your superior expertise in the area.
Nonetheless, the Civilization games are also a simplification. There is always talk about the distinction between the civilization versus the leader. For example, the agenda system is tailored to the specific personality of that leader, so essentially it is that LEADER who likes/hates you, rather than the state relationship of the civilization.
Ha ha. The discussion of a naval arms race reminds me of the Diplomacy board game, and whether Germany should bother building fleets and whether an England/Germany alliance is sustainable. (Generally England focuses on fleets, Germany focuses on armies, but it also means that England can stab Germany much better than Germany can stab England).
And as for calling it "England," that's what Civ VI calls it.
Also, "state relationships" can be tricky when it comes to elected institutions, since things can change after just one election. Although autocrats/monarchs/dictators can be mercurial, they can endure for decades instead of the higher turnover rate you see in elections. It does seem like Europe's parliamentary system tends to be a bit better since you have more career government bureaucrats who can maintain a state relationship regardless of the ruling political party. In the U.S., there are a lot more political appointments, so you can more easily do a complete 180 after an election. But the point is just because the political elite says or thinks something, doesn't necessarily mean that the nation or the people agree with it. And when it comes to Westphalian politicking, that is definitely something that the political elite cared more about than the average citizen.
In any case, my underlying point is that it can make sense for two parties, who are friendly with each other, to end up opposed in a conflict because of other considerations. So I don't mind "friendly" AI's declaring war on you, as long as they have a decent reason/logic behind it.
Nonetheless, the Civilization games are also a simplification. There is always talk about the distinction between the civilization versus the leader. For example, the agenda system is tailored to the specific personality of that leader, so essentially it is that LEADER who likes/hates you, rather than the state relationship of the civilization.
Ha ha. The discussion of a naval arms race reminds me of the Diplomacy board game, and whether Germany should bother building fleets and whether an England/Germany alliance is sustainable. (Generally England focuses on fleets, Germany focuses on armies, but it also means that England can stab Germany much better than Germany can stab England).
And as for calling it "England," that's what Civ VI calls it.
Also, "state relationships" can be tricky when it comes to elected institutions, since things can change after just one election. Although autocrats/monarchs/dictators can be mercurial, they can endure for decades instead of the higher turnover rate you see in elections. It does seem like Europe's parliamentary system tends to be a bit better since you have more career government bureaucrats who can maintain a state relationship regardless of the ruling political party. In the U.S., there are a lot more political appointments, so you can more easily do a complete 180 after an election. But the point is just because the political elite says or thinks something, doesn't necessarily mean that the nation or the people agree with it. And when it comes to Westphalian politicking, that is definitely something that the political elite cared more about than the average citizen.
In any case, my underlying point is that it can make sense for two parties, who are friendly with each other, to end up opposed in a conflict because of other considerations. So I don't mind "friendly" AI's declaring war on you, as long as they have a decent reason/logic behind it.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Much of this isn't an issue with 'diplomacy' so much as other AI elements. Regarding the early declarations of war, including those out of character for leaders like Roosevelt, it seems leader personalities simply aren't well-defined even in terms of their constant agendas.
Diplomacy as such barely exists in Civ VI, very disappointingly - AIs are coded to denounce to prevent the player from denouncing back, but no interaction is really possible with civs that denounce you and agreements like joint wars and open borders are disallowed. No one even seems to care particularly if you're hostile to/at war with their friends as they did in Civ V (and to a reduced extent - only really caring if you'd been at war with them - in earlier Civ games), or favour you if you attack their enemies.
All that really influences relations is whether you meet an arbitrary agenda; much of the time when you don't that's largely outside your control and the rest it's not worth going out of your way to appease them (e.g. building up a larger army than a player is ever going to need because civs dislike you for being 'weak' - as they nearly always will as the AI will have more units than the player).
Also, everyone will end up hating you even without warmonger penalties - I was back on Civ VI today, and declared no wars (though I was on the receiving end of many, even there I was restrained and took only two Ottoman cities I wanted. The Spanish repeatedly declare war, launch ineffective attacks on Damascus, then give me money to agree to peace). The cassus belli system as it applies to AIs is pointless - you get 'Formal Wars' or 'Surprise Wars' and that's basically it.
Diplomacy as such barely exists in Civ VI, very disappointingly - AIs are coded to denounce to prevent the player from denouncing back, but no interaction is really possible with civs that denounce you and agreements like joint wars and open borders are disallowed. No one even seems to care particularly if you're hostile to/at war with their friends as they did in Civ V (and to a reduced extent - only really caring if you'd been at war with them - in earlier Civ games), or favour you if you attack their enemies.
All that really influences relations is whether you meet an arbitrary agenda; much of the time when you don't that's largely outside your control and the rest it's not worth going out of your way to appease them (e.g. building up a larger army than a player is ever going to need because civs dislike you for being 'weak' - as they nearly always will as the AI will have more units than the player).
Also, everyone will end up hating you even without warmonger penalties - I was back on Civ VI today, and declared no wars (though I was on the receiving end of many, even there I was restrained and took only two Ottoman cities I wanted. The Spanish repeatedly declare war, launch ineffective attacks on Damascus, then give me money to agree to peace). The cassus belli system as it applies to AIs is pointless - you get 'Formal Wars' or 'Surprise Wars' and that's basically it.
I don't get why people keep thinking Roosevelt is peaceful (like Gandhi).
Yes, the implementation of the Big Stick agenda means he doesn't want outside civs (like Europe) meddling in his own continent/sphere of influence (Latin/South America), but that doesn't preclude him from declaring his own wars within that continent/sphere of influence.
It's been a while since I took APUSH, but if I recall correctly, the Big Stick policy actually did involve the use of military power. And the Roosevelt Corollary (which was added to the Monroe Doctrine) did result in U.S. intervention within the Western hemisphere.
He acted in the Dominican Republic in 1904. And fomented a revolution in Columbia, which resulted in the formation of Panama, in order to secure the Panama Canal.
Civ V had major diplomacy issues (though I still loved the game).
One major problem was denouncement chains.
In the early game, AI's would become friends with each other and several cliques of friends would develop. In fact, you could actually get the majority of the world in a big friendship pact.
The problem is that at some point, someone would do something bad and one of the friends would denounce that AI. That counts as a backstab and everyone would get a "you denounced a friend" malus, which might cause them to denounce/backstab that AI. So it would be a big domino chain where everyone starts out as friends, and then everyone denounces each other, for denouncing someone else.
A lot of agendas are bad and there's not much you can do about it.
Some agendas are actually interesting. Catherine's Black Queen is a good example. So is Tomyris' Backstab Averse, Mvemba's Enthusiastic Disciple, and Gorgo's With Your Shield or On It. Same with the generic Environmentalist agenda. In those cases, you can actually make some tweaks to your gameplay in order to satisfy the agenda.
The more problematic agendas are those that punish you for doing well, or punish you for doing poorly. In those cases, there is not much you can do about it and they feel like arbitrary penalties.
You mean Arabian cities? The Ottomans aren't currently in Civ VI. (Unless it's one of the base game scenarios that I haven't bothered with).
Acken
Deity
Is there anything good about the current state of civ6 diplomacy ?
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
The Roosevelt issue is simply based on his in-game agenda - that it doesn't prompt him to behave any differently from any other civ.
It did, but they were issues in execution. The basic system was leagues ahead of anything in any other Civ game - genuine multipartite relationships and alliances that extended to more than favourable trade terms and joint wars. Even the simple fact that leaders cared about others' opinions of you - beyond just whether you'd gone to war with their allies as in Civ IV and earlier iterations - was a major advance, the denunciation system just wasn't the best way to approach it for the reason you mention.
Bizarrely denunciation - despite having no purpose other than to influence other civs' relations with you in Civ V, something it doesn't do in Civ VI, and being a widely-highlighted problem in its Civ V form - outlasted the multipartite diplomacy system itself. Now it does nothing except reduce the modifier for going to war, and AIs are programmed to exploit that by making sure they're permanently denouncing you so that you can't get that bonus
In my experience this mostly happened in games with Gandhi, who was both happy to befriend everyone and denouncement-happy himself. In most games two or three discrete cliques tended to emerge; if one did denounce another member of the player's group other than the player, your best option was to immediately denounce either the denouncer or the denouncee to retain good relations with the other(s) (which is exactly what the AI civs did themselves - some of their relationships would last game-long, as would many of mine).
Again bizarrely these include some of the very modifiers that were removed or reduced in Civ V for being uninteractive and problematic - such as civs disliking you for having more Wonders or for befriending city states (and Civ V's city-state system was more dynamic to allow you to play around that one, and AIs would only complain if you competed for specific ones. Bismarck dislikes anyone courting any city-state).
Oops, you're right - that's what playing Civ IV and Civ V back-to-back will do... Damascus actually works for both of course (though the fact that my other captured city is Medina is more telling).
Well, it's just that he likes you more if you don't mess with anyone on his continent. And he dislikes you if you war with people on his continent.
Gandhi's agenda specifically mentions that he won't declare wars that would make him a warmonger. Roosevelt's agenda does not specifically mention anything like that.
I think Civ V was light years better than Civ IV (which I also liked).
However, things I liked about Civ IV which were better:
1. Option for a permanent alliance
2. Better war coordination with allies during a war. In Civ IV, you could diplomatically suggest to the AI to attack a particular city, which it would generally do. In Civ V and Civ VI, "allies" have a habit of getting in the way and aren't that helpful.
3. City view screen where you could see all of your buildings and wonders. On Civ V, you could see most of them on the map but there was a limit so you couldn't see everything. In Civ VI, you have the district system but I feel the buildings sort of lose their character. The wonders look cool though.
From even older civs, I miss the palace feature where if you do well you get to add sections to your palace.
I didn't play the early days of Civ V, when there were Pacts of Secrecy where you tried to undermine a third party.
With the AI's, you had two relevant factors. One was Willingness to Befriend and the other was Backstab Willingness. If those were both high, you would be more likely to see that happen. For example, one of my favorite AI's was Theodora, but she had high values for both. Others, like Genghis Khan, were actually pretty loyal.
Uh, I usually just remained friends with everyone in Civ V. It was pretty easy.
It's not that bad in Civ VI either. You just need a little military to back it up....
I like levels of diplomatic visibility.
Spying isn't perfect, but it's better than the systems from Beyond Earth, Civ V, and Civ IV.
I like how you have to work to build up a relationship with the AI's.
It is interesting how you try to figure out the AI's agendas. I think the agenda concept is good, but the execution is flawed.
I like being able to trade Great Works (wasn't possible in Civ V).
Similar threads
