Everything that doesn't work with diplomacy right now

[bladex]

diplomacy is a complete waste of time right now no maytter what you do the ai will backstab you later on so better to just bully the Ai into giving you what you want and if they won't give it than TAKE IT

 

[ZeOldOne]

diplomacy is a complete waste of time right now no maytter what you do the ai will backstab you later on so better to just bully the Ai into giving you what you want and if they won't give it than TAKE IT

In a nutshell that's basically the state of diplo in this game imo.
I can hear Halcyan2's counter-arguments too, that grudges can actually last ages, but not to the point it utterly destroyes your relationship forever. First coz it's not the way it works irl (only fools still hate present-day Germany for WW1&2 and it was only 1 century ago at most) and second coz even though you can allways find counter exemples so what ? what's the solution then if it's not reasonable peace and new hope ? We once were ennemies so let's hate each other until death do us part ? That's not what I want to see in this world nor in this game.
I'm ok with the idea of some kind of long term penalty since there will allways be people within any civ who can't/won't forgive but not to the point a whole civ hates an entire other civ for something they did millenniums ago.

Whatever, I could live with the current diplo/warmongering penalty system if there was not this one thing that really drives me mad :

I get massive warmonger penalty even when another civ declares war ON ME !! I can make do with anything else but being diplomatically punished for eons because I am winning a war I did not initiate (or forced by abusing AI susceptibility) is just too much for me^^
If I could ask only one tweak to the warmonger penalty system it would be to not get warmonger penalty when you are in a war you did not initiate. Or very low and fast depleting.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts in these great forums ang GG to you all !

 

[bladex]

you can actually tweak the wm penalties yourself. I posted a tutorial in the modding section a while ago.

 

[ZeOldOne]

you can actually tweak the wm penalties yourself. I posted a tutorial in the modding section a while ago.

oh great gonna check this out tyvm !

 

[bladex]

odd i can't seem to find it did they delete it? here it is again

edit eras.xml

where it says WarmongerPoints="ENTER YOUR VALUE HERE. set it to 0 to turn it off completely.

 

[MrRadar]

I get massive warmonger penalty even when another civ declares war ON ME !! I can make do with anything else but being diplomatically punished for eons because I am winning a war I did not initiate (or forced by abusing AI susceptibility) is just too much for me^^

Yes, this is painful. On top of that, I saw situations when, let's say, Civ A dowed me, I was winning and then getting denounced by Civ B, but then I read in the dispatches that this Civ B also denounced Civ A's evil deeds on the same turn. Who this Civ B thinks it is - our Mom? Like "Enough, I don't care who started, you're both grounded!"

Another quirk: last game I attacked Germany (just for GOTM VC, nothing personal) and liberated a city state from them. I got the +5 relation bonus for "We liberated a city" with all AIs, including Germany. "Oh, you liberate people that we were so evil to annex, ur such a good boy! "

In Civ 4 there is an AI stance "Refuses to talk!", indicating that AI won't even listen to you. With the present state of diplomacy in Civ 6 I wish there was such a button for ME to to use and show the AIs that I'm in no mood for listening to their ravings about the size of my fleet, income, culture or whatever every other turn.

Apart from everything else, I think that the agendas probably should also kick in gradually: their relevance should be non existent or very basic in the ancient era and get developed more an more in later eras.

 

[ZeOldOne]

odd i can't seem to find it did they delete it? here it is again

edit eras.xml

where it says WarmongerPoints="ENTER YOUR VALUE HERE. set it to 0 to turn it off completely.

I couldn't find it either, was about to ask you, tyvm

 

[ZeOldOne]

Yes, this is painful. On top of that, I saw situations when, let's say, Civ A dowed me, I was winning and then getting denounced by Civ B, but then I read in the dispatches that this Civ B also denounced Civ A's evil deeds on the same turn. Who this Civ B thinks it is - our Mom? Like "Enough, I don't care who started, you're both grounded!"

Another quirk: last game I attacked Germany (just for GOTM VC, nothing personal) and liberated a city state from them. I got the +5 relation bonus for "We liberated a city" with all AIs, including Germany. "Oh, you liberate people that we were so evil to annex, ur such a good boy! "

In Civ 4 there is an AI stance "Refuses to talk!", indicating that AI won't even listen to you. With the present state of diplomacy in Civ 6 I wish there was such a button for ME to to use and show the AIs that I'm in no mood for listening to their ravings about the size of my fleet, income, culture or whatever every other turn.

Apart from everything else, I think that the agendas probably should also kick in gradually: their relevance should be non existent or very basic in the ancient era and get developed more an more in later eras.

yes it definitly needs some work.... like civs coming to hate each other for a long time coz different governments ? seriously ? those are nonsens to me... you can find some mods here to temper this down like this one from ISAU, I've not tried them yet but I will in my future playthrough and hopefully they will patch all this crap soon enough (the way you put it sounds smart to me).

 

[algonacy]

I get massive warmonger penalty even when another civ declares war ON ME !! I can make do with anything else but being diplomatically punished for eons because I am winning a war I did not initiate (or forced by abusing AI susceptibility) is just too much for me^^
If I could ask only one tweak to the warmonger penalty system it would be to not get warmonger penalty when you are in a war you did not initiate. Or very low and fast depleting.

I agree with this mostly. I wish there was a way for the system to differentiate WM penalty between the aggressor and the defender. Even if the defender pushes back and takes some land from the aggressor, that WM penalty should be small. I like to believe that the human players would likely find a way to exploit that option, but I still feel for those of us that want to play semi-realistically it would be a superior option.

My second diplomacy request is that during the between-turns time, when the other civs pop up and offer you any kind of deal or trade, I wish it was possible to go out and review your diplomatic screen with that same person prior to accepting or rejecting the offer. That seems to be more "realistic" and shouldn't be hard to code in I would think.

 

[bladex]

I wish there was such a button for ME to to use and show the AIs that I'm in no mood for listening to their ravings about the size of my fleet, income, culture or whatever every other turn.

+100

 

[ZeOldOne]

I've dug a bit in the forums and found out (as you Algonacy suggest it) that apparently the warmonger penalty you get in wars you're not responsible for comes mainly from the city you take from your aggressor. And a good way to avoid that is not to attack cities but instead focus your wrath on your aggressor's army to a point he will agree to give you 1 or more cities during the peace treaty (source: Mogloth, here). Not ideal though since he might not want to cede the very city(ies) you want...
I still think you should get close to no WP for a war you didn't initiate but the above way around is good to know nontheless.

 

[Calyxx]

I think one thing that would vastly help that nobody has mentioned yet is this:

When two civs are at war, AI civs should evaluate events that occur during the war relative to their opinion of both participants. For example, if I declare war on Greece, Japan - who is friendly with Greece - should hate me, giving me a huge warmonger penalty. However, Russia - who is friendly with me but not Greece - shouldn't care very much, resulting in only a small penalty. Germany, who hates Greece and has denounced them but is neutral or friendly with me, would actually applaud this action, resulting in a bonus. America, who is neutral with both of us, would give me a moderate warmongering penalty, as would China who doesn't like either of us much, and France who is friendly with both of us.

I think this would model things more accurately - instead of all AI players simply holding the opinion 'all war is bad', they would evaluate war on the basis of whether they agree with it or not. This would avoid many situations where warmonger penalties don't feel right. For example, China declared war on a city state that I was Suzerain of (which apparently they can do without also declaring war on me). They captured the city state, and another one, and were universally reviled. I was irritated about losing my city state, so I declared war on them - I took one Chinese city, which was blocking the two city states, and then liberated both city states. The result of this altruistic action - which occurred in the Renaissance era, in which I beat up a bully everyone hates, taking a single city and liberating two defenseless city states - was the entire world denouncing me as a warmonger, despite never having engaged in war prior to this. Even Tomyris, who declared a joint war against China with me, denounced me as a warmonger.

Surely the AI can act more rationally.

 

[ZeOldOne]

I think one thing that would vastly help that nobody has mentioned yet is this:

When two civs are at war, AI civs should evaluate events that occur during the war relative to their opinion of both participants. For example, if I declare war on Greece, Japan - who is friendly with Greece - should hate me, giving me a huge warmonger penalty. However, Russia - who is friendly with me but not Greece - shouldn't care very much, resulting in only a small penalty. Germany, who hates Greece and has denounced them but is neutral or friendly with me, would actually applaud this action, resulting in a bonus. America, who is neutral with both of us, would give me a moderate warmongering penalty, as would China who doesn't like either of us much, and France who is friendly with both of us.

I think this would model things more accurately - instead of all AI players simply holding the opinion 'all war is bad', they would evaluate war on the basis of whether they agree with it or not. This would avoid many situations where warmonger penalties don't feel right. For example, China declared war on a city state that I was Suzerain of (which apparently they can do without also declaring war on me). They captured the city state, and another one, and were universally reviled. I was irritated about losing my city state, so I declared war on them - I took one Chinese city, which was blocking the two city states, and then liberated both city states. The result of this altruistic action - which occurred in the Renaissance era, in which I beat up a bully everyone hates, taking a single city and liberating two defenseless city states - was the entire world denouncing me as a warmonger, despite never having engaged in war prior to this. Even Tomyris, who declared a joint war against China with me, denounced me as a warmonger.

Surely the AI can act more rationally.

This precisely. Here is a perfect exemple of what is amiss imho with the current system, and a realistic and smart way to adress part of it. Thanks for sharing !

 

[View619]

I think one thing that would vastly help that nobody has mentioned yet is this:

When two civs are at war, AI civs should evaluate events that occur during the war relative to their opinion of both participants. For example, if I declare war on Greece, Japan - who is friendly with Greece - should hate me, giving me a huge warmonger penalty. However, Russia - who is friendly with me but not Greece - shouldn't care very much, resulting in only a small penalty. Germany, who hates Greece and has denounced them but is neutral or friendly with me, would actually applaud this action, resulting in a bonus. America, who is neutral with both of us, would give me a moderate warmongering penalty, as would China who doesn't like either of us much, and France who is friendly with both of us.

I think this would model things more accurately - instead of all AI players simply holding the opinion 'all war is bad', they would evaluate war on the basis of whether they agree with it or not. This would avoid many situations where warmonger penalties don't feel right. For example, China declared war on a city state that I was Suzerain of (which apparently they can do without also declaring war on me). They captured the city state, and another one, and were universally reviled. I was irritated about losing my city state, so I declared war on them - I took one Chinese city, which was blocking the two city states, and then liberated both city states. The result of this altruistic action - which occurred in the Renaissance era, in which I beat up a bully everyone hates, taking a single city and liberating two defenseless city states - was the entire world denouncing me as a warmonger, despite never having engaged in war prior to this. Even Tomyris, who declared a joint war against China with me, denounced me as a warmonger.

Surely the AI can act more rationally.

And you used the Casus Beli for liberation? Also, you realize that taking cities imparts a separate penalty? And that penalties for taking a city are removed if you return that city in a peace deal? So, you could have done that same scenario and came out with a bonus to diplomatic relations for most civs.

I honestly believe that a lot of complaints regarding diplomacy are from players who don't understand how it works. Those saying it's irrelevant because they take what they want should be ignored, but I wonder if it's just another transparency issue for players who want to interact with it.

Probably the greatest mistake made with regards to positive diplomatic relations is that players make minimal effort to actually improve relationships with other civilizations then wonder why they are "randomly" denounced.

 

[Calyxx]

And you used the Casus Beli for liberation? Also, you realize that taking cities imparts a separate penalty? And that penalties for taking a city are removed if you return that city in a peace deal? So, you could have done that same scenario and came out with a bonus to diplomatic relations for most civs.

I honestly believe that a lot of complaints regarding diplomacy are from players who don't understand how it works. Those saying it's irrelevant because they take what they want should be ignored, but I wonder if it's just another transparency issue for players who want to interact with it.

Probably the greatest mistake made with regards to positive diplomatic relations is that players make minimal effort to actually improve relationships with other civilizations then wonder why they are "randomly" denounced.

I understand how the diplomatic interactions work - it is merely my argument that they should work better. Why would taking a single city from an enemy really bother most other Civs? This is something that is done in the world even now (ie. Crimea) with almost no effect - nations denouncing Russian behavior over Ukraine are the ones already generally opposed to Russia, and even then... nobody is actually doing anything about it.

So I would agree with you that the diplomatic system in Civ VI 'works' - I simply argue that it works poorly, and could be greatly improved.

 

[Halcyan2]

I agree with this mostly. I wish there was a way for the system to differentiate WM penalty between the aggressor and the defender. Even if the defender pushes back and takes some land from the aggressor, that WM penalty should be small. I like to believe that the human players would likely find a way to exploit that option, but I still feel for those of us that want to play semi-realistically it would be a superior option.

Uh, yeah cause this worked for Israel, right?

Israel was the defender in several wars. It pushed back, won, and took a bunch of land from the aggressors, arguably to ensure that it wasn't attacked again.

Yet the international community continually denounces Israel, demanding that it return all of those lands that it took.

Sounds like Israel got some massive warmonger penalties in their defensive war for taking some land. And that is in the real world....

 

[Halcyan2]

And you used the Casus Beli for liberation? Also, you realize that taking cities imparts a separate penalty? And that penalties for taking a city are removed if you return that city in a peace deal? So, you could have done that same scenario and came out with a bonus to diplomatic relations for most civs.

I honestly believe that a lot of complaints regarding diplomacy are from players who don't understand how it works. Those saying it's irrelevant because they take what they want should be ignored, but I wonder if it's just another transparency issue for players who want to interact with it.

Probably the greatest mistake made with regards to positive diplomatic relations is that players make minimal effort to actually improve relationships with other civilizations then wonder why they are "randomly" denounced.

I agree with you. In fact, the arguments in this threat motivated me enough to type up a quick and dirty Guide to Warmongering:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/warmongering-guide.608752/

I suggest people take a look at it and try some of the techniques I describe, and see if that gives them a better handle of how to handle warmongering.

 

[whyidie]

I honestly believe that a lot of complaints regarding diplomacy are from players who don't understand how it works. Those saying it's irrelevant because they take what they want should be ignored, but I wonder if it's just another transparency issue for players who want to interact with it.

Don't understand how it works or want it to work they way they believe the world works. For the former there is still a possibility of enjoyment, for the latter they should look to mods.

Part of the fun in each iteration is figuring out diplomacy. Civ5 got so much abuse (including from me early on) yet once I figured out how it worked it was pretty enjoyable.

Probably the greatest mistake made with regards to positive diplomatic relations is that players make minimal effort to actually improve relationships with other civilizations then wonder why they are "randomly" denounced.

Post winter patch I can reliably have one alliance/friend per game if I want it. Average comes out to about two per game. Most I've ever had at the same time is three of 8. With only 200hrs under my belt its probably still too early, but I'm finding the AI a bit more dynamic in terms of how the friendships work out. Are you seeing similar results or is it as predictable as 5 was for you ?

I understand how the diplomatic interactions work - it is merely my argument that they should work better. Why would taking a single city from an enemy really bother most other Civs? This is something that is done in the world even now (ie. Crimea) with almost no effect - nations denouncing Russian behavior over Ukraine are the ones already generally opposed to Russia, and even then... nobody is actually doing anything about it.

So I would agree with you that the diplomatic system in Civ VI 'works' - I simply argue that it works poorly, and could be greatly improved.

I have taken cities and maintained alliances/friendships. Ghandi will denounce me the minute I declare war regardless of status. Roosevelt too if its on continent. Others are more forgiving.

I agree with you. In fact, the arguments in this threat motivated me enough to type up a quick and dirty Guide to Warmongering:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/warmongering-guide.608752/

I suggest people take a look at it and try some of the techniques I describe, and see if that gives them a better handle of how to handle warmongering.

Was wondering when you'd get around to it Learned quite a bit from you in regards to Civ5 diplomacy.

 

[View619]

Post winter patch I can reliably have one alliance/friend per game if I want it. Average comes out to about two per game. Most I've ever had at the same time is three of 8. With only 200hrs under my belt its probably still too early, but I'm finding the AI a bit more dynamic in terms of how the friendships work out. Are you seeing similar results or is it as predictable as 5 was for you ?

Yes, I've been able to obtain at least one ally regardless of my chosen victory condition once I figured out how diplomacy modifiers work. I think early exploration to find different civilizations and at least one or two potential friends is important, since it's unlikely you'll have access to every type of resource and trading/gifting copies is a good idea that pays off in the long run. The trade deals with allies are much better as well, I've been in situations where my chosen victory condition was tourism and allies who weren't going for the same victory would trade great works and relics for luxuries and some gold. And there are some strong late game policies that can super charge your cities when you create trade routes among allied civilizations.

The most alliances that I've had in a game is 5/8 as Germany, with the possibility for 6 if I actually cared about allying with Poland as well. This was a religious victory, where alliances were formed to ensure that civilizations wouldn't have an issue with my actions to spread religion and wipe out their own. Also, it helped during war-time when I would declare vs Scythia (constant enemy) and take a negligible hit to diplomatic relations. I even ignored America's second agenda (Environmentalist) completely and we were friends until the game ended.

I think the addition of random, hidden agenda does a lot to keep the relationships with different leaders interesting. Civ V leaders are pretty static; no matter what civilization you play as, the relationships among opposing civilizations doesn't seem to vary from game to game. Also, the second agenda provides a lot of opportunities to form friendships, or at least neutral relations, with civilizations whose primary agenda may not mesh with your own plans.

 

[Halcyan2]

I think the addition of random, hidden agenda does a lot to keep the relationships with different leaders interesting. Civ V leaders are pretty static; no matter what civilization you play as, the relationships among opposing civilizations doesn't seem to vary from game to game. Also, the second agenda provides a lot of opportunities to form friendships, or at least neutral relations, with civilizations whose primary agenda may not mesh with your own plans.

Yes, that dynamism is an improvement over Civ V, which was in turn an improvement over Civ IV.

If you recall, in Civ IV, every civilization had a value on the warmonger scale. AI's liked those with similar values and hated those with opposite values, so you'd end up with natural clusters anyway but it would always be the same civilizations.