Firaxis, How About the Next Update is About Fixing Alliances?

[steveg700]

If a player asks the AI to please stop doing something, as far as I can tell, the request actually does nothing to alter the offending behavior, regardless of whether the promise is made or not. Anyone who has access to the code, correct me if I'm wrong, but it certainly seems to be the case with most if not all promises.

Ask the AI not to convert your cities, and it will continue to--in a very automatic and rote fashion--send a religious unit over to flip any city settled if you don't get there first. The AI does not care about its promise. The Ai does not care about racking up a grievance. Effecting a behavioral change does not seem to be the design intent. What the design actually does is provide a means for the players to rack enough grievances to then go to war without a warmonger penalty. Love it leave it, this seems to be how Civ VI rolls.

The real problem comes with alliances. Once you have an alliance, no grievances are accrued. There's still an option to Ask for a Promise, but the consequence of breaking the promise is gone. My pal Elllie here is still running around poaching my new cities, but she's grievance-free.

Joke's on her. I will eventually holding my faith in reserve and when I do I will not poach her baby cities. I will just go in and just wipe her religion out wholesale (something the AI never seems to do, even when overtly hostile). And nobody will bat en eyelash, because we're allies. She might ask me to stop, but there's no consequence if I don't. When the alliance expires, there's no devil to pay. Eleanor's chances of religious victory are gone, but as far as she's concerned she's happy to renew the alliance.

Same goes for attacking each others' suzerained city-states or forward-settling or spying on each other. An alliance is not based on mutual trust and good-faith. Rather, an alliance nullifies the need to act in good faith. It's a license to abuse. Seems kinda, like, not the way they should work.

 

[monikernemo]

Once you have an alliance, no grievances are accrued.

That's not true. I remember instances where my cities were converted despite asking the AI not to do it, and the AI has some grievances.

Same goes for attacking each others' suzerained city-states or forward-settling or spying on each other. An alliance is not based on mutual trust and good-faith. Rather, an alliance nullifies the need to act in good faith. It's a license to abuse. Seems kinda, like, not the way they should work.

Which is why alliances are somewhat balanced, so you don't get away scot free. And now that you cannot declare war on them you need to think of other preventive measures to stop them from converting you, or protecting your CS or stop them from forward settling. And I am pretty sure that in the real world, alliances are not as rosy as you would imagine. Nations often frown upon certain acts their allies do all the time.

 

[enKage]

The real problem of alliances is that you can ally all civs on small map, guaranteeing neverending safety. The same nearly applies to standard sized maps.
The next problem with alliances is that there is no differnce between alliance and friendship, except little diplofavor and slight increase for trade routes. If your friend attacks your ally, you are not called in, you are not egilile for interventions and so on.

The whole system needs urgent rework for ages, including:
a) number of possible alliances should be tied to number of civs in game
b) friendships should be just a declaration for better trade deals, improving relations with friends of friends and decreasing with enemies and not guarantee neverending peace, especially with your ally attacked by them

 

[Corgiwealth]

I fear alliances are hamstrung by the lack of a defined ideology system, alliances would normally be between civilisations of similar ideology and world view against civilisations of differing ideology and world view, as Civ VI lacks the ability to define an ideology, alliances as enKage says feel too similar to declarations of friendship. Other things I personally don't like are the limitations of alliances, I would prefer the ability to be able to sign different types of "alliances" with the same civilisation. I would also remove Alliances as a relationship level and treat it as a different layer, essentially allowing civilisations to continue to denounce and conduct diplomacy with their allies the same way they'd conduct diplomacy with any other civilisation, just the alliance makes them more favourable and biased towards your actions. Conducting poor diplomacy with an allied civilisation will cause a decay in the standard relationship with that civilisation, if they become unfriendly towards you they would be unlikely to renew the alliance.

Alliances just ultimately feel a little unfinished... I can go for long portions of a game without being prompted for one reason or another to ally with a civilisation, and I do feel it is mostly because there is no "differing of world views", thus the ultimate reason to ally with a civilisation don't exist, and it just feels too much like a "click for bonuses" game mechanic.

 

[steveg700]

That's not true. I remember instances where my cities were converted despite asking the AI not to do it, and the AI has some grievances.

It is true. The screenshot demonstrates that Eleanor is not accruing grievances, and later I was indeed able to utterly wipe out her religion, no harm no foul. Even after the alliance expired, there were no "queued" grievances. She didn't mind at all.

I seem to recall experiencing a period where grievances were accrued, but that may not be in the build anymore.

Which is why alliances are somewhat balanced, so you don't get away scot free. And now that you cannot declare war on them you need to think of other preventive measures to stop them from converting you, or protecting your CS or stop them from forward settling. And I am pretty sure that in the real world, alliances are not as rosy as you would imagine. Nations often frown upon certain acts their allies do all the time.

Seems like a fairly argumentative stance.

Relationships in the real world break down when participants act in bad faith. A nation might ultimately decide not to impose heavy consequences on another nation for spying on them or attacking their weaker allies, but it's not as if it just goes unnoticed. It's a bump in the road at the very least. They decline not to impose sanctions because hey value the trade agreement or whatever, not because the trade agreement grants carte blanche.

As to notions of balance, every time this issue is discussed, someone tries to propose that being able to get away with murder is a balancing factor. It's a pretty bizarrely-constructed argument. This *is* getting away scot free. The price of an alliance should not be that a civ then becomes fair game for hostile actions. The price of an alliance should be deference from those actions. Common sense over pretzel logic, please.

The real problem of alliances is that you can ally all civs on small map, guaranteeing neverending safety.

This is true given how alliances work. Again, scot free, because you can now violate it in every passive-aggressive way imaginable without consequence.

 

[nzcamel]

If a player asks the AI to please stop doing something, as far as I can tell, the request actually does nothing to alter the offending behavior, regardless of whether the promise is made or not. Anyone who has access to the code, correct me if I'm wrong, but it certainly seems to be the case with most if not all promises.

Ask the AI not to convert your cities, and it will continue to--in a very automatic and rote fashion--send a religious unit over to flip any city settled if you don't get there first. The AI does not care about its promise. The Ai does not care about racking up a grievance. Effecting a behavioral change does not seem to be the design intent. What the design actually does is provide a means for the players to rack enough grievances to then go to war without a warmonger penalty. Love it leave it, this seems to be how Civ VI rolls.

I would hope if that particular Civ AI is going for a religious victory that they would give you the bird, and carry on their merry way

 

[steveg700]

I would hope if that particular Civ AI is going for a religious victory that they would give you the bird, and carry on their merry way

Sure, but giving the bird is a hostile behavior. They're not acting as an ally. They're acting as an enemy, and that's the narrative that should play out from there. I might let i pass--maybe I want a good relationship enough to let them convert cities, or I'll just fight fire with fire. But an alliance shouldn't be two civ's flipping each other off and sticking their tongues out becuse they have some legal loophole they can exploit.

If anything, the grievances amassed for ignoring or breaking a promise should be intensified, not lessened.

 

[Haig]

idea for an Ideology Game Mode:

For every era, the diplomatic penalties from having different government would grow, culminating with blocs of Democracy vs Fascism vs Communism.

So it would be very hard to get friendship with a totally different empires.

Maybe even a new Emergency called 'World war' where different ideologies go to war together.

 

[kaspergm]

idea for an Ideology Game Mode:

For every era, the diplomatic penalties from having different government would grow, culminating with blocs of Democracy vs Fascism vs Communism.

So it would be very hard to get friendship with a totally different empires.

Maybe even a new Emergency called 'World war' where different ideologies go to war together.

Why would that be fun? Because all meaningful diplomacy should just be overwritten by whatever random government the AI chooses to pick? That's a no thank you from me.

 

[TerryR]

idea for an Ideology Game Mode:

For every era, the diplomatic penalties from having different government would grow, culminating with blocs of Democracy vs Fascism vs Communism.

So it would be very hard to get friendship with a totally different empires.

Maybe even a new Emergency called 'World war' where different ideologies go to war together.

I totally agree with this. It's too easy to make friends with most - if not all - other civs at the beginning of the game, and then sail off on your merry way to victory with nary a peep from anyone.

I absolutely love the Emergencies feature. It adds unpredictability, variability, and even a quasi-narrative to the game!

But, here's the problem -I rarely have a chance to participate in Emergencies. Why? Because I'm always friends/allies with everyone!

Firaxis: I'm really hoping one of the next updates has a mechanism for "opting out" of friendships/alliances if a friend/ally attacks a city state you are the suzerain for. It would present a whole new set of interesting decisions to make - i.e., do I overlook this because I'm getting diplomatic favor from the alliance, my alliance level with them is high and about to reach another level, etc.

Plus, it could open a whole new avenue of diplomacy - e.g., "Hey, just so you know, if you don't stop attacking that city state, I'm going to break our alliance".

 

[nzcamel]

Sure, but giving the bird is a hostile behavior. They're not acting as an ally. They're acting as an enemy, and that's the narrative that should play out from there. I might let i pass--maybe I want a good relationship enough to let them convert cities, or I'll just fight fire with fire. But an alliance shouldn't be two civ's flipping each other off and sticking their tongues out becuse they have some legal loophole they can exploit.

If anything, the grievances amassed for ignoring or breaking a promise should be intensified, not lessened.

You were talking about a pre-ally state when you discussed that scenario... Also, can the AI work out when an alliance would prevent them from achieving a possible victory?

 

[TerryR]

Also, on the subject of alliances, could the auto-declaration-of-war aspect be given some real teeth?

For example: if your ally is attacked, you have to show up with x number of units (or a number of units totalling y strength) to the combat theater within z number of turns or you lose a major amount of favor with your ally?

As it stands now, the mutual protection aspect of alliances is really hit or miss in terms of its meaningfulness.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Also, can the AI work out when an alliance would prevent them from achieving a possible victory?

On the gossip panel I always see a civ that is second to last in science output want to pursue a science victory so I assume the answer here is no.

 

[Linklite]

You were talking about a pre-ally state when you discussed that scenario... Also, can the AI work out when an alliance would prevent them from achieving a possible victory?

The AI can't even tell when a victory type is disabled, so I doubt it would get that deep.

Also, on the subject of alliances, could the auto-declaration-of-war aspect be given some real teeth?

For example: if your ally is attacked, you have to show up with x number of units (or a number of units totalling y strength) to the combat theater within z number of turns or you lose a major amount of favor with your ally?

As it stands now, the mutual protection aspect of alliances is really hit or miss in terms of its meaningfulness.

Personally, I don't think it should auto-DoW. I'm not even sure trigger's it; I've been allies who've been DoWed and nada. Itger times I'm dragged into a World War.
Perhaps a message screen requesting us to honour our agreements, maybe set conditions (like send force of CS 200 within 20 turns). If you refuse it or fail, your relationship takes a big hit and grievances are earned.

 

[steveg700]

You were talking about a pre-ally state when you discussed that scenario... Also, can the AI work out when an alliance would prevent them from achieving a possible victory?

I was talking about an issue that occurred before and during an alliance, because the AI runs around converting any unconverted city without regard for an alliance.

To answer your question, the AI doesn't have any concept of how it can win a religious victory. It doesn't really make much of an effort. It puts up a pretense, but it's not earnest about rushing other civs' and extinguishing their holy cities. How often do you see the AI use gurus? How often do you see it use inquisitors? It doesn't even protect its apostles by letting them shelter indefinitely in a city or encampment. So, the AI can't work when an alliance would prevent them from achieving an RV.

What it does right now is cheat massively on religous unit spam, which is why they often have ten or so apostles just milling about. Again, it's pretense to make a player feel like there's competition.

But since an RV requires converting every civ to your side, any civ pursuing an RV must inherently be a huge, unlovable A-hole to a bunch of civ's. Which means, of course, alliances with them should be pretty untenable. That's the price of an RV.

 

[nzcamel]

I was talking about an issue that occurred before and during an alliance, because the AI runs around converting any unconverted city without regard for an alliance.

To answer your question, the AI doesn't have any concept of how it can win a religious victory. It doesn't really make much of an effort. It puts up a pretense, but it's not earnest about rushing other civs' and extinguishing their holy cities. How often do you see the AI use gurus? How often do you see it use inquisitors? It doesn't even protect its apostles by letting them shelter indefinitely in a city or encampment. So, the AI can't work when an alliance would prevent them from achieving an RV.

What it does right now is cheat massively on religous unit spam, which is why they often have ten or so apostles just milling about. Again, it's pretense to make a player feel like there's competition.

But since an RV requires converting every civ to your side, any civ pursuing an RV must inherently be a huge, unlovable A-hole to a bunch of civ's. Which means, of course, alliances with them should be pretty untenable. That's the price of an RV.

With all that in mind, I'm not sure what you expect. Having a competitive AI on victory conditions is still clearly more important than everything clicking nicely and thematically; even if I do like the latter too.

 

[steveg700]

With all that in mind, I'm not sure what you expect. Having a competitive AI on victory conditions is still clearly more important than everything clicking nicely and thematically; even if I do like the latter too.

A game performing according to logic and common sense is not a purely thematic concern. It's also bad for the game from a competitive aspect. Do you really not get that? Using an alliance as a way to escape the consequences of hostile actions doesn't help the AI. It hurts it, because it doesn't react to systemic threats. Did you see the part in my OP where I pointed that I can bum rush Eleanor and wipe her holy city, and neither her nor any civ will catch wind of it?

I think I stated my expectation pretty clearly. Alliances should not inoculate against grievances. Right there as part of "with all that in mind". The consequence of aggressive behavior is you miss out on friendly relations with those whom you're acting out your aggressions. Again, odd to call that a "thematic" issue so much as it is a reasonable expectation of gameplay.

So grievances should accrue during an alliance and perhaps even be even more severe. And for that matter, accruing significant grievances should invite the risk of dissolving the alliance. Pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Atlas627]

By being in an alliance, your ally is already unable to retaliate against you for any grievances you accrue. However they should remember the ones you do accrue so that they can properly decide if you've been a bad ally and end it during the next renewal period, just like you would. The diplomacy is already too static; grievances should be increased for direct conflict between allies, and decrease for third-party sources.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Something worth mentioning is that it doesn't count as converting a city if the city has no religion to begin with; both you and the AI can freely do this without grievances or breaking a promise, I think (the AI certainly does)

I think this should be updated

 

[steveg700]

By being in an alliance, your ally is already unable to retaliate against you for any grievances you accrue. However they should remember the ones you do accrue so that they can properly decide if you've been a bad ally and end it during the next renewal period, just like you would. The diplomacy is already too static; grievances should be increased for direct conflict between allies, and decrease for third-party sources.

Agreed. I would tend to say that in addition, grievances that cross a certain threshold should bring up the Denounce option to dissolve the agreement immediately.