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

[Morgawr]

Alliances are too easy right now. They should change it such that:

• If you’re allied with both sides and one attacks the other, you have to choose sides vs being able to stay neutral, or have to terminate alliance with both parties
• If you’re allied with both sides and one denounces then other, they should give you increasing negative penalties to attitude and eventually force you to choose sides

 

[steveg700]

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

So, I loaded a save where I'd just founded a new city, Boston. Eleanor pounces on it greedily with a mob of missionaries (who, again, could have wiped out my religion in its infancy before I could even get one missionary out the door, so if she's planning for RV she ain't using the ol' noodle). You can see on the right, second from the top icon, I got 100 grievances against her for breaking a promise.

Spoiler :

 

[Dotsworthy]

Diplomacy would be much more compelling if it had the following:

1. Alliances can either be broken in set circumstances (protectorate war) or is breakable at any time at a huge grievance cost.

2. May not be possible based on how the AI calculates the relationship score, but the AI should take into account the current positive and negatives rather than eagerly renewing a friendship. It makes no sense for the AI to renew if it has net -40 relationship score against you.

3. Demands are inconsequential. If the AI is using them, it is often an indication that they aren't planning to go to war with you and want to be a nuisance. Demands could have a consequence attached i.e. "if you don't give me this I will go to war" or "if you don't give me this I will plunder you traders" with grievances accrued for the aggressor.

4. Loyalty pressure really should be taken into account. The AI should have some kind of fight back against Eleanor's Borg assimilation and make some form of attempt to win their cities back.

 

[steveg700]

Diplomacy would be much more compelling if it had the following:

1. Alliances can either be broken in set circumstances (protectorate war) or is breakable at any time at a huge grievance cost.

2. May not be possible based on how the AI calculates the relationship score, but the AI should take into account the current positive and negatives rather than eagerly renewing a friendship. It makes no sense for the AI to renew if it has net -40 relationship score against you.

3. Demands are inconsequential. If the AI is using them, it is often an indication that they aren't planning to go to war with you and want to be a nuisance. Demands could have a consequence attached i.e. "if you don't give me this I will go to war" or "if you don't give me this I will plunder you traders" with grievances accrued for the aggressor.

4. Loyalty pressure really should be taken into account. The AI should have some kind of fight back against Eleanor's Borg assimilation and make some form of attempt to win their cities back.

The bottom line is pretty simple, right? Alliances are invitations to abuse if the result in diplomacy only moving in a positive direction. You get a massive diplo mod for creating an alliance, and then you're exempted from grievances.

The effects of demands are that refusing them creates another diplo penalty. The AI goes to war as the dislike tanks. I have averted wars by caving into demands.

Loyalty is another weird blindspot. They write their cities off blithely. And I never see them using Bread & Circuses.

 

[WillowBrook]

Lots of good stuff here. I really hope that one of the remaining updates at least significantly tweaks the diplomacy system, if not overhauls it altogether.

My opinions: The demand mechanic has always seemed half-baked; a clear consequence other than a whole bunch of grievances is needed. Allied civs being able to attack your suzerains without consequence is beyond annoying. More nuanced friendship/alliance options would be awesome. The number of alliances available should not be the same for every map size. Requesting (in a trade deal) or demanding a civ make peace with a third party would be a great option to have.

 

[suedenim]

Alliances are too easy right now. They should change it such that:

• If you’re allied with both sides and one attacks the other, you have to choose sides vs being able to stay neutral, or have to terminate alliance with both parties
• If you’re allied with both sides and one denounces then other, they should give you increasing negative penalties to attitude and eventually force you to choose sides

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.

It seems like the technical capacity for this exists, as the game keeps track of similar information in Emergencies.

IRL there are a lot of instances where allies didn't expect much more than a token effort from each other... but they DID want to see that token effort, at least, as opposed to doing literally nothing. On the other hand, when the ally provides a disproportionately large amount of assistance it'd be nice to see that be diplomatically rewarded in some way.

 

[Stringer1313]

I agree that in general alliances are too powerful and too easy to obtain. Frankly I think that the positive modifier for being a former Friend or Ally should be zero. It just keeps snowballing and covering over a multitude of sins. S

Also yes- i think that a civ should 100% refuse to be your ally if you are allies with someone they have denounced or at war with.

 

[monikernemo]

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.

Purely anecdotal, let me dig up a screenshot if I have the chance where I allianced an AI and he/she converted some of my religious cities and gained grievances.

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.

So what you have demonstrated is that relationships in the real world don't simply just breakdown when participants act in bad faith.

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.

I mean sure, if you can say that an argument is bizarrely-constructed, but it doesn't mean that it is not logical. Common sense is not so common after all.

Getting away scotfree for you as a player in SP, alliance does not grant you a safe pass in SP except wars between civilisations. You have to deal with other issues in a "creative" manner.
The AI can spread his religion without the possibility of your troops condemning their religious unit and conquer your city states without fear of a protectorate war.
There must be some trade-off to having alliances, it cannot be that rosy. And obviously, Firaxis can improve on implementing these trade-offs.

 

[steveg700]

Purely anecdotal, let me dig up a screenshot if I have the chance where I allianced an AI and he/she converted some of my religious cities and gained grievances.

Well, since I can provide the example, it hews closer to empirical than anecdotal. But I do look forward to you finding that save to provide evidence to the contrary. Please show me. I'm interested.

So what you have demonstrated is that relationships in the real world don't simply just breakdown when participants act in bad faith.

No, I'm afraid that's more akin to you exhibiting intentional obtuseness for the purpose of being argumentative, because the idea of conceding the point is an anathema. In actuality, I demonstrated that your attempt to suggest that it is realistic for alliances to grant a carte blanche of abuse does not hold up to scrutiny. They may in fact simply break down. That's generally going to be the prerogative of the slighted party in the relationship. It's a choice they make, not some fairy-godmother pact they're locked into.

Just so, the bearer of grievances in an alliance could have the option to break the alliance with a denunciation once grievances exceed a threshold. Something like that. There have been good ideas here about how to achieve it.

There must be some trade-off to having alliances, it cannot be that rosy. And obviously, Firaxis can improve on implementing these trade-offs.

The trade-off should be that you don't get to attack the ally's CS's, you don't get to convert ally cities, you don't get to steal tech boosts and siphon funds. We've been through this.

 

[Bibor]

There should be only one possible alliance per 3 civs left in the game.
This is not EU with 250 nations on the map.

 

[steveg700]

There should be only one possible alliance per 3 civs left in the game.
This is not EU with 250 nations on the map.

I don't think the number of alliances should be reduced during the course of the game, A warmonger should face an all-out alliance in the endgame. But it might be constrained in a manner similar to religions.

If there was a counterpart to the grievance that indicated good will, that would need to expended to forge an alliance. Toss that on the idea pile.

 

[Bibor]

A warmonger should face an all-out alliance in the endgame.

No, the warmonger should face a defensive pact Alliances, especially in the endgame, should be really hard to pull off, especially for the human player.

 

[steveg700]

No, the warmonger should face a defensive pact Alliances, especially in the endgame, should be really hard to pull off, especially for the human player.

Well, alliances have a defensive pact comportment built into them. Sharing military alliances is one way to effect this.

BUT, that's with the caveat that alliances work sanely, and the warmonger can't set up alliances as a way to circumvent the impact of grievances being racked up. He shouldn't be mowing down capitals in sequence while he's trading cat photos with his oblivious future victims.

 

[Galvatron]

4. Loyalty pressure really should be taken into account. The AI should have some kind of fight back against Eleanor's Borg assimilation and make some form of attempt to win their cities back.

WE ARE THE BORDEAUX. OPEN YOUR GATES AND SURRENDER YOUR CITIES. YOUR CULTURE WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

BUT, that's with the caveat that alliances work sanely, and the warmonger can't set up alliances as a way to circumvent the impact of grievances being racked up. He shouldn't be mowing down capitals in sequence while he's trading cat photos with his oblivious future victims.

I admire your sense of optimism

 

[Archon_Wing]

I feel like violation of a promise or continued behavior should allow dissolution of the alliance (with 5 turns advance notice). Alternately, you should be able to sue your ally for damages in the World Congress.

The later is a;pipe dream of course.

Also you should not be able to attack allied CS's.

 

[Myomoto]

Why shouldn't it be possible to break an alliance outright with a surprise war? It should just result in a big diplomacy hit for whoever did it. I think Civ VI is sorely lacking in intrigue and backstabbery.

 

[Aurelesk]

The fact that a Declaration of Friendship prevent any Declaration of War is kind of overpowered. We should be able to break them at any moment but face a Diplomatic backlash in the process.

I dislike when there is a Military Emergency against someone and I can't vote because the warmonger is my friends. We should be able to vote, and even be able to switch side in the process.

Casus Belli should be a little less restrictive. Some one them should trigger without any Denounciation. Breaking a Promise should allow us to unlock them. For example: keeping converting our civilization should allow a Holy War without any Denouciation, even if we are friends.

We should also have a new Diplomatic tools: Ultimatum. For example, a civilization is attacking our City-State. We could througth an Ultimatum: make peace immediatly or face a Declaration of War (with no Grievances).

 

[steveg700]

Why shouldn't it be possible to break an alliance outright with a surprise war? It should just result in a big diplomacy hit for whoever did it. I think Civ VI is sorely lacking in intrigue and backstabbery.

The fact that a Declaration of Friendship prevent any Declaration of War is kind of overpowered. We should be able to break them at any moment but face a Diplomatic backlash in the process.

Once a civ goes down the domination path, they have made a decision to write off diplomatic hits. The point of declarations of friendships and alliances is to allow civ's to let their guards down. Being able to break them spontaneously and blitz friends without warning would render declarations of friendship moot, even a liability.

Also realize that the AI is a slave to its programming. It can't make complex, nuanced decisions. It makes decisions based on capacity. (Can I do this? Yes? Okay, I'm doing it). This is why it builds wonders in the middle of a war it's losing, and why it attacks city-states suzerained by much stronger civ's. If the AI had the option of breaking friendships, it would either still not do it, or pretty much always do it.

Casus Belli should be a little less restrictive. Some one them should trigger without any Denounciation. Breaking a Promise should allow us to unlock them. For example: keeping converting our civilization should allow a Holy War without any Denouciation, even if we are friends.

We should also have a new Diplomatic tools: Ultimatum. For example, a civilization is attacking our City-State. We could througth an Ultimatum: make peace immediatly or face a Declaration of War (with no Grievances).

Some CB's don't require the usual five turn wait. A Protectorate War can be declared immediately after denouncing. Not sure about others, but bear in mind that a major reason why the casus belli system was introduced was so that wars aren't always blitzkriegs.

Having said that, it is of course absurd that a declaration of friendship is a license to take aggressive actions.

 

[Morgawr]

If the AI had the option of breaking friendships, it would either still not do it, or pretty much always do it.

I disagree; in Civ 5 and even Civ 4 the AI had backstab capability and AIs were programmed differently to do it based on their flavor and the situation. It can be done. For example in Civ 5 I remember Dido had a higher tendency to have the "deceptive" friendly attitude and then backstab you by declaring was. They didn't always do it - was dictated by the circumstances. In Civ 4, I remember AI was coded differently so many would not declare war on you if they were Pleased but only Catherine would declare even if she were Friendly. In short, it has been done before, it works and makes the game much more nuanced and fun and challenging but for some reason in Civ 6 they designed diplmacy to be pretty mellow and safe

 

[steveg700]

I disagree; in Civ 5 and even Civ 4 the AI had backstab capability and AIs were programmed differently to do it based on their flavor and the situation. It can be done. For example in Civ 5 I remember Dido had a higher tendency to have the "deceptive" friendly attitude and then backstab you by declaring was. They didn't always do it - was dictated by the circumstances. In Civ 4, I remember AI was coded differently so many would not declare war on you if they were Pleased but only Catherine would declare even if she were Friendly. In short, it has been done before, it works and makes the game much more nuanced and fun and challenging but for some reason in Civ 6 they designed diplmacy to be pretty mellow and safe

I'm not sure if you have provided any basis for disagreement. Citing AI behavior in previous editions doesn't counter statements about this edition's AI behavior.

The AI in Civ VI is bastardized by a couple of things. First, there are AI agendas that by-and-large cause the AI to like civ's that are doing well, so they tend to favor the player. This includes things like Khmer liking me for building holy sites that counter and defeat his attempts to convert cities, and Eleanor who loves me for being able to loyalty-flip half her empire. It's a ludo-narrative disconnect: thematically, civ's should like other civ's that reflect their values, but mechanically you should really only like a civ that won't outcompete you, and actually has something to offer. Second problem is that it's very easy to rack up positive modifiers for small gestures, and the modifier for an alliance is big enough to counter any mallus, and prevents the accrual of grievances.