GEM Stage 3: Diplomacy

[Ahriman]

In other words 3 RAs doubles our tech speed in G&K, on average, with the wonder and policy. In both vem and G&K we get a double bonus if our partner has twice our science, and vice versa. We also get less less rewards if our partner produces more than 6-12 times our (a rare situation).

What are your thoughts about this?

This feels too high in general. I don't really like a RA boost in rationalism. Rationalism boosts your own tech production as it is, I don't think it needs to be tied into a peaceful gamestyle where you need to use RAs too to gain from the ability. If you remove the rationalism boost, it's probably ok.

In beta 3, I am finding RAs far too powerful, giving both a sizable per-turn yield *and* a boost on completion.

 

[Zaldron]

I've been looking over the difference between research agreements in Vem and G&K. Firaxis adopted my combined-research approach, thankfully. However, they did make some changes from Vem. If we have neither the porcelain tower nor rationalism, each research agreement with an equal partner increases our research rate by:

average rate increase

|Non-Ally _ |Ally _____ Vem | 6 %| 12 %
G&K | 0 %| 17 %

​

Porcelain Tower and Rationalism each provide a 50% bonus in G&K (not the 25% bonus on the tooltips), for a maximum double bonus. In other words 3 RAs doubles our tech speed in G&K, on average, with the wonder and policy. In both vem and G&K we get a double bonus if our partner has twice our science, and vice versa. We also get less less rewards if our partner produces more than 6-12 times our (a rare situation).

What are your thoughts about this?

If you assume that in VEM you had an equal ratio of ally/non-ally RAs, then the net gain without wonders or policies is about the same as the G&K mechanic. The problem then becomes the disproportionate increase from the PT and rationalism policies. I really like the Ally-only aspect of G&K RAs so I would actually like to keep that mechanic (again, as a peaceful/conqueror balance). What about changing the PT bonus to something else rather than an RA increase, and reducing the rationalism bonus (to say 0.15 = 30% real increase) but giving it a secondary bonus as well. I would also agree with the cost increases: Keep them the same cost as in VEM to start with and we'll adjust from there.

 

[mystikx21]

What about changing the PT bonus to something else rather than an RA increase, and reducing the rationalism bonus (to say 0.15 = 30% real increase) but giving it a secondary bonus as well. I would also agree with the cost increases: Keep them the same cost as in VEM to start with and we'll adjust from there.

Porcelain Tower in VEM didn't do RAs at the later stage. It was a trade route modifier with a free scientist (because Machu didn't do trade routes anymore and was the super mountain tile). So it's halfway there already.

 

[Thalassicus]

This feels too high in general. I don't really like a RA boost in rationalism. Rationalism boosts your own tech production as it is, I don't think it needs to be tied into a peaceful gamestyle where you need to use RAs too to gain from the ability. If you remove the rationalism boost, it's probably ok.

Based on your feedback I moved it to the Freedom tree, where it is less available to wide and conquest empires. I would be okay with dropping it to 25%. As others said I'm also thinking of moving the Porcelain Tower's research agreement bonus to one of the new wonders (and adjust the Tower's cost/benefits for balance).

 

[Ahriman]

I think it fits well in Freedom. Free trade is an interesting policy. It really rewards peaceful play.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

is there a way to fix the "buy all CSs one turn before UN vote, then DoW everyone" exploit without changing the mechanic too much? CSD solves this but it also makes diplomacy a lot more complicated which many people dislike.

 

[Dunkah]

If you have the cash to do that at that particular time in the game don't you deserve to win at that point? Is the Ai even smart enough to last minute bribe other CS's to avoid the loss?

I have always felt that the CS goes to war with enemy Civs automatically mechanic is a bit depressing.

I hate the fact that I can be an ally of a CS for 500 years then because I spent all of my gold on defensive units and can't re-up that a hostile civ can buy them out and they immediately declare war on me.

There should be like a neutral state/ swiss effect for CS's that have a lot of influence with multiple Civs. Or have been Allies for many years perhaps a counter that counts the number of years/turns you have been allies and won't declare war on you until that time has elapsed?

This would put a huge amount of weight on CS diplomacy even during a war.

 

[Ahriman]

The AI engages in extensive CS bidding wars in the leadup to the vote. It is quite hard to hold all the CSes unless you are economically ahead. I don't think there is a problem here.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

If you have the cash to do that at that particular time in the game don't you deserve to win at that point? Is the Ai even smart enough to last minute bribe other CS's to avoid the loss?

good point, I'm talking specifically about the exploit where you save gold until 1 turn before the election in order to buy them all them DoW and win.

an easy fix would be: allied CSs only DoW your enemies on the next turn, not just as soon as you do. that should take care of the exploit without changing anything too much.

 

[Dunkah]

Couldn't you just do the same thing two turns before the vote?

Like I said there should be a waiting period/ cool down/ swiss time based on the amount of time you had invested in CS's over the course of the game or from recent history. They shouldn't just say... "oh you have more money... forget that other guy... DOW!"

I suppose the easy way would be simply to check that infuence is positive. As long as it is above 0 they dont declare war. As soon as they are no longer friends and their ally is at war with you then they declare war.

Resting points would need to come in here.

 

[Ahriman]

These cures sound worse than the problem. If you can afford to buy all the city states, and you're right before a vote, I think you should be able to win.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

either way, Dunkah's got a good point about CSs being too eager to DoW the guy who was their buddy 5 minutes ago

 

[Ahriman]

either way, Dunkah's got a good point about CSs being too eager to DoW the guy who was their buddy 5 minutes ago

I respectfully disagree. The CS cities need to be simple. It would be very frustrating if your allies wouldn't go to war when you did. What then is the point of an alliance? And it would be very confusing if you couldn't easily see which of your allies would get involved in a war.

And there are plenty of historic examples of alliances shifting pretty quickly by historic terms. France and the UK/England had been bitter rivals for centuries when they turned around and allied together against Germany (many of whose constituents had been close British allies) in WW1. And plenty of small states changed alliances after leadership changes, particularly after new elections, coups or new monarchs. Iran changed from a left-leaning unaligned state to a US ally after the US-backed 1953 coup, and then switched again to a US enemy after the 1979 revolution.

If you don't want your city state alliance to risk lapsing, then you need to maintain a large influence lead over rivals.

I don't see a problem.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

good points as usual. I'm not worried about alliances with CSs being pointless, since you get yields and resources from them.

the current mechanic is improved over vanilla thanks to more plentiful quests, but the reliance on gold is a bit too gamey imo. making unit/GP gifts more useful would be a step in the right direction imo towards making influence gains more varied.

I could see more expanded CS diplomacy where you have more interactions with them like you do with major civs, but that's for the future since it would need DLL access.

 

[Ahriman]

If anything I don't think the current system relies enough on gold. Gold is a very inefficient way of getting CS allies, especially with the reduced gold purchase costs of buildings. I think the Patronage policy might need to change from 20% to 25% extra influence from gold.

I think it's fine that unit gifts aren't a big part of CS influence. As above; you give them units to make them stronger and fight proxy wars, not to increase influence, unless they have the mission gift quest. Why should you get a big influence boost for giving them units that they don't really need?

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

how do they not need units? they're essentially playing OCC and any major civ could gobble them up if they choose. I think of it as a gift of hammers instead of gold.

 

[Ahriman]

how do they not need units?

Because much of the time they are never threatened militarily. And if they are attacked directly, the "help me" mission triggers.

Are you sure that the get-influence-from-gold mechanism literally gifts them the gold - ie they can then spend it on stuff?

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

good question, I don't know if they do get it or not.

 

[Dunkah]

I respectfully disagree. The CS cities need to be simple. It would be very frustrating if your allies wouldn't go to war when you did. What then is the point of an alliance? And it would be very confusing if you couldn't easily see which of your allies would get involved in a war.

I think it would be simple to tell which would and wouldn't. it's right in the display of the CS who else has influence with them. Just becuase you are an Ally of someone doesn't mean you will declare war on their enemies. Not in the context of Civ V. At the end of WWII only Britain wanted to finish off the Soviets. The US didn't want anything to do with that.

And there are plenty of historic examples of alliances shifting pretty quickly by historic terms. France and the UK/England had been bitter rivals for centuries when they turned around and allied together against Germany (many of whose constituents had been close British allies) in WW1. And plenty of small states changed alliances after leadership changes, particularly after new elections, coups or new monarchs. Iran changed from a left-leaning unaligned state to a US ally after the US-backed 1953 coup, and then switched again to a US enemy after the 1979 revolution.

I have to disagree with you here. There are just as many instances of countries that were "Allied" to both parties in WWII that stayed Neutral. To name two, the Swiss and Spain. Germany had just fought and won a War for the leaders of Spain.

If you don't want your city state alliance to risk lapsing, then you need to maintain a large influence lead over rivals.

I don't see a problem.

Getting CS's to declare war should take more involvement then simply dropping off a bag of gold on thier doorstep. For that matter a CS's loyalty should be more involved in Civ's that have been with them for a longer period of time. (Perhaps influence should drop much more slowly if there are no others competing against you. Also I think that influence should be effect by distance to the Civ's capitol). -an idea for another thread.

It is perfectly reasonable for a CS to be loyal to more than one Civ at a time. They shouldn't have to declare war on someone else (especially if they are a mojor power), just becuase so in so dropped off a lump some of gold and happen to win the bid.

I think CS's should not declare war until you have 0 influence with them.

 

[Dunkah]

If there is a third party involved in the bidding. (Greece). Then the CS could litterally shift back and forth several times.

Turn 1 (CS is my Ally).
Greece pays Gold... becomes Ally.
My enemy now pays more... CS declares war on me.
I am stuck...

Turn 2 (CS is allied with my enemy)
Greece pays Gold becomes Ally.
I pony up some Gold... CS is my Ally again.

Crazy Rediculous.