Great Diplomats

What do you think about GD Diplomatic Missions currently?

  • They're too weak, I like 1 (reduce rival influence by a percentage).

    Votes: 10 45.5%
  • They're too weak, I like 2 (also give a small amount of influence to all CS on the map).

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • They're too weak, I like 3 (increase the amount of influence they provide).

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • They're too weak, I like 4 (temporarily provide a boost to diplomatic missions on the same CS).

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They're too weak, but I don't like any of the suggested ideas.

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • They're fine as is.

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • Total voters
    22

Galbias

Prince
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
488
The changes to Statecraft have taken place, but I wanted to bring up one more thing I had mentioned in another thread, which is Great Diplomats. Embassies are quite useful but right now their diplomatic mission ability is very weak for most of the game, it's something that any Civilization can replicate by churning out 3-4 diplomatic units which I feel is way too weak by GP standards, I find myself removing Civil Servants past mid-game even in games where I'm going for a diplo victory. A couple ideas on what could be done to help with this:

1) Gives a scaling amount of influence (about the same as currently, ~70 to 130) but instead of reducing other Civ's influence by the same amount, it cuts their current influence in half, or by some other percentage. So if you're trying to get an alliance with a CS who has a rival with ~1000 influence, it's worth ~600 instead of ~200 like it would be normally. This also has the effect of stopping City-States from randomly getting angry at you due to other GD missions, which I've always thought was a bit silly.

2) In addition to the current effects, provides a small influence boost (10-20% or so of the regular influence) to all other met City-States on the map.

3) Increase the maximum amount of influence given. Boring, but effective.

4) In addition to the current effects, using a GD temporarily gives any other diplomatic units sent to the same CS a percentage boost to influence for ~5 turns. Not too important early but would help if you needed a lot of influence to overcome another player.



I definitely like the first idea most if it's something that can be easily implemented. There are a couple other ideas I had like the ability to use one to gain an extra spy once, or maybe use one to bribe a CS's garrison so you can demand tribute without notifying other major Civs for a long period of time or w/e, but that's less important.
 
For me the problem of GD is linked to the way influence work :
Friend is 30, ally is 60. When I see those numbers, it feel like if it is normal to have more than 100 influence with a CS, then the CS game is broken.
Early game CS diplomaty is fine : completing quest is relevant for influence, the influence decay is relevant, ...
But on end game, it is just a matter of diplomat spam, and spy coup, which is not really fun to me (and make great diplomat missions useless)
 
I think the big issue is how influence works by itself, mainly the lack of cap. Cap it off at 100 or so and then diplo-game would change dramatically. It would make effects that reduce rival influence more meaningful if it's just on a 100 point scale.

At the very least it would make city states more dynamic then just "Welp, Austria's got 2000+ influence in Tyre, guess I'm gonna have to coup or conquer it"
 
rip unique city-states's GD bonus and changes to CS.
 
I'd be fine simply with Great Diplomats scaling in power as the game goes on (both adding more influence for you and reducing influence for everyone else). Whether they scale as the game enters new eras, the amount of paper you control, or another mechanism is largely immaterial; probably whatever already exists in code. If their power can't be changed for whatever reason then maybe boost their spwan at some point when most CSs should have embassies planted; make up for what they lack in power with sheer numbers.

I don't know that capping influence would make diplomacy better; seems like it would just introduce a different set of issues.
 
Great Diplomats do scale with era:

<NumInfPerEra>10</NumInfPerEra>

In any case I've been thinking about this and the best solution is not to create a hard cap on influence (as what happens when two civs snuggle up to the cap?) but rather to increase influence decay based on the size of your influence pool. So if influence decays -1 per turn at <= 100 influence, it'd go up to -10 per turn at <= 1000, etc. Makes is so that dumping thousands of influence into a CS has diminishing value.

G
 
Great Diplomats do scale with era:

<NumInfPerEra>10</NumInfPerEra>

In any case I've been thinking about this and the best solution is not to create a hard cap on influence (as what happens when two civs snuggle up to the cap?) but rather to increase influence decay based on the size of your influence pool. So if influence decays -1 per turn at <= 100 influence, it'd go up to -10 per turn at <= 1000, etc. Makes is so that dumping thousands of influence into a CS has diminishing value.

G

That's a great idea. Those crazy-high influence levels have always been a bit off-putting.
 
Do GDs really need to be able to make CSs hate you? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The amount of influence you have after they bubble should be 0 if you have less influence than their strength, no? It seems weird that multiple AIs can be competing for a CS with GDs and because of that your influence plummets to the point it looks like you invaded the city and killed everybody's mothers.
 
Last edited:
An initial test of my idea above has born fruit - only one CS (in a large game) has an influence above 700 - all the others are in the 300-600 range. Clearly high (if you're trying to get into that game late, ouch), but surmountable if you've been remotely competitive with the CS.

This does also bring back into play the importance of the influence decay modifier that used to be in Statecraft. Some users dislike the paper from CS policy, could replace that with a 25% decay reduction.

G
 
An initial test of my idea above has born fruit - only one CS (in a large game) has an influence above 700 - all the others are in the 300-600 range. Clearly high (if you're trying to get into that game late, ouch), but surmountable if you've been remotely competitive with the CS.

This does also bring back into play the importance of the influence decay modifier that used to be in Statecraft. Some users dislike the paper from CS policy, could replace that with a 25% decay reduction.

G
Haven't tried the new version, will try this weekends, but on paper that makes sense. I can say for sure that Diplo Victory on large map on Deity was undoable before (except Germany and maybe Austria). You have to ally ALL 24 City-States and you actually can't do it via World Congress, cause everyone will hate you.
 
An initial test of my idea above has born fruit - only one CS (in a large game) has an influence above 700 - all the others are in the 300-600 range. Clearly high (if you're trying to get into that game late, ouch), but surmountable if you've been remotely competitive with the CS.

This does also bring back into play the importance of the influence decay modifier that used to be in Statecraft. Some users dislike the paper from CS policy, could replace that with a 25% decay reduction.

G
Why don't make that policy enhance those two diplomatic national wonders so it does what was intended, helping tall to get into the diplomatic game?
Giving influence for every expended great people sounds like a lot, but consider that tall civs probably won't produce more that one diplomat every 10 turns. And in modern age, when AI are securing some CS, this would just help with keeping friends, not allies.
 
Do GDs really need to be able to make CSs hate you? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The amount of influence you have after they bubble should be 0 if you have less influence than their strength, no? It seems weird that multiple AIs can be competing for a CS with GDs and because of that your influence plummets to the point it looks like you invaded the city and killed everybody's mothers.

I think this is about the only thing that differentiates a Great Diplomat from the build-able diplomats. Fits both game play and immersion; sometimes the best way to make yourself look better is to make everyone else look worse.

An initial test of my idea above has born fruit - only one CS (in a large game) has an influence above 700 - all the others are in the 300-600 range. Clearly high (if you're trying to get into that game late, ouch), but surmountable if you've been remotely competitive with the CS.

This does also bring back into play the importance of the influence decay modifier that used to be in Statecraft. Some users dislike the paper from CS policy, could replace that with a 25% decay reduction.

G

The power of diminishing returns! Looking forward to this; should at least make it harder for just 1-2 civs to dominate CS alliances (and if they do, they've earned it).
 
Haven't tried the new version, will try this weekends, but on paper that makes sense. I can say for sure that Diplo Victory on large map on Deity was undoable before (except Germany and maybe Austria). You have to ally ALL 24 City-States and you actually can't do it via World Congress, cause everyone will hate you.
That's incorrect. Even before statecraft buffs and autocracy reworks, I won diplo victories very often on huge maps.

Vassals will often vote for you, unless you've got those crappy 'I hate your guts forever' vassals. Additionally you can pick up more with religion. Targeting warfare towards religious superpowers and spreading yours gives you a lot of votes. Spread it enough and there's a good chance you can pass world religion on the first ballet. That leads to you having 4-10 votes solely from your religion. (In addition to other modifiers.)

Also remember that later techs can offer more votes, and leading the world leader vote gives you more votes too. (Unless that's changed.)
 
Great Diplomats do scale with era:

<NumInfPerEra>10</NumInfPerEra>

In any case I've been thinking about this and the best solution is not to create a hard cap on influence (as what happens when two civs snuggle up to the cap?) but rather to increase influence decay based on the size of your influence pool. So if influence decays -1 per turn at <= 100 influence, it'd go up to -10 per turn at <= 1000, etc. Makes is so that dumping thousands of influence into a CS has diminishing value.

G

I like that idea a lot. It seems like only a small buff to GD's Diplomatic Missions but it'll be welcome to have decay mean more and see less CS with thousands of influence forever. Also would be a decent buff for Greece and a bigger one for Austria, and brings the influence decay modifier based on religion back into relevance.

An initial test of my idea above has born fruit - only one CS (in a large game) has an influence above 700 - all the others are in the 300-600 range. Clearly high (if you're trying to get into that game late, ouch), but surmountable if you've been remotely competitive with the CS.

This does also bring back into play the importance of the influence decay modifier that used to be in Statecraft. Some users dislike the paper from CS policy, could replace that with a 25% decay reduction.

G

I think it's less about the Paper itself and more about the fact that it's based on CS alliances, which means that you get rewards that help you obtain CS alliances by having CS alliances.
 
So i decided to test new Statecraft and so far it seems quite good to me. Winning diplo victory without strong religion AND Big Ben seems almost impossible though. Currently religiong gives me 15 votes which is huge. The problem is that you can't defend city-states that are far away from you. In my current game i have 4 civs that declare war on me as soon as peace treaty exoires and it continues for more than ~150 turns. I already lost 7 City-States because they were captured. I found a way to avoid it - you can declare war on allied City-State and then they will make peace with it. After the war is over - ally it back. But it is more of an exploit. and in addition to that i have -100 penalty with half of civs for warmongering.

Question: description says that Consulates policy gives 1 vote per 8 cities in the game. For some reason i currently have 15 votes from Consulates policy. There is only 24 CS on the world. Is it a bug or intended?
 
That's a lot of votes to have from religion, how many are from religious authority? I've only really done religious play on Standard so I'm not sure how much diplo victory changes on larger maps. I want to try a Statecraft game but I'm also kind of tempted to wait because I really want to try with the new influence decay mechanics Gazebo mentioned...hmm.
 
So i decided to test new Statecraft and so far it seems quite good to me. Winning diplo victory without strong religion AND Big Ben seems almost impossible though. Currently religiong gives me 15 votes which is huge. The problem is that you can't defend city-states that are far away from you. In my current game i have 4 civs that declare war on me as soon as peace treaty exoires and it continues for more than ~150 turns. I already lost 7 City-States because they were captured. I found a way to avoid it - you can declare war on allied City-State and then they will make peace with it. After the war is over - ally it back. But it is more of an exploit. and in addition to that i have -100 penalty with half of civs for warmongering.

Question: description says that Consulates policy gives 1 vote per 8 cities in the game. For some reason i currently have 15 votes from Consulates policy. There is only 24 CS on the world. Is it a bug or intended?
It's more than consulates policies. It's basically "Votes from Social Policies" meaning your freedom whatever tenet tier 3 gives it as well.
 
That's a lot of votes to have from religion, how many are from religious authority? I've only really done religious play on Standard so I'm not sure how much diplo victory changes on larger maps. I want to try a Statecraft game but I'm also kind of tempted to wait because I really want to try with the new influence decay mechanics Gazebo mentioned...hmm.
That was the plan, i had quite a useless religion, but i dominated the world with it. I took Holy Law + Churches + Scripture + One world - one religion. I converted my neighbor's Holy City just with passive pressure. I haven't won yet, but i have 61 cities with my religion + world religion.
It's more than consulates policies. It's basically "Votes from Social Policies" meaning your freedom whatever tenet tier 3 gives it as well.
Thanks for the answer, thats a lot. It says 4 scaling with map size, so it is 12 votes on Large, thats huge. I've just reached Atomic Theory and i already have 61 votes while i need only 51. It is great that diplo victory is viable again! Looks like with the latest changes you might miss a religion or Big Ben and still be okay, thats good.
 
That's a great idea. Those crazy-high influence levels have always been a bit off-putting.

Panama City is allied with Austria. You need 72,051 influence to become their ally.

:(
 
Top Bottom