Grievances

[benj_a_D]

Two things I wish the devs would address:

1. Allies can attack city states that you are suzerain of, without penalty. Last game, in late game, I allied with Rome, who then proceeded to crush every city state I was suzerain of. If I can't spy on allies (hidden) why can my allies (openly) attack my friends.

2. Take a balance pass on Grievances. Recent game the AI (Korea) had taken lots of opponent cities. I get a good war on them, and liberate a lot of those cities, but then the whole world turns against me because "I have caused grievances with another player". Even civs whose cities I liberated are suddenly denouncing me. The extreme grievances in late game need to be considered under the lens of just case, somehow.

 

[jasper]

1. Because it aint you. Whats the difference if you ally with rome and some major civ and rome attacks your other ally?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I thought airing of grievances was tomorrow.

But no, seriously, probably nothing annoys me more than allies attacking friendly cs. There should at the very least be a request/demand asking them to stop.

 

[comatosedragon]

I thought airing of grievances was tomorrow.

You reminded me that we lost Jerry Stiller (Frank Costanza) this year.

 

[Linklite]

1. Because it aint you. Whats the difference if you ally with rome and some major civ and rome attacks your other ally?

Don't you get grievances when one ally attacks another ally?

 

[TreVor_ish]

I thought airing of grievances was tomorrow.

But no, seriously, probably nothing annoys me more than allies attacking friendly cs. There should at the very least be a request/demand asking them to stop.

Don't ask for more bugged out options...Give use dll....community will do better....

 

[AsH2]

Serenity now!

 

[HiRezAudio]

Yesterday for fun I set up on a TSL Europe map, as Eleanor of England.
By the Classical era both France & Gaul were out of the game as their cities had all rebelled & joined my empire and from that point onward I was in -9 diplomatic favour points per turn despite having suzerainty of 3 city states and not having attacked or declared a war or even denouncing anybody, and despite the fact that Germany was declaring war after war after war against me - they would lose, peace out & ten turns or so later they attacked in yet another surprise war.
Yet it was me that constantly got all the grievances against ME - why, Firaxis, is this happening? I was not the aggressor - Germany was, yet they had grievances against me. If I had tried to defend myself against them then it just made them even ore aggressive, so murdering them was my only option at which point the rest of the world declared an emergency against me. Stupid mechanic, and it is rapidly starting to ruin the whole game for me.

 

[Vargas1]

I was really excited about the grievance system when I first started GS, because on paper it sounded like a great improvement over the warmonger penalties in vanilla. But it turns out it’s just a different message for the same thing. Instead of being denounced as a warmonger, I’m just denounced because I’ve inflicted grievances on others.

 

[Abaxial]

Furthermore, this is irrespective of what one civ thinks of another. If, say, Gaul hates Rome, and I cause Rome grievances, I get demounced by Gaul. Gaul should be happy!

 

[Archon_Wing]

I agree with the first one, just like what they did with spies.

Diplomacy is easy though, and honestly I think way too easy. If you're liberating cities and still getting denounced, then you must have flubbed diplomacy elsewhere with them. Remember to joint war/join war as they'll overlook that kind of stuff. I was just messing around and went around Jadwiga because she was my ally.

Spoiler :

[/img]

 

[Abaxial]

Also, there should really be a sort of anti-grievances. In Civ 5, if you had stacked up a bad reputation as a warmonger so that distant civs still hated you, you could do something good like liberate a conquered CS, and your reputation would improve. This doesn't seem to work in Civ 6 - liberating a city doesn't improve your reputation any; you still caused another civ grievances and are therefore a hate figure.

It's even worse with religion. Let's say I am Catholic but my neighbour is Hindu. His cities start converting to Catholicism largely by spread. He asks me to stop converting his cities, and it doesn't matter if I say yes or no, I still rack up grievances. Other civs now hate me for causing grievances even if they are Catholic themselves.

 

[benj_a_D]

I agree with the first one, just like what they did with spies.

Diplomacy is easy though, and honestly I think way too easy. If you're liberating cities and still getting denounced, then you must have flubbed diplomacy elsewhere with them. Remember to joint war/join war as they'll overlook that kind of stuff. I was just messing around and went around Jadwiga because she was my ally.

Maybe I missed the point... but with Jadwiga, what will your relationship be after the alliance expires. +61 -69. = -8

 

[Archon_Wing]

Maybe I missed the point... but with Jadwiga, what will your relationship be after the alliance expires. +61 -69. = -8

Point is that I've taken 4 capitals, and basically conquered most of the world, and still not denounced.If I didn't convert her cities, then it wouldn't be a problem (that eventually decays). I only did it because I knew I would win in 30 turns anyways. (game's already over at this point). I've also started every war and only liberated CS's. (Think I had a casus belli for some). So I am pretty skeptical people are getting denounced if they're just liberating cities-- there must be poor diplomacy elsewhere and they probably already didn't like you to begin with.

It will go down by -8 every turn, but by then grievances will expire and it'll go down way too slowly for it to mean anything.

Granted, the game's really vague about numbers, but then in most cases you can instantly renew anyways.

 

[HiRezAudio]

Point is that I've taken 4 capitals, and basically conquered most of the world, and still not denounced.If I didn't convert her cities, then it wouldn't be a problem (that eventually decays). I only did it because I knew I would win in 30 turns anyways. (game's already over at this point). I've also started every war and only liberated CS's. (Think I had a casus belli for some). So I am pretty skeptical people are getting denounced if they're just liberating cities-- there must be poor diplomacy elsewhere and they probably already didn't like you to begin with.

It will go down by -8 every turn, but by then grievances will expire and it'll go down way too slowly for it to mean anything.

I am sorry but I just do not agree.
The whole diplomacy thing is so broken it is not fit for purpose, and the constant hatred & denouncing is ridiculous.
How can you 'improve relations' with a Civ that constantly denounces you every single chance it gets and keeps attacking you, so you fight back to defend yourself & then the rest of the world hates you because you defended yourself against an aggressive enemy. It is madness, and I believe the reason is that the whole diplomacy thing is so nerfed it is unworkable.
What is needed are more options in the whole peace negotiations too - time and again I let an aggressive civ peace out, they offer the captured cities as ceded, yet they now have grievances against me for 'occupying one of their cities'? Madness.
What we need is both 'unconditional surrender' as an option - this would prevent them from airing grievances against me again - period - and more (I will try to find the time to write this up properly as a request)
Also required is the option to enforce their status as a vassal - this way I would then direct their research & every time they needed to research a tech or a civic they would have to ask my permission for what they want, which I could grant or else suggest something that suits me and furthermore anything they research that I do not have would automatically be given to me as well. THAT would prevent some of their aggression and should make them think twice.

But as it stands right now it is utterly broken.
I have played the last 2 games with almost no 'diplomatic favour' points at all, simply because I had to murder an aggressive civ that would not stop attacking me every chance it got, even though it kept losing the war. It seemed to me the AI was using war to slow me down, but when I defend myself I get the penalty so much so that I cannot even propose anything to the so-called 'World Congress' which treats me as a rogue state - just for defending myself?

 

[Sykes179]

The whole alliance thing is a load of rubbish. The mechanic is complete nonsense.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I am sorry but I just do not agree.
The whole diplomacy thing is so broken it is not fit for purpose, and the constant hatred & denouncing is ridiculous.
How can you 'improve relations' with a Civ that constantly denounces you every single chance it gets and keeps attacking you, so you fight back to defend yourself & then the rest of the world hates you because you defended yourself against an aggressive enemy. It is madness, and I believe the reason is that the whole diplomacy thing is so nerfed it is unworkable.
What is needed are more options in the whole peace negotiations too - time and again I let an aggressive civ peace out, they offer the captured cities as ceded, yet they now have grievances against me for 'occupying one of their cities'? Madness.
What we need is both 'unconditional surrender' as an option - this would prevent them from airing grievances against me again - period - and more (I will try to find the time to write this up properly as a request)
Also required is the option to enforce their status as a vassal - this way I would then direct their research & every time they needed to research a tech or a civic they would have to ask my permission for what they want, which I could grant or else suggest something that suits me and furthermore anything they research that I do not have would automatically be given to me as well. THAT would prevent some of their aggression and should make them think twice.

But as it stands right now it is utterly broken.
I have played the last 2 games with almost no 'diplomatic favour' points at all, simply because I had to murder an aggressive civ that would not stop attacking me every chance it got, even though it kept losing the war. It seemed to me the AI was using war to slow me down, but when I defend myself I get the penalty so much so that I cannot even propose anything to the so-called 'World Congress' which treats me as a rogue state - just for defending myself?

? Did you actually see the image I posted above? I have 1500+ grievances that game.

I posted an game that shows it's not hard to deal with at all. I wasn't defending myself at all, was 100% the aggressor in every war except the first when Japan attacked and I wiped them out, and still had an ally, and would have had more if I didn't trash everyone else.

When you're turning into the aggressor, you're no longer defending yourself. You're already rewarded with more cities, and now you want a pat on the back from everyone else?

Sorry, if you're only defending yourself and not being the aggressor, then you simply don't understand the mechanics. That's not the game's fault.

 

[HiRezAudio]

? Did you actually see the image I posted above? I have 1500+ grievances that game.

I posted an game that shows it's not hard to deal with at all. I wasn't defending myself at all, was 100% the aggressor in every war except the first when Japan attacked and I wiped them out, and still had an ally, and would have had more if I didn't trash everyone else.

When you're turning into the aggressor, you're no longer defending yourself. You're already rewarded with more cities, and now you want a pat on the back from everyone else?

Sorry, if you're only defending yourself and not being the aggressor, then you simply don't understand the mechanics. That's not the game's fault.

Then the mechanic is broken.
Period.
(Not really a huge surprise, given how much the whole thing is being screwed up lately)