[GS] How do people feel about Alliances?

[acluewithout]

How to people feel about Alliances? Like em? Hate em? Slightly nervous?

Some random thoughts:

• Alliances weirdly don’t seem to have much to do with actual Diplomacy. Early game I often try to get some tactical friendship. A few gifts or good trade deals. An open border. Avoiding obvious trolling like settling close. A joint war. I don’t usually worry too much about Agendas - I just find it too hard to really play to most of them except a few. Anyway, a good friendship can have some tactical benefits. Better trade deals. Neutralise a potential aggressor. That sort of stuff. I try doing that whole you hate him so you’ll like me, and the Global Relations mod makes that easier, but honestly I rarely bother.

• Anyway. Friendships offer turn into Alliances, and then that’s about it really, diplomatically speaking.

• I do very much like the link between Alliances, Trade and Yields. It certainly makes Trade more interesting and does create a reason to get on well with at least some others. And it takes on a whole new dimension with Wesselbank. Er, Wisembank. Er, Whistle-Wastle-Fissle Bank. Of for goodness sake. You all know what I mean.

• I like how conceptually Alliances are about Defending against certain Victory types, not winning them. Like, you don’t take a Research Alliance to win a Space Victory. You take it because you and another player aren’t focusing on Science, because you’re pursuing some other VC, and you need to keep pace with a Third Player who is pumping science all the way to Space.

• I also like how the downside to an Alliance is that you can’t murder your friend directly (or, if you do, you may incur an Emergency), so there’s a strategic trade off making Alliances. But then you do have the option to be sneaky and mess with them in other ways, eg spies, loyalty, religion, WC resolutions. Just like real Allies - hey, anyone want to buy an encryption computer from this totally okay Swiss company I have here?

• I dislike the 72 Flavours of Alliances design approach. Just like City States, Districts, Governors and many other things, Alliances have that design where there the “science” one, the “culture” one, the “gold” one, the “Faith” one etc. Just feels a bit silly, which is why I cal, it 72 Flavours design (hey, they even have different colours! ... groan). I wish each Alliance was a bit more mixed purpose, so you had to think a bit harder about which type you wanted and / or you could have more than one of each type (like, maybe I want more than one military alliance?). But I get that the 72 Flavours approach is easier for casual / new players to grasp and easier to balance. So, hey, I can live with it.

• It doesn’t feel like many Civs really leverage Alliances, unless you count Civs that leverage trade routes more. But that’s fine by me - mechanically, Alliances seem to do enough already.

So, yeah, overall, I quite like Alliances.

Do people make much use of them? Do they have any use for fast Victories? Do people find they’re a bit more dynamic in terms of Diplomacy than I’ve found them? What Alliances do people tend to choose?

 

[Disgustipated]

I just wish we had some way to deal with an ally who attacks a city state you are chummy with. That's the biggest downside to alliances. And if you attack them after it expires you may get a betrayal emergency.

 

[hazarius_a]

I just wish we had some way to deal with an ally who attacks a city state you are chummy with. That's the biggest downside to alliances. And if you attack them after it expires you may get a betrayal emergency.

This! This is the major downside why it somehow feels that the whole alliance system is some kind of isolated game mechanic. It ensures peace, for a certain time. It gives bonuses of some kind.. but then some types of alliances have significantly more impact than others (like the negation of locality pressure when choosing cultural alliances). And I also think, the effects do not influence the whole game between the allied partners. It would be nice having more specific options in negotiations/trades/diplomacy/research etc,. so you'd have the feeling to really team up with your ally over time.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Military alliance is really important in MP.

 

[steveg700]

I just wish we had some way to deal with an ally who attacks a city state you are chummy with. That's the biggest downside to alliances. And if you attack them after it expires you may get a betrayal emergency.

It's an obnoxious issue. In general, the accumulation of grievances should provide a basis for severing an alliance. I'm not even sure the severance should be optional.

In addition, I tend to think alliances should influence the world congress. I'm tired of my staunchest allies voting for bad things to happen to me. Granted, the whole "lose 3 DV points" vote is asinine for other reasons not having to do with alliances.

Being able to take a policy to get +2 food and production is very, very obviously too good and gives any civ with an alliances a huge edge over a civ without one. And then tier-3 governments come along, and Democracy winds up being HEADS AND TAILS more desirable because it provides such a preposterous bonus to trade routes At that point, you just need to have an ally for that sake alone. It's not even a diplomatic consideration.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

I really do like opening up alliances first thing, that way I can get the extra yields from trading with allies. And of course, pop Wisselbanken as soon as I can.

Level 2 religious alliances are actually pretty awesome too. I like to ally with a civ that actually hasn't founded a religion; I'll get +10 religious strength for all my apostles against all other religions.

 

[Starwars]

They can be pretty powerful but to me it often just feels like... well, I get even more numbers in my economy. It doesn't really like I actually have a meaningful alliance. But I mean, much of that comes down to the lack of difficulty as well as the way diplomacy works in the game. To me, it most often just feels like another "level" to your civilization rather than a real and important decision. Do I ally with this civilization or not? What are the longterm impacts on the world stage?

Also, I really dislike the renewing alliances thing, especially when you have a few going. Pretty much a UI issue though.

 

[acluewithout]

They can be pretty powerful but to me it often just feels like... well, I get even more numbers in my economy. It doesn't really like I actually have a meaningful alliance. But I mean, much of that comes down to the lack of difficulty as well as the way diplomacy works in the game. To me, it most often just feels like another "level" to your civilization rather than a real and important decision. Do I ally with this civilization or not? What are the longterm impacts on the world stage?

Also, I really dislike the renewing alliances thing, especially when you have a few going. Pretty much a UI issue though.

Agree. Alliances certainly don’t feel Diplomatically meaningful. I feel like the Diplomacy is all about getting the Alliance - once you have it, then that’s it except for all those yields.

Alliances do a good job of making Trade Routes feel more important, just because they really buff those yields. There always good to have. But beyond that, I don’t feel there’s much to consider or weigh up except not being able to directly war with your Ally. They’re good, but quite two dimensional.

 

[leandrombraz]

Like people already said, it needs ways to break an alliance under certain circumstances, specially when they declare war on your suzerainty city states and on your other allies. I should get a chance to take sides and defend one from the other.

I also think achieving a level 3 alliance should give a diplo point. Being directly rewarded in the diplo victory for keeping a long time alliance just make sense and it would give a reason to keep your alliances in late game. To improve this further, it shouldn't take so long to get level 3.

 

[TomeTraveler]

Like people already said, it needs ways to break an alliance under certain circumstances, specially when they declare war on your suzerainty city states and on your other allies. I should get a chance to take sides and defend one from the other.

I also think achieving a level 3 alliance should give a diplo point. Being directly rewarded in the diplo victory for keeping a long time alliance just make sense and it would give a reason to keep your alliances in late game. To improve this further, it shouldn't take so long to get level 3.

I like this idea, except I think that the DP should be subject to the alliance staying active. If you drop out of the alliance, you lose the DP. Actually, I rather like a variation of this, gaining DPs for "faction-building"--a level three alliance between two civilizations is worth one DP, common level three alliances between three civs is two DP to all members, and so on.

 

[bengalryan9]

I do wish alliances tied into the World Congress a lot more than they do.

Right now, the diplomatic victory vote gives the winner 2 DV points. What if the second place finisher in the vote got 1 vote, and having an alliance meant you had to throw X number of votes towards your ally (with the number going up with alliance level)? Having multiple alliances could then help push you up into a second place finish on DV votes you won't win, and would also probably lead to closer races towards diplomatic victory. It could also lead to important decisions - do you want to get as many allies as possible knowing you'll have to spend votes on them, or do you keep one ally so you can spend all of your favor on yourself?

 

[Jkchart]

I just wish we had some way to deal with an ally who attacks a city state you are chummy with. That's the biggest downside to alliances. And if you attack them after it expires you may get a betrayal emergency.

This is my BIGGEST pet peeve. If you're suz of a city state, allies should NOT be able to pick it off. There needs to be some sort of check on this.

Otherwise, they're fine, if a bit weird with the 5 different types...wasn't the biggest fan of that model but I won't lie that I'm a big fan of the cultural one.

 

[tedhebert]

I like them. They add a nice flavor to the game. Of course, I too feel they SHOULD be more linked to the Diplo game, for now they are almost purely economic/trade related. But they really direct a lot of my choices in policy card slotting when I'm not going all out domination.

The point about CS declaring is really the main pet peeve on this. Actually inserted an suggestion on this in the Policy card suggestion thread ;-)

 

[TerryR]

I would imagine that it is almost certainly too late in Civ 6's lifecycle to adjust Alliances in any significant manner, but I would like to see the Mutual Protection Pact aspect adjusted in a major way.

I.e., when I'm allied with A > B declares war on me > A declares war on B, that should not end up being 10 turns of A and B either skirmishing meaninglessly or ignoring one another before they make peace with each other.

One of my favorite things about Civ 3 was the series of interlocking alliances that would develop in the mid/late-game, where there was an almost palpable tension of when (not if) one civ was going to attack another, dragging everyone else into the war. And they ended up being real, consequential wars - with cities being taken, nukes used, etc. It was endlessly entertaining.

This, more than anything, is why I would be in favor of doing away with 1UPT. If the AI can't handle it, then get rid of it so we can have some real wars again.

If Firaxis wanted to release a "World War" expansion, where - similar to emergencies - certain events can trigger a worldwide war against competing alliances, requiring specific goals to be accomplished by either side before the nations can make peace with each other (i.e., not units shuffling around aimlessly for 10 turns) - I think that would be fantastic.

Oh, and Firaxis - if you're listening - please buff the AI to make nukes. A la the Cold War, it would be really interesting to make the modern era a rush to see who can get "The Bomb" (and then the thermonuclear bomb) first.

 

[Jkchart]

I would imagine that it is almost certainly too late in Civ 6's lifecycle to adjust Alliances in any significant manner, but I would like to see the Mutual Protection Pact aspect adjusted in a major way.

I.e., when I'm allied with A > B declares war on me > A declares war on B, that should not end up being 10 turns of A and B either skirmishing meaninglessly or ignoring one another before they make peace with each other.

One of my favorite things about Civ 3 was the series of interlocking alliances that would develop in the mid/late-game, where there was an almost palpable tension of when (not if) one civ was going to attack another, dragging everyone else into the war. And they ended up being real, consequential wars - with cities being taken, nukes used, etc. It was endlessly entertaining.

This, more than anything, is why I would be in favor of doing away with 1UPT. If the AI can't handle it, then get rid of it so we can have some real wars again.

If Firaxis wanted to release a "World War" expansion, where - similar to emergencies - certain events can trigger a worldwide war against competing alliances, requiring specific goals to be accomplished by either side before the nations can make peace with each other (i.e., not units shuffling around aimlessly for 10 turns) - I think that would be fantastic.

Oh, and Firaxis - if you're listening - please buff the AI to make nukes. A la the Cold War, it would be really interesting to make the modern era a rush to see who can get "The Bomb" (and then the thermonuclear bomb) first.

Civ III and IV had some great late game wars, I agree.

 

[bengalryan9]

Oh, and Firaxis - if you're listening - please buff the AI to make nukes. A la the Cold War, it would be really interesting to make the modern era a rush to see who can get "The Bomb" (and then the thermonuclear bomb) first.

I never even mess with them myself just because I know the AI doesn't.

I have seen the AI build them before, though... I was once awarded a free nuke by the world congress when the votes to set everyones WMD to the same amount as the leader came up (I think it was Korea). I didn't build any so the AI had to have built at least one. Using them is a completely different issue, though.

 

[enKage]

I don't like the way alliances / friendship works. In SP you can never build more advanced units than warriors and archers and win the game, just by ensuring you have friendship / alliance with all neighbours. On standard map you can eliminate closest neighbour and ally everyone else, have friendship with remaining one, guaranteeing neverending peace. Even on huge map you can declare friendship with everyone and never have to build even a single swordsman. This is a clear absurd.

The game needs some changes to this aspect of diplomacy, especially:

- fix number of possible alliances to the number of civs in game
- allow war declarations and interventions with civs who declared friendship. It may cost more greviances or whatever, but friendly Zulu should be able and in also in practise should declare wars. Now this nightmare of Civ4 and Civ5 is extremely easy to befriend and ally
- raise the likehood of war declaration and make DoF/alliences harder to obtain, while making them more valuable towards DV
- if your ally declares on tour ally, you should join on defensive side
and so on

In current state of development I declare friendship early with mostly everyone except the civ I want to kill early, then I take alliances to get free visibilty, meet all city states and free circumnavigation from Cree UA and then never sign an alliance except maybe military one or rarely other type to attract traders. Too many alliances is not worth it if it blocks CS emergencies

 

[Victoria]

, it shouldn't take so long to get level 3.

Never seen one, it takes too long to get a lvl2 alliance and the eureka has gone bye.
Of course the worst thing is allies attacking your suzerain state, it’s just wrong.
Beyond that it is the paltry amount of alliance points you can get... a trade route and a card, that’s it.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I like alliance but they are often underwheling except the military one to use during an emergency, or the cultural one if you manage to use it to stop one of your cities loyalty flipping.

 

[Disgustipated]

I wouldn't think the solution would be that difficult regarding allies attacking city states. There should be an option to expend diplomatic favor in exchange for your ally declaring peace (even if less than 10/15 turns) on your city state.

Why have a diplomatic favor currency if you can't use it for things like that. I can think of other things you should be able to use diplomatic favor with your allies. We definitely need more diplomatic options.