I publicly denounce you for:

[Mr. Grieves]

Hey guys,

Currently, I tend to use the denouncement mechanic in Civ V sparingly, because even though you will receive a diplo bonus with others that have denounced the same civ, it seems to have little to no consequences otherwise.

At other times, civs, even those I've never trolled and been friends with for most of the game, will just denounce me if I'm getting close to a particular victory condition. While late-game wars definitely make the end game less predictable, it seems silly that civs can denounce you for being evil, just because they don't like you.

I suggest expanding the denouncement mechanic, to having to supply a reason why you're denouncing said civ. Denouncing someone, like it is now, will always incur a diplo penalty with them, but will also have a second or third effect, depending on the accusation.

I am definitely not advocating to introduce convoluted role-playing elements to Civ, but I do think the game would benefit from more dynamic considerations in diplomacy, especially in the late game.

A few suggestions:

Publicly denounce ... for:

Exercising unprovoked violence against: Diplo penalty with attacker, diplo bonus with defender, raises friendly Civs' likeliness to DOW besieger. Does not apply to civs who view you or the defender as a warmonger.

Attacking a City-State under our protection: Diplo penalty with attacker, +15 City-State influence.

Breaking a signed trade agreement Diplo penalty with infractor. Lowers friendly civs' likeliness to trade luxuries etc. with the denounced civ. Becomes available if civ DOWs when at least one trade agreement is in place.

Secretly plotting against: Diplo penalty with schemer, diplo bonus with civ that’s plotted against. Becomes available if spy uncovers intrigue, or if civ offers to declare joint war against targeted civ.

Committing war crimes against: Severe diplo penalty with accused civ, all friendly civs’ esteem of accused civ drops significantly. War crimes are: wiping a civ off the map, killing but not stealing a civilian unit, razing a city, and using a nuclear weapon to target an urban center.

Adhering to a condemnable ideology Large diplo penalty with all supporters of the denounced ideology, diplo bonus with all civs who share your ideology.

Perhaps this system could replace the current situation, where everybody magically knows about every war on the planet. Diplomatically-inclined players could try to expose warmongers, while making friends in the process. On the other hand, players waiting for the others to weaken each other before attacking themselves, could try to muffle things up.

I don't think you should be able to accuse a civ falsely, (apart from the last suggestion, which would exist primarily to fuel 'world wars' in the end game) so hostilities would need to have been witnessed by a unit, before you can denounce an attacker for being a warmonger. This would buff America with their +1 vision, making them more of a 'world police' of sorts. You could denounce someone for attacking you unprovoked, but this will only fly with civs that do not view you as a warmonger.

What do you guys think?

 

[Mr. Grieves]

Two other reasons for denouncing come to mind:

Treachery Diplo penalty with traitor. Enemy spy and diplomat effectiveness -50% until their next era, spies no longer die upon capture. Becomes available if enemy spy is captured attempting to steal a technology, or if civ backstabs with a DoF in place.

Piracy Diplo penalty with offending player. Friendly civs are far less likely to allow open borders with accused civ. Becomes available if civ pillages a sea resource improvement or sea-based trade route.

 

[CaptainPatch]

This approach would take a single mechanic (Denouncing) and break it into several categories. Instead of just seeing who was Denounced and by who, now it would show _why_ the civ was Denounced. If the Denounced civ was a particularly nasty piece of work, e.g., Attila and the Huns, every other civ could be Denouncing the Huns several times. What would be added to the game that a Denounced civ had been Denounced 56 times by 9 civs? Now, instead of just knowing all 9 civs dislike the Huns, you'd have to sort through the mass to see that Civ A disliked the Huns for _these_ reasons, but not for _those_ other reasons that Civs B, D, and G stipulated, while Civ F had Denounced for one reason that no one else thought was worth commenting on. Too much fuss for what at present boils down to, "We don't like you."

 

[Mr. Grieves]

Atilla probably wouldn't be denounced 56 times, though. Crimes would either have to committed to the civ, or in the civ's line of sight in order for them being able to denounce. That's until the late mid-game, when ideologies come into play. Personally, I think that's exactly when we need a lot more aggression from the AI.

What I think it would add is a layer of strategic depth, trying to figure out wether a denounced civ really is a nasty piece of work, or is being set up by someone else. Isolationist and warmongering players could ignore the diplomatic aspects as much as they have, since they probably couldn't care less about who's saying mean things about whom. They'll just have more killing to do.

 

[kaspergm]

This approach would take a single mechanic (Denouncing) and break it into several categories. Instead of just seeing who was Denounced and by who, now it would show _why_ the civ was Denounced. If the Denounced civ was a particularly nasty piece of work, e.g., Attila and the Huns, every other civ could be Denouncing the Huns several times. What would be added to the game that a Denounced civ had been Denounced 56 times by 9 civs? Now, instead of just knowing all 9 civs dislike the Huns, you'd have to sort through the mass to see that Civ A disliked the Huns for _these_ reasons, but not for _those_ other reasons that Civs B, D, and G stipulated, while Civ F had Denounced for one reason that no one else thought was worth commenting on. Too much fuss for what at present boils down to, "We don't like you."

I'm very much confused here, because I see you listing all the reasons why I'm for this idea, and have been advocating for it many times, yet you seem to come to the conclusion that it's a bad idea based on those observations ... or am I misreading your post?

Anyway, like I said, this is a very big wish of mine. I hate how you can just throw around denunciations of civs with absolutely no reason. First of all, it can be exploited by a player to give a civ negative modifiers with other civs with whom it has done nothing wrong, potentially leading to chain-denunciations and chain-dow's for no reason other than someone finding it opportune to denounce the target, and that imo. is bad for gameplay and immersion. Secondly, I hate how AI throws around denunciations every other moment, often for no other reason than being sulky over falling behind your advances. Not only is it silly and again breaks immersion, it also often disrupts any chance of meaningful diplomatic relations, because any coalition of three or more players will soon fall apart when AI start denouncing the other AI's within their own coalition.

Imo. reasons for denunciation should be:

• Unprovoked DoW (would require some sort of casus belli system to also be introduced)
• Promising something and then doing it anyway (spying, spreading religion, settling, buying land)
• Attacking a city state under someones protection
• Razing cities
• Using nukes on cities (I like this suggestion from OP)
• Converting a holy city to another religion (cities owner can denounce)
• Attacking someone you have DoF with
• Paying someone to go to war with a third party (if discovered through espionage - would have to be an option)

Imo. adopting another ideology should not be grounds for denunciation - there is already one (major) negative modifier for that, and that is enough.

 

[CaptainPatch]

I agree that the way Denunciations are done is unreasonable, but I don't think approach would be any kind of improvement on the situation. The proposal would require an Excel spreadsheet just to see which civs have Denounced a given civs, plus list all of the different reasons for which it was Denounced. In a word, cumbersome.

What really needs to happen is to have Denunciations reworked so that there are some very real consequences, for both whoever is doing the Denouncing and whoever is being Denounced. At present, the ONLY consequence to a Denouncer is that he takes a hit from the target and the target's _civ_ Friends and Allies. (No surprise whatsoever.) Others that also Denounced the target might even award a minor Diplo plus. Overall, big whoop-de-doo. There is literally ZERO effect for either party on the (up to 41) City States minor nations, who _also_ have to interact with both Denouncer and target.

And, programmers, Denouncing a civ just because it's winning? Such an aspersion is transparent as to why it was made, and so would have negligible effect (other than to make the Denouncer look pathetic).

 

[Mr. Grieves]

But I love getting denounced, just because I'm winning the game. Only once in a blue moon do civs actually attack now, after you've caught up to the other players in tech and military might. On Emperor at least. I could consider upping my difficulty level, but I don't fully get the appeal of letting the AI have a free settler and a free everything, right from the start of the game.

The part I don't like is that we get the same generic ... got denounced by ... message if someone's a warmonger, very zealous with their missionaries, a backstabber, broke a border promise etc. etc. It'd be great if all the autocrats would band together and go: wow, player 1's already at least influential with every civ. What? he believes in democracy? Okay, he's dead now. But if they were to do so, they would have to do so transparently, which would give the player a chance to create a freedom alliance himself.

No Excel sheet btw, just an added tooltip maybe?

Denounced by Byzantium

Spoiler :

for
Treachery
Plotting against Byzantium and The Netherlands

 

[Ll1442]

I agree that the way Denunciations are done is unreasonable, but I don't think approach would be any kind of improvement on the situation. The proposal would require an Excel spreadsheet just to see which civs have Denounced a given civs, plus list all of the different reasons for which it was Denounced. In a word, cumbersome.

I actually think it could be done, along with that fine display from one of the earlier civs, where all civs are lined to one another with color codes etc. making it much easier than that scrolling and having to look so many different places.

 

[Hilton1]

Sounds good to me. By more explicitly linking the player's actions to his/her relations with the AI it would give the impression of a more responsive AI and clarify the reasoning for some denunciations which can be hard to understand.
I also like OP's concept of denouncing rival ideologies leading to the build up of an ideological world war; a relatively easy game mechanic to implement, with the potential to add an extra bit of tension and depth to the late game.

 

[MrBlobby]

This idea wouldn't be complete without the ability to denounce someone for lying (obviously this option can only be done in RETURN)

P1: "I'm denouncing you for building nuclear weapons!"
P2: "What nuclear weapons?"

Cold war, anyone?

 

[otaman1]

Expansionist - Settling cities near the player's border even when promised to not settle close to the player.
Religiousness - Converting player's cities into another religion when promised to not convert player's cities.
Just For You - Can denounce Attila, Montezuma, Genghis, and Shaka for no diplo hit.

 

[Callonia]

I like this thread, its something I want for Civ5.

I want to purview long long long list of misdeeds that Gandhi has done before I met him. Would be fun xD

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Seems like a decent idea at first, but what is the practical reason for it? Usually, we can tell the reason for the denouncement, just by watching what is going on. Also, it has the same effect regardless. Seems like it would have no practical value, and just add more stuff to keep track of.

 

[Jampine]

I think this would be a good idea, so why can know why your neighbors are hating each other, and adjust if needed. Also, I get the feeling this may reduce warmonger hate towards the player, as the AI will now understand WHY we're attacking the others. Look, if Austria is popping cities four tiles from my cap, and religion bombing me 24/7 and won't stop no mater how nicely I ask, or how much cheesecake or offer them, maybe I do have a right to clobber them? But alas, everyone seems to side with the snidey cvis :/

 

[Mr. Grieves]

Seems like a decent idea at first, but what is the practical reason for it? Usually, we can tell the reason for the denouncement, just by watching what is going on. Also, it has the same effect regardless. Seems like it would have no practical value, and just add more stuff to keep track of.

Well, for example: In my last culture game, Gustav Adolf DOWed me a total of three times. I started growing so tired of him, I paid him to backstab Byzantium - and denounced him right after - in the hopes of him getting chain denounced. This partially backfired because, amusingly, Austria immediately jumped in and ran Theo over. However, everybody else still started hating his guts.

If Gusty were able to denounce me for plotting against Byzantium, all civs friendly with him, including Theodora, would have realized I was setting him up. He actually denounced me a few turns later, but there was nobody who took that seriously. For one, I think this mechanic would provide some risk to making sneaky DOW deals and such. It's basically always a beneficial thing to do now.

 

[Mr. Grieves]

Just For You - Can denounce Attila, Montezuma, Genghis, and Shaka for no diplo hit.

Haha, Shaka's really not that bad in my experience. As long as he doesn't get close enough to GG bomb you for the lolz anyway. He's actually very loyal if you give him something pretty once in a while, and he'll pretty much DOW anyone you want him to for like 3 gold and a horse. Sweden and Japan are really obnoxiously backstabby on the other hand though xD