Idle threats?

[Ashmantious]

It seems like towards the end of each game, I always have at least one civ in the game (usually more) who don't like me and have denounced me. Often after the denouncement, they will come to me with a demand. I never give it to them and they always respond with "I may have to resort to other means" and yet... they never do. Has anyone had another civ DOW on them after turning down their demand? Conversely, has anyone ever had a civ capitulate and give in to a demand you have foisted on them?

 

[kaspergm]

No, it seems like they didn't bother programming that part ...

 

[Siddharth Venkatesh]

This is a reason I've started fully killing civs that I war. It's so annoying when a civ with one city left and no army spams demands at you. I know there's a diplomatic penalty to killing a civ entirely but I'd rather deal with that than deal with the demand spam. Of course this just makes other civs spam demands at you sometimes so I wish this could be changed.

I seem to remember that at some point, agreeing to demands would only make the AI's hate you more. I wonder if that issue has been fixed. I never accept any demands so I have no idea.

 

[Socrates99]

It's dumb. I'd like to at least see it limited only to civs with higher military scores than you. Otherwise it's just a nuisance.

 

[MrRadar]

yep, just another complete time-waster. And even if they followed up with a DOW, who cares? It is only helpless Civ VI AI, after all. It is not that you'd be risking to see a SoD five turns later to cave your head in, like in Civ IV.

 

[AriochIV]

The demands are perhaps the most useless and annoying recent addition. Whether you refuse the demand or give in to it doesn't seem to have any significant impact on the relationship, so it's just a nuisance.

 

[Vargas1]

I don't know that I've ever complied with a demand, but I have had a few instances where the AI will agree to a demand. I haven't seen any rhyme or reason as to why they do or not, though maybe is based on military strength. I usually only issue demands when I'm trying to provoke the AI into declaring war on me, though I haven't seen any indication that is actually effective in doing so.

 

[James_Champagne]

Is it just me, or does it seem like now when other civs denounce you/make demands, they never stop? It's like in the past when I would go to war the other civs would usually denounce/make demands, but after things would cool down... but in the game I'm playing now I find I've pretty much been getting denounced by almost every other civ like clockwork every 30 turns, with no change...

 

[Socrates99]

Is it just me, or does it seem like now when other civs denounce you/make demands, they never stop? It's like in the past when I would go to war the other civs would usually denounce/make demands, but after things would cool down... but in the game I'm playing now I find I've pretty much been getting denounced by almost every other civ like clockwork every 30 turns, with no change...

Check out how much grievance other civs have towards you. Its "cooled down" when those are gone. At that point you should only get one or two bothersome leaders that "just plain don't like you."

 

[Chekko]

Last game I finished I had Alexander spam me with demands yet he did absolutely nothing. I think its just a text. They may declare war later but I don’t think that text will trigger some timer for declaring war or something.

 

[Arithmion]

This is a reason I've started fully killing civs that I war. It's so annoying when a civ with one city left and no army spams demands at you. I know there's a diplomatic penalty to killing a civ entirely but I'd rather deal with that than deal with the demand spam. Of course this just makes other civs spam demands at you sometimes so I wish this could be changed.

I seem to remember that at some point, agreeing to demands would only make the AI's hate you more. I wonder if that issue has been fixed. I never accept any demands so I have no idea.

FWIW there is a mod that changes this, but it will prevent achievements while it's active I believe. It's something like "Stop asking" or "Stop talking" or something like that. It doesn't change the AI behavior, so don't worry, you're not "cheating" or going against the spirit of the game or anything. It literally just increases the cooldown between their trade requests and demands and whatnot. Just physically prevents the AI from asking the question. Not sure if it's still being updated, but worth a look.

 

[topsecret]

I wish it was like in Civ4:
Refusing gave a negative penalty in attitude.
Agreeing gave a boost in attitude.
Refusing when weaker risked war on the spot.
War on the spot in Civ4 was dangerous.

 

[Victoria]

The entire threat thing in civ does little.
and a threat only works with an army so I walk up to their borders with a big army and say give me gold and they offer me 150 gold. The trouble is I look over their sholder and see they have at least 3 mines and think I have an army, even if I do not take the cities I can pillage more than they are offering and the grievances will be gone soon enough.
The full screen spamming of threats and pointless trades is one of the most annoying things in civ.

 

[Socrates99]

It's just half baked isn't it? Like they were going for something but didn't get there and just left it as is.

topsectret's post reminds me how much I hated that feature in IV because it wasn't just enemies that made demands in IV. You often had to pay "tribute" just to keep the friends you had. I hated that even more than VI's meaningless spam. Being reminded of that, I really am not sure I like the idea of adding relationship modifiers to demands. It can really start to annoy in the opposite direction.

Normally the negativity kind of drives me away from these forums but in this case it's totally deserved.

 

[MrRadar]

It's just half baked isn't it? Like they were going for something but didn't get there and just left it as is.

topsectret's post reminds me how much I hated that feature in IV because it wasn't just enemies that made demands in IV. You often had to pay "tribute" just to keep the friends you had. I hated that even more than VI's meaningless spam.

But in Civ IV threats make you stop and think: what friends do I choose, need or am able to make, what enemies can I afford to have? You have to engage with the AI in quite meaningful relationships, and you also could demand and receive some small freebies in return or even get them just so.

In VI these threats feel as some leftover, with the sting completely removed. If there's no sting left, remove the whole feature as well. Threats can be frustrating, but empty threats over and over are nigh on infuriating because of pointlessness.

Sometimes I wish there was an option to send a "Mortal Offence" to the AI, at a cost of, let's say, 1000 DF, and with customizable text, which would cause the target AI to immediately declare war on the player and fight to the death, with no peace option. That would be better than clicking away "Refuse" again and again

 

[topsecret]

It's just half baked isn't it? Like they were going for something but didn't get there and just left it as is.

topsectret's post reminds me how much I hated that feature in IV because it wasn't just enemies that made demands in IV. You often had to pay "tribute" just to keep the friends you had. I hated that even more than VI's meaningless spam. Being reminded of that, I really am not sure I like the idea of adding relationship modifiers to demands. It can really start to annoy in the opposite direction.

Normally the negativity kind of drives me away from these forums but in this case it's totally deserved.

I'm not in favor of request spam. I even have a mod on IV where you can ask the AI to stop asking you questions.

However, I think there's something to be said for demands that, refused, will always lead to war, especially if the AI is dangerous and more competent at it.
Basically: threats should be threating, but not annoying or spammy.

 

[Socrates99]

But in Civ IV threats make you stop and think: what friends do I choose, need or am able to make, what enemies can I afford to have? You have to engage with the AI in quite meaningful relationships, and you also could demand and receive some small freebies in return or even get them just so.

In VI these threats feel as some leftover, with the sting completely removed. If there's no sting left, remove the whole feature as well. Threats can be frustrating, but empty threats over and over are nigh on infuriating because of pointlessness.

Sometimes I wish there was an option to send a "Mortal Offence" to the AI, at a cost of, let's say, 1000 DF, and with customizable text, which would cause the target AI to immediately declare war on the player and fight to the death, with no peace option. That would be better than clicking away "Refuse" again and again

Sorry, just always hated the idea that to keep friends I needed to pay out. Trades would have been better. I'm not a rose coloured goggles guy who thinks IV was superior in every way. You're trying to paint an equally stupid mechanic in a positive light.

I'm not in favor of request spam. I even have a mod on IV where you can ask the AI to stop asking you questions.

However, I think there's something to be said for demands that, refused, will always lead to war, especially if the AI is dangerous and more competent at it.
Basically: threats should be threating, but not annoying or spammy.

That's why I think it should be tied to a pointy sticks number and only trigger if the one demanding tribute actually poses a threat.

 

[topsecret]

That's why I think it should be tied to a pointy sticks number and only trigger if the one demanding tribute actually poses a threat.

Exactly!

 

[MrRadar]

Sorry, just always hated the idea that to keep friends I needed to pay out. Trades would have been better. I'm not a rose coloured goggles guy who thinks IV was superior in every way. You're trying to paint an equally stupid mechanic in a positive light.

You may call it stupid, but in IV it results in far more engaging diplomacy than in Civ VI case. Small gifts do help friendship thrive, after all

That's why I think it should be tied to a pointy sticks number and only trigger if the one demanding tribute actually poses a threat.

Again, if only this and nothing else would be changed, I can guarantee you that hardly ever you would feel the need to accept a demand from Civ VI AI on any difficulty, because Civ VI AI would still not be capable to follow up in any credible way. It would be just as pointless as it is now. It is better to do away with it entirely in such a case.

 

[Socrates99]

You may call it stupid, but in IV it results in far more engaging diplomacy than in Civ VI case. Small gifts do help friendship thrive, after all


Again, if only this and nothing else would be changed, I can guarantee you that hardly ever you would feel the need to accept a demand from Civ VI AI on any difficulty, because Civ VI AI would still not be capable to follow up in any credible way. It would be just as pointless as it is now. It is better to do away with it entirely in such a case.

It was dumb, not engaging whatsoever. Sorry.

Also I get what you're saying about the threat the AI poses but at bare minimum it'd make sense. I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd pay a danegeld type payment to avoid mucking around in a war when trying to play peaceful.