I'm confused by the new diplomacy modifiers

[Maniac]

I started a game as Cao Cao. The Emperor unit was right next to one of my unit stacks, so I immediately captured him. As Cao Cao I also have the Unification 'holy city'.

From the Civilopedia I had the impression that controlling the Emperor would have a positive effect on my diplomatic relations. However the only people who are happy that the Emperor 'is on my side', are those who want to Divide China. Those who follow Revival or Unification for instance are angry that the Emperor is on my side. Is this intended? Why is this?

Second thing I don't understand the reason behind it of, is the holy city diplomacy modifier. People who also follow Unification are pissed off at me for controlling the holy city.

This has as a consequence that if I would want to spread my 'state religion' beyond my borders, I'd actually end up with worse diplomatic relations with those people (a -4 relationship penalty). Is this intended? Am I not supposed to spread my Unification belief to other factions for good gameplay and/or roleplay?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Well, that sort of makes sense. Those who want to unify China obviously don't want YOU to unify it and hate you for controlling the shrine they would want for themselves, and those who want it divided would be more than happy for the puppet emperor you're controlling to sanction their separate domains.

However, what I've seen is that it depends on who's running Unification. E.g. as Liu Yao I founded Unification and it spread automatically to Sun Ce my neighbor. (The no-settler map has no built-in bad blood between the two of them) In the end he was friendly to me and the only negative modifiers were proximity and shrine control.

 

[Kenjister]

The belief system works pretty much opposite to regular CIV. Most of it is fairly intuitive as AP pointed out. Typically everyone will hate you for controlling the emperor, with the exception of Division (and Revival, if you're running Revival). The fastest way to get allies is to convert everyone to Revival while you control the emperor, that combo gives some serious positive modifiers.

Generally, all Unification guys will hate each other, though not simply due to religion. The map setup has alot to do with it too.
If you haven't already, reading the novels, or reading up on Wikipedia, will put things in a very helpful perspective.

 

[Maniac]

Well, that sort of makes sense. Those who want to unify China obviously don't want YOU to unify it and hate you for controlling the shrine they would want for themselves

With that justification it would make more sense to me if all Unification followers hated all other Unification followers, not just the one who has the shrine.

Given this, what is the benefit of being a Unifier though? I'd say the Unification Advisor Mansion is the best of all available Mansions, so one could argue that's the compensation for the diplomatic penalties you get. Still, I'm wondering if that's what the designers intended. Is stmartin around??

and those who want it divided would be more than happy for the puppet emperor you're controlling to sanction their separate domains.

That would make sense if a Division guy controls the Emperor, but I'm Unification. Surely roleplaywise I'm signalling all those Dividers I want to conquer rather than sanction their domains?

However, what I've seen is that it depends on who's running Unification. E.g. as Liu Yao I founded Unification and it spread automatically to Sun Ce my neighbor. (The no-settler map has no built-in bad blood between the two of them) In the end he was friendly to me and the only negative modifiers were proximity and shrine control.

That's no different from what I described.

Most of it is fairly intuitive as AP pointed out.

I don't find it intuitive. Help!

Typically everyone will hate you for controlling the emperor, with the exception of Division (and Revival, if you're running Revival).

So is controlling the Emperor intended to be a bad thing for a Unification guy?? What is Cao Cao supposed to do when he comes across the Emperor right upon starting the scenario?

If you haven't already, reading the novels, or reading up on Wikipedia, will put things in a very helpful perspective.

I once read the first chapter of RotTK, but I found it written in a very boring way. Sorry. Does anyone know where to watch the TV series with English subtitles?

I would hope though that this mod would be playable even for people with only limited knowledge of the era. Which leads me to another question: IIRC I've read that there are lots of hidden relationship modifiers between leaders. Is that true? If so, I wonder what's the reasoning behind hiding that information from the player? People who are familiar with the era will know who to expect as an enemy anyway, but n00bs will not understand why they are being attacked by someone.

 

[Kenjister]

Well, I agree that all the Unification leaders should dislike each other more, but it can be generally rationalized as people tending to like those with similar goals. There definitely should be more eminity between them though.

The Emperor IS supposed to be bad diplomatically for the Unification player. Basically you're using him as a puppet. Those who don't care about the legitimacy of the central gov't (Division) don't mind, and support it since they could recive saction as AP pointed out. Sun Quan of Wu did something very similar with recieving the Nine Bestowments. Still the Emperor controlling player gets a 10% value bonus on any trade they make, and the AI sees an inflated power rating. On the other hand, they also see you as a prime target and usually hate you.

As for Cao Cao, it's what happened historically, so I guess you're stuck with the Emperor.

There are no specific hidden diplo modifiers specifically for each leader, but there are hidden modifiers between players in different power bands. For example, the weaker nations will generally remain wary toward a more powerful one due to these modifiers. Weaker nations also recieve positive modifiers toward eachother. Those are typically easy to remember, and also don't amount to much in the big picture.
Leaders do get diplo modifiers against eachother based on historical background, but those are not hidden, and are either -5 or -10, making them very important.

Historical knowledge is not really required to enjoy the mod. All the information you need on people and techs are all in the pedia. What makes it even more interesting however is knowing what events happened historically, so you can put your games in perspective.
You might want to take another crack at the novel though, the writing generally seems to get better as the book progresses. I don't know what translation you have though.

 

[stmartin]

All these modifier stuff is my intention, Maniac

Most of the reasons behind these choices are already outlined by AP and Kenjister. The reasons are primarily role-playing, with little balance concern, so game-play wise, it means some belief will do slightly better in diplomacy. Well, not that much.

For some slight off-topic information, we are finalizing the design of HoTK. One part of this design is there will be Belief Victory. Each Belief type will have a unique victory condition. A revised emperor system is also on the list. So we probably will see some changes to how belief and emperor works in the game. After all, these things in their current form are first designed when we do not understand Civ4 engine that well, about a year ago.

 

[admtanaka]

All these modifier stuff is my intention, Maniac

Most of the reasons behind these choices are already outlined by AP and Kenjister. The reasons are primarily role-playing, with little balance concern, so game-play wise, it means some belief will do slightly better in diplomacy. Well, not that much.

For some slight off-topic information, we are finalizing the design of HoTK. One part of this design is there will be Belief Victory. Each Belief type will have a unique victory condition. A revised emperor system is also on the list. So we probably will see some changes to how belief and emperor works in the game. After all, these things in their current form are first designed when we do not understand Civ4 engine that well, about a year ago.

I couldn't agree more with changing the victory conditions. Please, please, please, though make one that the AI will bother pursuing (it will probably have to be some form of a "builder" victory), because otherwise other civs seem more like obstacles than competing forces.

 

[Maniac]

Thanks for your reply!

The reasons are primarily role-playing, with little balance concern, so game-play wise, it means some belief will do slightly better in diplomacy. Well, not that much.

I don't think gameplay and roleplay need to be at odds. My design philosophy is that good roleplay should at the same time be good gameplay, and vice versa. There's nothing wrong with Unification being worse for diplomacy, as long as there are other gameplay reasons why Unification is the best Belief under certain situations. For instance the Advisor Mansion being better. (Is the Unification Advisor Mansion being better also intended?) A better Advisor Mansion would lead Unification players to want to conquer cities more than the other Beliefs want to (so they can build as many Advisor Mansions as possible). Seems fitting for a Unification player.

 

[Kenjister]

I've always thought that the Unification and the Revival Advisor Mansions were better for large empires on purpose. It always seemed fitting to me.