CaiusDrewart
King
I'd say that Civ VI has the framework in place for a stronger diplomatic system than Civ V. Agendas are a good idea that adds individuality and flavor to AIs and creates gameplay decisions for the player. I love the idea behind Casus Belli and warmonger penalty--in the early game, you can do whatever you want without repercussion, but as diplomatic institutions formalize, you'll need to start justifying your actions to the other Civs. A really cool idea. I also like the fact that you can see exactly what the modifiers are, and therefore make strategic decisions based on them. So there's some good stuff to work with here, even if the diplomatic game plays pretty terribly at the moment.
I'm not sure I like the decision to make modifiers accumulate over time, but I'll focus on making minor tweaks here, not completely overhauling the system. One big problem is that right now, it's too hard to make friends.
1. Cut the warmonger penalty in half. I'm tempted to get rid of it altogether, but as I said, I like its interaction with Casus Belli. But right now, it's way too punitive. Conquering a couple cities in the Middle Ages makes you universally reviled. I would also simply get rid of the "Egregious" warmonger penalty. There's no need for that. Also, I know there's some thematic value to it, but get rid of the triple warmonger penalty for razing cities. Sometimes I want to move a really dumb AI settle one tile in some direction, and I shouldn't have to become universally reviled for doing that. It's not like you want to raze cities that often in Civ VI anyway.
2. Reduce the "different governments" penalty in the earlier eras. This is a really strong modifier throughout the game, even though statistically there's little chance you're going to be in the same government as most AIs. I don't mind this being a big deal in the modern eras, where it can act as a mini-version of the ideologies of Civ V. I'd go with something like -2 for Classical era governments, -4 for Renaissance, -10 for Modern.
3. Add an option to ask an AI to call off an attack on a city-state or another AI. It's nice that I can ask the AI not to settle near me or not to convert my cities, but I hate that, unless I want to declare war, I can't do anything when AIs expand at the expense of my friends. It would be nice to be able to ask an AI to knock it off. If you have a strong military and/or if the AI values your friendship, they might agree.
4. Add a "For the Sake of Honor" Casus Belli if an AI breaks a promise to you. This would be a pretty robust CB, basically eliminating warmonger penalties for that war. It goes along nicely with the more vigorous set of discussion options I talked about above. I'd want to make this available pretty early. Maybe at Military Tradition.
5. Add a "Vital Interests" Casus Belli if an AI refuses your requests. So you have a fallback if the AI won't agree. This one would not be nearly as strong as above, maybe just cutting warmonger penalties in half. I'd probably make this available at Military Tradition, too.
6. Make the AI less sensitive about border movements. The -3 penalty for moving troops near their borders triggers way, way too easily. One warrior exploring 5 tiles away from the AI's border is enough. That's ridiculous. Furthermore, units within your own borders should never set off an AI request to move your troops away. Right now they do.
7. Make it more clear when the AI demands tribute or asks for help. Right now, I think the AI does do both of these things. The problem is that it looks like they're just offering a normal trade deal, just without you giving anything. The game needs to make it clear through dialogue when the AI is doing either of these things.
8. Make agendas a bit more flexible. I think the idea behind agendas is pretty good, but it's frustrating how inflexible they are. I was in an absurd situation in my last game where I was isolated with Gorgo. I hadn't met any city-states or any other civs. Nonetheless, Gorgo was mad at me for not declaring war. I had no one to declare war on except her! Kongo getting mad at you for not spreading your religion to him on the same turn that you founded your religion is another example. The AI needs to be programmed to only get mad if the player had a reasonable opportunity to fulfill the agenda.
Furthermore, I think the agenda system could use some tiers. For example, I believe that as currently programmed, Montezuma hates you the same amount whether you have one luxury he doesn't or whether you have three. This seems like an agenda that would work much better if Montezuma hated you progressively more for each luxury, eventually building all the way up to the -12 modifier. Ditto for Frederick Barbarossa and city-states; becoming suzerain of one city-state should only mildly irritate him, but becoming suzerain of three should really set him off.
I'd welcome thoughts on my suggestions, and any further suggestions you might have to make Civ VI diplomacy better.
I'm not sure I like the decision to make modifiers accumulate over time, but I'll focus on making minor tweaks here, not completely overhauling the system. One big problem is that right now, it's too hard to make friends.
1. Cut the warmonger penalty in half. I'm tempted to get rid of it altogether, but as I said, I like its interaction with Casus Belli. But right now, it's way too punitive. Conquering a couple cities in the Middle Ages makes you universally reviled. I would also simply get rid of the "Egregious" warmonger penalty. There's no need for that. Also, I know there's some thematic value to it, but get rid of the triple warmonger penalty for razing cities. Sometimes I want to move a really dumb AI settle one tile in some direction, and I shouldn't have to become universally reviled for doing that. It's not like you want to raze cities that often in Civ VI anyway.
2. Reduce the "different governments" penalty in the earlier eras. This is a really strong modifier throughout the game, even though statistically there's little chance you're going to be in the same government as most AIs. I don't mind this being a big deal in the modern eras, where it can act as a mini-version of the ideologies of Civ V. I'd go with something like -2 for Classical era governments, -4 for Renaissance, -10 for Modern.
3. Add an option to ask an AI to call off an attack on a city-state or another AI. It's nice that I can ask the AI not to settle near me or not to convert my cities, but I hate that, unless I want to declare war, I can't do anything when AIs expand at the expense of my friends. It would be nice to be able to ask an AI to knock it off. If you have a strong military and/or if the AI values your friendship, they might agree.
4. Add a "For the Sake of Honor" Casus Belli if an AI breaks a promise to you. This would be a pretty robust CB, basically eliminating warmonger penalties for that war. It goes along nicely with the more vigorous set of discussion options I talked about above. I'd want to make this available pretty early. Maybe at Military Tradition.
5. Add a "Vital Interests" Casus Belli if an AI refuses your requests. So you have a fallback if the AI won't agree. This one would not be nearly as strong as above, maybe just cutting warmonger penalties in half. I'd probably make this available at Military Tradition, too.
6. Make the AI less sensitive about border movements. The -3 penalty for moving troops near their borders triggers way, way too easily. One warrior exploring 5 tiles away from the AI's border is enough. That's ridiculous. Furthermore, units within your own borders should never set off an AI request to move your troops away. Right now they do.
7. Make it more clear when the AI demands tribute or asks for help. Right now, I think the AI does do both of these things. The problem is that it looks like they're just offering a normal trade deal, just without you giving anything. The game needs to make it clear through dialogue when the AI is doing either of these things.
8. Make agendas a bit more flexible. I think the idea behind agendas is pretty good, but it's frustrating how inflexible they are. I was in an absurd situation in my last game where I was isolated with Gorgo. I hadn't met any city-states or any other civs. Nonetheless, Gorgo was mad at me for not declaring war. I had no one to declare war on except her! Kongo getting mad at you for not spreading your religion to him on the same turn that you founded your religion is another example. The AI needs to be programmed to only get mad if the player had a reasonable opportunity to fulfill the agenda.
Furthermore, I think the agenda system could use some tiers. For example, I believe that as currently programmed, Montezuma hates you the same amount whether you have one luxury he doesn't or whether you have three. This seems like an agenda that would work much better if Montezuma hated you progressively more for each luxury, eventually building all the way up to the -12 modifier. Ditto for Frederick Barbarossa and city-states; becoming suzerain of one city-state should only mildly irritate him, but becoming suzerain of three should really set him off.
I'd welcome thoughts on my suggestions, and any further suggestions you might have to make Civ VI diplomacy better.
Last edited:
