New First Look: Machiavelli

[stealth_nsk]

Well, levying a ship near a vulnerable Treasure fleet will surely be the norm with Machiavel...

This strategy will probably be called Machialevy

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Machiavelli is going to be the leader that backstabs you to steal your Treasure Fleets

Do you have to be at war with someone to steal their Treasure Fleet?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Do you have to be at war with someone to steal their Treasure Fleet?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Do you have to be at war with someone to steal their Treasure Fleet?

Per the Exploration Livestream, yes

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Per the Exploration Livestream, yes

Though keep in mind that Machiavelli has reduced penalties for sudden wars.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Though keep in mind that Machiavelli has reduced penalties for sudden wars.

Yep. It's as if the AI is programmed to just accept perfidity from Machiavelli as normal for him.

 

[Leucarum]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a privateer or similar unit that can attack without dearing war

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'd expect something like that to be an Independent Power kind of a thing.

 

[Leucarum]

However they work it, some mechanism to disrupt trade without declaring all-out war feels like it has a place in exploration

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

And ideally, it won’t disappear during Modern!

 

[stealth_nsk]

However they work it, some mechanism to disrupt trade without declaring all-out war feels like it has a place in exploration

It could be done through Privateer unit, for example

 

[Krikkit1]

Yep. It's as if the AI is programmed to just accept perfidity from Machiavelli as normal for him.

War penalties are Gameplay penalties not AI behavior penalties. Machiavelli can declare a “no penalty surprise war” on the human player exactly the same as on an AI player.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

And ideally, it won’t disappear during Modern!

Well, we do know this is a Modern Age ship(from @AriochIV )

This is a Xebec, and we have seen it before in Civ 6 as the Barbary Corsair. This particular version dates to the 1700s and was particularly popular with North African pirates.

I imagine some would take it as Ottomans proof, although I'd expect them to have Janissaries instead. My thinking is that it's a city-state suzerainty unique.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

War penalties are Gameplay penalties not AI behavior penalties. Machiavelli can declare a “no penalty surprise war” on the human player exactly the same as on an AI player.

The penalty is supposed to reflect disapproval. If Machiavelli has less penalty and less disapproval, it's as if the AI just expects him to betray them.

 

[Krikkit1]

The penalty is supposed to reflect disapproval. If Machiavelli has less penalty and less disapproval, it's as if the AI just expects him to betray them.

It means the little simulated civ citizens expect it (the war penalties are things like happiness/influence…the actual AI players react no differently to Machiavelli betraying them than human players do)

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

The penalty is supposed to reflect disapproval. If Machiavelli has less penalty and less disapproval, it's as if the AI just expects him to betray them.

Reaction from the AI to any other leader declaring a war :
"How dare you attack us, this is intolerable!"

Reaction from the AI to Machiavel declaring a war :
"Ho, it's you? Hey man, what happened, I was expecting you 10 years ago, you could warn me when you are late..."

 

[Krikkit1]

The penalty is supposed to reflect disapproval. If Machiavelli has less penalty and less disapproval, it's as if the AI just expects him to betray them.

Not the AI disapproving, the AIs "people" disapproving. (just like the human player's "people" disapproving)

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

This is because the entire world has read his book, so they get it.

 

[AriochIV]

Ed Beach was specifically asked about being able to attack Treasure Fleets without declaring war, and he said they didn't have that in the game. While that's not the same as Trade Ships, it would be odd to have one and not the other.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Ed Beach was specifically asked about being able to attack Treasure Fleets without declaring war, and he said they didn't have that in the game. While that's not the same as Trade Ships, it would be odd to have one and not the other.

And, being Civ Fanatics, we can always argue that he:

1. Could have meant "not in the base game" but it is in one of the first DLCs OR

2. It is not for everyone, but certain Leaders/Civs/IPs can do it (Here's looking at you, IP Port Royale . . .) OR

3. You cannot 'attack' Treasure Fleets, but you can 'pirate' them, which is a different mechanic. Some antics are semantics. OR

4. It's not in the game because the game hasn't officially been released yet: that doesn't say anything about what WILL be in the game upon release. OR

Pick your argument/interpretation/deviation/derivation - this is CivFanatics, home of the Infinite Gamers Dancing on the Head of the Pin . . .