New First Look: Machiavelli

[AlexByrde]

I consider this is a metaphor about bribing them and prevent the enemy action via those CSs.

That's my read as well. Since he wrote that mercenaries are unreliable compared to standing armies, since their allegiance can be bought, this ability is illustrative of that. Either by using a city state's military after their own suzerain in a surprise attack or perhaps even buying them out from an active military campaign against him.

Definitely very gamey depiction of him, but I think having him be Machiavelli's the Prince: The Leader does make sense design wise.

 

[fjaoaoaoao]

I consider his abilities quite clearly focused on the diplomatic way. The Machiavelli players are strongly driven to make more diplomatic deals actively.
I'm also curious why they gave him a levying bonus, but I noticed that he have not a real bonus about levying. No combat strength, No discount, just he can levy armies from neutral CSs. I consider this is a metaphor about bribing them and preventing the enemy actions via those CSs.


I thought the written condition of "each other war" is related with Machiavelli, not the opposite. So his agenda effect will be increased when he is at wars. He like someone in peace with him and try to build good relationship with them. And this approach is meant to supress his warfront and make allies. Again, this diplomatic way is what he really conducted as a diplomat.

yeah i think the written one on the website isn't the most clear but on the video it's clearly written out "likes leaders who are involved with many wars".

Machiavelli advocated for using allies and wars, so he doesn't mind being in brief wars. It's whatever is to retain power and stability which is what I feel was missed.

That's my read as well. Since he wrote that mercenaries are unreliable compared to standing armies, since their allegiance can be bought, this ability is illustrative of that. Either by using a city state's military after their own suzerain in a surprise attack or perhaps even buying them out from an active military campaign against him.

Definitely very gamey depiction of him, but I think having him be Machiavelli's the Prince: The Leader does make sense design wise.

yeah i agree that it shows that their allegiance can be bought, but it's also important to note that he wouldn't have bothered spending money to buy them and would have thought that to be wasteful. so it captures one aspect while ignoring several others.

 

[gdr_willter]

yeah i think the written one on the website isn't the most clear but on the video it's clearly written out "likes leaders who are involved with many wars".

You meant this narration?: "Machiavelli is friend to all so long as they're at war with anyone but him."
Oh well, I still think it means "He never care who you are, he just care you can be his enemy or not."

 

[AriochIV]

The OP mentions "formal wars". Does that mean that there will be "informal wars" too? Any idea what the difference between them will be?

Presumably the same as in Civ6 -- a lesser diplomatic penalty for a formally declared war.

 

[gdr_willter]

The OP mentions "formal wars". Does that mean that there will be "informal wars" too? Any idea what the difference between them will be?

I strongly consider it means "surprise wars".

 

[fjaoaoaoao]

You meant this narration?: "Machiavelli is friend to all so long as they're at war with anyone but him."
Oh well, I still think it means "He never care who you are, he just care you can be his enemy or not."

no.

Constant war - in general - creates a destabilizing environment. So while he was an advocate of using war, he wasn't an advocate of using war willy-nilly, he was an advocate of using war in a brief, controlled fashion for the purposes of power and security. So if everyone is in wars around him... that seems to go against what he would hope for, in more ways than one.

 

[uppi]

The OP mentions "formal wars". Does that mean that there will be "informal wars" too? Any idea what the difference between them will be?

The way I understood it, is that formal wars can normally only be declared against enemies who you have bad relations with (unless you are Machiavelli). If you have good relations, you can only declare surprise wars, which give your enemy extra war support. I did not get what exactly war support does, but presumably it is some sort of bonus during wars.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The way I understood it, is that formal wars can normally only be declared against enemies who you have bad relations with (unless you are Machiavelli). If you have good relations, you can only declare surprise wars, which give your enemy extra war support. I did not get what exactly war support does, but presumably it is some sort of bonus during wars.

War Support affects war weariness, which is a Happiness penalty. If you have a deficit of support, you will have more war weariness. Apparently, if your Happiness is negative you get all kinds of bad stuff like combat strength penalties.

 

[gdr_willter]

no.

Constant war - in general - creates a destabilizing environment. So while he was an advocate of using war, he wasn't an advocate of using war willy-nilly, he was an advocate of using war in a brief, controlled fashion for the purposes of power and security. So if everyone is in wars around him... that seems to go against what he would hope for, in more ways than one.

Aha, I missed it then. Well, I think it is still not so bad because:

• "Like" in the game not means personal fondness, but the necessity of good relationship. He likely want to avoid war against a bully nation.
• It can represent France or Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli asked help to France which was one of the militant nations in Europe that time, and he was inspired from Cesare Borgia the ambitious troublemaker.

I think we can find enough meaning from each leader design, when we accept the reality that FXS can't portray everything of real history.

 

[RobLoach]

I am liking the civ design a lot more than the first ones they announced.

 

[FishFishFish]

Levying units seems weird given that Machiavelli famously advised not using mercenaries, no?

Yeah, I really dislike that ability. He thought they were unreliable charlatans that fought for the highest bidder. It would honestly make sense for his agenda to be about disliking you for levying units.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Yeah, I really dislike that ability. He thought they were unreliable charlatans that fought for the highest bidder. It would honestly make sense for his agenda to be about disliking you for levying units.

I think the idea is that his ability makes mercenaries unreliable for other civs by being able to steal levied troops even if they were supposed to be loyal to somebody else. The exact mechanics might not be like that though, so it could be really weird.

 

[gdr_willter]

Yeah, I really dislike that ability. He thought they were unreliable charlatans that fought for the highest bidder.

I'm also curious why they gave him a levying bonus, but I noticed that he have not a real bonus about levying. No combat strength, No discount, just he can levy armies from neutral CSs. I consider this is a metaphor about bribing them and preventing the enemy actions via those CSs.

That's my read as well. Since he wrote that mercenaries are unreliable compared to standing armies, since their allegiance can be bought, this ability is illustrative of that. Either by using a city state's military after their own suzerain in a surprise attack or perhaps even buying them out from an active military campaign against him.

I think we can find something plausible about this design.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, I really dislike that ability. He thought they were unreliable charlatans that fought for the highest bidder. It would honestly make sense for his agenda to be about disliking you for levying units.

By doing that to other leaders, it technically proves his point though.

 

[Metalz]

Amazing, thank you Mr. Firaxis for some more Italian rep

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Introducing Machiavelli!​

The name of Florentine writer, diplomat, and philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli has become synonymous with duplicity and treachery. He argued that the most effective ruler was one willing to do whatever it took to gain, retain, and wield power. Such views won him the ire of both the Catholic Church and the powerful Medici dynasty. But his ideas live on in his posthumous work The Prince—giving him, in true Machiavellian fashion, the last word.

Agenda:
The Spider: If not at war with Machiavelli, increase Relationship by Medium Amount for each other war.

Starting Biases:
None

Attributes:
Diplomatic
Economic

Unique Ability:
Il Principe: Gain additional Influence per Age. Gain a set amount of Gold per Age when your Diplomatic Action proposals are accepted, or even more Gold per Age when they are rejected. Ignore Relationship requirements for declaring Formal Wars. You can Levy Military Units from City-States you are not Suzerain of.

Game guide here: https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-guide/leaders/machiavelli/

Interesting leader, I can't wait to play as him!

 

[Krikkit1]

I could see a more symbolic Washington being used and i'd be totally fine with that, but I would think it is odd if his bonuses were to buff universities, rock bands, and fast food production, simply because that's what America is known for nowadays.

Like for instance, Machiavelli's agenda is he likes it if you are at war with others except him. That's just odd and not something he would have likely advocated, even for purely selfish/nationalistic reasons. He likes display of force and brief wars, but all for the purpose of security. Being at war just for the sake of being at war is destabilizing. He shouldn't like you more just because you have more wars. While he did not like neutrality and his agenda sort of makes a Machiavelli player choose to not go to war, it also doesn't go further and help push the Machiavelli towards allyship or enemyship. (Maybe a simple fix would have been he likes it if you are at war and have allies with others.)

So I just feel his military-focused abilities are missing a purpose. There are leaders who like war for the sake of war, and that's not Machiavelli.

Also feel like has too many random gold-focused abilities. He would have advocated for developing a stronger militia rather than spending money to hire mercenaries. They also could have gone a different direction instead of giving gold rewards for diplomatic wins/losses.

He doesn't "like" being in wars he has higher Relationship with other civs who are in a war

If another civ is a warmonger (and not at war with Machiavelli) he can get a high relationship which helps defend him against the Warmonger (high relationship means bigger costs to declaring war..... of course that doesn't apply to Machiavelli himself, he can declare a Formal war even on his Warmongery friend,)

He wants you to declare wars, get friendly with him, and weakened by your wars so he can stab you in the back without cost.

 

[Krikkit1]

The OP mentions "formal wars". Does that mean that there will be "informal wars" too? Any idea what the difference between them will be?

Surprise Wars are ones you can declare on civs you have a high Relationship with. (they come with major penalties on the one declaring them.. high war weariness etc.)
Formal War can only be declares on civs you have a low Relationship with (they would have less penalties for the one declaring them)
[There may be others]

 

[Disgustipated]

Interesting leader, and it will be fun to play with him at first. But I suspect he will be one of the most annoying leaders in the game. And I suspect his civ will the the one eliminated more often than the other leader's civs.

 

[gdr_willter]

And I suspect his civ will the the one eliminated more often than the other leader's civs.

I thought conversely. Because his agenda itself will lead him up to avoid strong warmongering enemy. And AI leaders cannot judge him as betrayer, because he always declare righteous wars - at least the formal one, never the surprising one. I wonder whose guess will be correct, very interesting.