pre-release info New First Look: Machiavelli

[dagriggstar]

I feel like
- gain gold from diplomatic actions
- ignore relationships for war purposes
- levy any city state units
Are all cool abilities on their own. So why complicate things by combining them altogether ?
Like it’s not a balance thing, because you could for example just give them more gold per diplomatic action….

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I feel like
- gain gold from diplomatic actions
- ignore relationships for war purposes
- levy any city state units
Are all cool abilities on their own. So why complicate things by combining them altogether ?
Like it’s not a balance thing, because you could for example just give them more gold per diplomatic action….

They actually feel as a very coherent toolset for a scheaming leader. Use you influence for diplomatic actions to get a lot of gold. Use your gold to levy armies, declare sudden war and use your bought army to conquer.

 

[Tanel]

They actually feel as a very coherent toolset for a scheaming leader. Use you influence for diplomatic actions to get a lot of gold. Use your gold to levy armies, declare sudden war and use your bought army to conquer.

Yeah. While a bit of a meme leader at least his abilities have a strong theme and interesting gameplay effects. Sure they could have made a more realistic portrayal but that could have resulted in not so interesting gameplay.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Machiavelli might become the new meme-master in Civ7:

View attachment 707993
View attachment 707991
View attachment 707992

I believe the first meme is irrelevant, since we didn't see this type of diplomatic agreements in Civ7 yet. And with resource trading now being part of trade route system, I really hope we'll not get "1 gold" diplomatic agreements anymore.

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

As I understand, there's war support, which is much lower in surprise wars. Not sure if we've seen the effects of low war support, but I assume it's at least lower happiness.

 

[gdr_willter]

Sure they could have made a more realistic portrayal but that could have resulted in not so interesting gameplay.

In fairness, we didn't talk about the historical meaning of the Confucius' ability at all in his discussion thread... All conversations are about his power in science and food, his play style between tall and wide, and his graphic appearance.

This is a game design, we can't portray someone's whole biography or ideology properly only with 3~4 sentences of gameplay abilities and agenda. I certainly prefer the leader who has fun gameplay features, rather than who has historically accurate reenactment.

 

[untitledjuan]

The leader model looks awesome! However, his clothings seems a bit off, I wouldn't have guessed he was Machiavelli if they didn't tell who he is, and I say so because of the clothing. In most of the iconic pictures of Machiavelli that you see on most textbooks and almost everywhere else, he has wider, more loose fitting clothes, which are mostly red and perhaps more associated with what a scholar or professor would wear in Renaissance Italy, rather than what a regular noble would wear, which seem to be the case for him in Civ7.

 

[Krikkit1]

If the human player is Machiavelli will they get the extra protection from a Relationship boost with warmongers or is that only for the AI.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If the human player is Machiavelli will they get the extra protection from a Relationship boost with warmongers or is that only for the AI.

Agenda is for AI only

 

[Krikkit1]

Agenda is for AI only

Which means it will be harder for the human player to use Machiavelli's strategy. (Relationship boost with warmongers so that you have extra protection against them...until you decide to backstab)

 

[Fummy]

He looks identical to Ben Shapiro. I like it.

 

[Jewman]

Love Machiavelli and his writings so happy to see him here. Even his depiction as a bit of a meme I think is endearing. I think his gameplay personality will be memorable and make games more interesting when you play against him, like Monty was in previous civ games.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Which means it will be harder for the human player to use Machiavelli's strategy. (Relationship boost with warmongers so that you have extra protection against them...until you decide to backstab)

Yep, the idea is what AI roleplay, but human player has freedom in strategy.

I'd say with bonus influence (and more from being diplomatic) and saving influence on not spending too much on independent powers, you clearly could play quite manipulative diplomacy.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

They actually feel as a very coherent toolset for a scheaming leader. Use you influence for diplomatic actions to get a lot of gold. Use your gold to levy armies, declare sudden war and use your bought army to conquer.

Very much so. One of the things you can spend influence on is reducing the relationships between other leaders. You can effectively goad them into war. Then levy some city-state troops and take one or both out while they are weak from fighting each other.

Machiavelli is a leader who leans hard on a specific mechanic and has a very refined set of tactics for using it. In his case it's diplomacy. I'm eager to try it. Maybe not my first playthrough, but high on my list.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I believe the first meme is irrelevant, since we didn't see this type of diplomatic agreements in Civ7 yet. And with resource trading now being part of trade route system, I really hope we'll not get "1 gold" diplomatic agreements anymore.

The point is moreso that Machiavelli can easily turn excess influence into quick cash by proposing lopsided trades so that they are refused.

 

[chaosprophet]

Synergies with a Greece-Shawnee path! Suzerain every Independent Power for massive gains on the Parthenon and Mawaskawe Skote.

You may have caught a possible strong meta, albeit need to play the game to see how it fares on the actual game.

Machiavelli might become the new meme-master in Civ7:

I could see he becoming such a meme that people would expect him on every future civ from now on.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yep, the idea is what AI roleplay, but human player has freedom in strategy.

I'd say with bonus influence (and more from being diplomatic) and saving influence on not spending too much on independent powers, you clearly could play quite manipulative diplomacy.

But the human player doesn’t get the same bonuses that the AI does.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But the human player doesn’t get the same bonuses that the AI does.

Human player doesn't follow agenda, but gets all the bonuses.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think we need clarification on what the relationship requirements are for Formal Wars and whether this is directly affected by agendas or indirectly through denunciations or declarations of friendship.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Machiavelli is the quintessence of that Firefly meme: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"

 

[Krikkit1]

Human player doesn't follow agenda, but gets all the bonuses

Agenda is a Bonus/Penalty to a game mechanic (Relationship) not behavior.

If an Augustus civ has a good "Relationship" stat with a Machiavelli civ that doesn't mean the Augustus player "likes" the Machiavelli player or the Machiavelli player "likes" the Augustus player.

It means is those two players are permitted to do certain types of diplomacy (Cooperation boosts / Trade / Surprise Wars/ etc.) and not others (Formal Wars)*, and it will affect the benefits/penalties with that.

*Machiavelli being able to declare those Formal Wars at any "Relationship" stat.

Diplomacy is not a way to control behavior of other players (AI or Human)... it is a way to give the other player incentives/punishments for behaving a certain way.