October 2020 Update - Patch Notes Discussion

[steveg700]

Yes, spying on allies allowed something that can be called an exploit, but, as such, the possibility of spying on allies wasn't the flaw that needed a hammer. It was this arbitrary locking into friendships and alliances for a fixed term that badly needed a revision. Axing out this unbreakable vow, which is more of the Harry Potter world than this, would have been much better.

It is this unbreakability of friendships and aliances that opens the way to all kinds of exploits and makes game more rigid, static and dull. You get a civ to be friends and allies and that's it - your diplomacy with them is ended. You can genocide the rest of the world and they will be "wow, good job, what a busy bee you are!" All those negative modifiers you accumulate with them afterwards count for nothing, they'll renew friendship on the turn of expiry. What a boring state of affairs.

Yes, ideally there should be both grievances and some opposing currency that reflects goodwill. Good relationships are contingent on avoiding grievances and maintaining goodwill.

Problem is, the AI just seems to do what it does based on a capacity-based checklist. Can I do this? No. Move on. Can I do this this? Yes. Commit action. There's no pros and cons being weighted, just checking capacities and thresholds. Which would mean the AI would constantly be breaking friendships and alliances to the extent they would seem worthless.

Perhaps a middle ground where you can still conduct more "soft" spy missions on allies like stealing tech boosts, but can't do more disruptive ones like partisans and blowing up dams/factories?

More practical would be things like spy promotions and late-game wildcard policies that allow spies to conduct missions on allies.

 

[AntSou]

To me, it is a balance change to nerf the player against the AI at higher difficulties. As people here often complain about the game being too easy on deity (I tend to fall into that camp) this seems like a good change.

This.

I can exploit an ally AI better than they can exploit me, therefore this is a good change. That's how my reasoning goes, which gives primacy to the idea of a more competitive AI.

I would also like to point out that creating and maintaining alliances is already too easy in this game, which only stacks upon the issue mentioned above, as you're able to "exploit" several allied AIs without them having the capacity to properly reciprocate.

There should be a direct penalty to the human player from forming alliances. Not being able to spy seems good enough. The inability to declare war was too weak of a deterrent.

You're now forced to more closely consider whom to ally, since espionage options become limited if you have too many allies (this is perhaps less noticeable in games with 12+ Civs, but potentially impactful in anything up to 8).

It is this unbreakability of friendships and aliances that opens the way to all kinds of exploits and makes game more rigid, static and dull. You get a civ to be friends and allies and that's it - your diplomacy with them is ended. You can genocide the rest of the world and they will be "wow, good job, what a busy bee you are!" All those negative modifiers you accumulate with them afterwards count for nothing, they'll renew friendship on the turn of expiry. What a boring state of affairs.

I generally agree with this point. The point I made above takes the 30-turn lock for granted. I don't think they're changing it at this stage.

 

[UWHabs]

Yes, ideally there should be both grievances and some opposing currency that reflects goodwill. Good relationships are contingent on avoiding grievances and maintaining goodwill.

Problem is, the AI just seems to do what it does based on a capacity-based checklist. Can I do this? No. Move on. Can I do this this? Yes. Commit action. There's no pros and cons being weighted, just checking capacities and thresholds. Which would mean the AI would constantly be breaking friendships and alliances to the extent they would seem worthless.


More practical would be things like spy promotions and late-game wildcard policies that allow spies to conduct missions on allies.

Or even something like "only secret agents can perform spy missions on allies" to give you a real reason to "level up" your spies.

 

[bengalryan9]

Black Queen Catherine's leader ability should allow her to send spies to allies now.

 

[kaspergm]

More practical would be things like spy promotions and late-game wildcard policies that allow spies to conduct missions on allies.

What are those magical "cards", that allow you to do something you aren't allowed to do otherwise? Not to mention, what is that divine higher power that determines that you can't spy on your ally? Meh, it's boring to be stuck in the same groove all the time, but it's stuff like this that really breaks immersion in the game for me (and why I really dislike the policy card system - whoosh, now I can upgrade my units for half gold, whoosh, now I can build settlers much faster, whoosh, now I can buy land tiles cheaper, etc. etc.).

How about something along a more logical and realistic line: If you spy on your ally, they may choose to break the alliance and denounce you, stamping you as a betrayer with all the diplomatic penalties that entails, perhaps even giving them casus belli against you. Isn't there already a betrayal mechanism in the game, or was that in Civ5? Not that I can remember when it was last activated in any of my games, but personally this would feel like the logical way to go.

 

[AntSou]

Black Queen Catherine's leader ability should allow her to send spies to allies now.

This is a very good proposal.

whoosh, now I can upgrade my units for half gold, whoosh, now I can build settlers much faster, whoosh, now I can buy land tiles cheaper, etc. etc.).

The policy card system seems like a fair way of abstracting the use of the state's power and resources towards specific goals.

 

[acluewithout]

I think the main thing coming out of this thread is that there was just so, so, so many better ways this change could have been made.

eg

• You can put Spies in Ally Cities, but some more aggressive missions are prohibited.

• You can put Spies in Ally Cities, but you chances of being caught increase and or there are greater negatives to being caught (eg large negative relationship modifiers).

• You can put Spies in Ally Cities, but you must first meet some requirement (eg you Spy must be level x, you must have a certain tech).

• Whether Spies can be placed in Ally Cities is an optional game mode.

• Improve how Alliances work (eg shorter Alliances, more options to break Alliances in particular circumstances) or Improve how the AI defends v Spies.

I also agree with the comment that it’s rubbish Spies are banned from Ally Cities, but at the same time we haven’t been given other options eg a Diplomat Unit. The result is that banning Spies in Ally Cities means there are now just even less ways to interact with Allies and the late game.

Honestly. What a mess. And to think, I had been really looking forward to this Patch. I really thought some of the Game Modes, particularly Secret Societies, would get a decent balance pass. Instead, we get this complete shower.

What’s most hilarious about all this is that Firaxis had literally just put in a new District that buffed Counter-spying. Well, no need to build that. Just make Alliances everywhere, and it’s sweet as bro.

So much stupid.

 

[conorbebe]

That Hacienda nerf is unwarranted. I didn’t even think they were that good to begin with...

 

[steveg700]

What are those magical "cards", that allow you to do something you aren't allowed to do otherwise? Not to mention, what is that divine higher power that determines that you can't spy on your ally? Meh, it's boring to be stuck in the same groove all the time, but it's stuff like this that really breaks immersion in the game for me (and why I really dislike the policy card system - whoosh, now I can upgrade my units for half gold, whoosh, now I can build settlers much faster, whoosh, now I can buy land tiles cheaper, etc. etc.).

It seems that magic is invoked by humans whenever there's a failure of imagination or comprehension.

A society can alter its practices to become more efficient at certain activities, like upgrading units or settling. You introduce a Music Censorship civic, and "whoosh", rock bands can't perform in your territory. Why are you picking on policy cards? How about leader abilities, civ abilities, wonders, religious beliefs? The game of "magical' bonuses?

With all deference to immersion, this game is a highly-abstracted approach to building civilizations in virtually all respects.

 

[Time Tested]

It is this unbreakability of friendships and aliances that opens the way to all kinds of exploits and makes game more rigid, static and dull. You get a civ to be friends and allies and that's it - your diplomacy with them is ended. You can genocide the rest of the world and they will be "wow, good job, what a busy bee you are!" All those negative modifiers you accumulate with them afterwards count for nothing, they'll renew friendship on the turn of expiry. What a boring state of affairs.

In comparison, Civ IV has a vastly superior diplomacy system. Friendlier leaders will not plot on you if they're 'pleased', with more devious ones you need to reach the status 'friendly' to be safe, but there's no fixed term locking of relations, apart from 10 turns safety net when you give into a demand or they give into your demand. Every action changes the diplo modifiers between civs and if behaving too aggressive you can drop out of the safe zone into the line of fire. The situation in the world is much more dynamic and interesting. Civ VI already suffers from too much static post mid game and they make it even more so.

Sums up my feelings on friendships/alliances very well. It might be rose-colored glasses this far out, but I definitely liked Civ IV's diplomacy system, all the way down to vassal states and being able to pressure civs into adopting your belief system.

The other thing I struggle with is the overarching principle that this is a game that has a single winner, but that doesn't seem to impact diplomacy/relations much, if at all, in single-player.

I would love to see some sort of mechanic where you could form a team with an AI/other player late in the game, and actually join forces to win the game. I feel like this is where alliances would naturally head to, and if I'm on a team, I can very easily understand both not spying as well as actively supporting my teammate in their victory goal and defending them, as that means victory for me as well.

Conversely, it feels weird that there aren't relationship modifiers like "your culture is too dominant" (CV) or "I'm jealous of your space launch" (SV) or "You wield too much diplomatic sway for my liking" (DV). I know this is very opposite to realism and has been a problem with previous iterations with everyone hating you at the end of the game if you're close to victory, but it definitely makes sense game-wise, and would partner well with forming late-game teams.

 

[Stringer1313]

Really happy that one of the UI changes included having a one-line list of cities that can be ordered in order of production and science etc., since such a change would take 10 minutes to fix.

Oh wait never mind.

 

[steveg700]

• You can put Spies in Ally Cities, but some more aggressive missions are prohibited.

For instance? What missions are low-aggro?

Note that using Fabricate Scandal at a city-state still works.

• You can put Spies in Ally Cities, but you must first meet some requirement (eg you Spy must be level x, you must have a certain tech).

Like I said, have some specific choices that a player can avail themselves of, like promotions and wildcards. That's separate from just meeting some requirement that will eventually be met.

• Improve how Alliances work (eg shorter Alliances, more options to break Alliances in particular circumstances) or Improve how the AI defends v Spies.

Well, yes, that would be rather nice.

What’s most hilarious about all this is that Firaxis had literally just put in a new District that buffed Counter-spying. Well, no need to build that. Just make Alliances everywhere, and it’s sweet as bro.

So much stupid.

I think it's quite sensible that someone would enter an alliance with the expectation that the level of openness would make overtly belligerent acts of espionage--that is to say, the kind of stuff that this game presents as missions--would be unfeasible. It's not an ideal change, but I'd feel a lot worse about it if the responses were level-headed and less indignant.

It seems that alliances have developed into being such a given in some folks' playstyles that the idea of opting not to have the one of their choosing is anathema.

 

[Stringer1313]

It is this unbreakability of friendships and aliances that opens the way to all kinds of exploits and makes game more rigid, static and dull. You get a civ to be friends and allies and that's it - your diplomacy with them is ended. You can genocide the rest of the world and they will be "wow, good job, what a busy bee you are!" All those negative modifiers you accumulate with them afterwards count for nothing, they'll renew friendship on the turn of expiry. What a boring state of affairs.
.

Thank you x100 for saying this. I sometimes feel like I'm the only one on the forums that says this. So many other complain about negative modifiers and grievances but they are never an issue for friends and allies -- which by the way are exceptionally easy to create as soon as you get a green smiley face.

 

[UWHabs]

Sometimes alliances can break down and dissolve. My last game, I was allied with Alexander for a time, but then when the alliance ended, he didn't want to renew, and shortly thereafter ended up denouncing and declaring war. So it's not always a static game, but I do agree, it would be nice if there was a little more to diplomacy in general.

 

[Qwan]

I join with those who applaud the change to disallow spying on allies.

Becoming an "ally" is making a specific contract, with benefits and limitations. Not being allowed to spy is just now a limitation of this contract, and as some have pointed out, it works both ways. "Ally" is simply the word used to describe the contract, because people can relate to something similar in the Real World. I don't understand why people think it ought to match the way the Real World use of "ally". This is a game. In the Real World, you can attack your "friends" and learning a "civic" will not automatically "close borders". And you don't have to wait 30 "turns" ....

What's most important in a game is that it be fun to play. That makes game-balance important, because if it's too easy to win, it's not really that fun. As far as I've read, it seems to me that the complainers want to exploit their allies. If you need to increase your diplomatic visibility, send a trade route, and listen to (or review) the gossip. If you want to prevent someone from obtaining a scientific victory, why are you their ally? To me, being an ally ought to mean teaming up to stop someone winning. (Unless, of course, you're winning, in which case lots of allies is good, because then they won't team up against you. Except in the World Congress.) You can still spy on your "friends", isn't that enough?

I note that none of the complainers of this change are complaining that now their allies cannot spy on them.

 

[hhhhhh]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but here's a new exploit found by the Chinese community: since AI doesn't value diplomatic favor when they (yes, they, not the world) are in ancient or classical era. One can by 3-5 diplomatic favor from a classical AI with 1 gold and then immediately sell it at 5 gold per diplomatic favor (that's 15-25x) to a medieval AI.

Maybe devs just want us to find exploits...

Even this is fixed to world era, you can still hoard a lot of diplomatic favor before the world enters medieval and then sell immediately.

 

[Haig]

hhhhhh:
Well that exploit is pretty easy to avoid, unless someone really wants to cheat.

Using exploits is like playing on settler level but easier

 

[pokiehl]

I don't understand people who are utterly compelled to abuse these exploits and speak about them as if they're unavoidable while lamenting the ruined experience.

There are other bugs in the game that actively have an adverse effect on gameplay. Let's prioritize getting all these fixed.

As for exploits: just don't do them. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to cheese the AI.

 

[The Civs 6]

I don't understand people who are utterly compelled to abuse these exploits and speak about them as if they're unavoidable while lamenting the ruined experience.

There are other bugs in the game that actively have an adverse effect on gameplay. Let's prioritize getting all these fixed.

As for exploits: just don't do them. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to cheese the AI.

Yeah if you are like a pro min max type gamer, WTH are you doing play Civ 6?

 

[Starwars]

I'm also not a fan of how Friendships and Alliances basically "lock" you into them as well. It takes away a lot of dynamics in the game as it removes actions from the player and AI in exchange for some extra economy and safety. In Civ VI, I feel like entering an alliance just serves to make the game more boring rather than deepen the gameplay, open up new opportunities to play with etc. And of course the old complaint that we can basically not really do anything diplomatically, or react with hostility immediately, if an ally decides to attack a city state we want to protect.

Backstabbing an ally, or being backstabbed by one, should be present I think. And of course, there should be severe repercussions if you do it (ideally through a World Congress that makes more sense). Once the alliances start up in the game, it just serves to make things more stale and predictable instead of more interesting. It's a bit of a shame I think.

But yeah, I hate to be a whiner as there are so many things in Civ VI that I like, but the balance changes made in the patches for the Frontier Pass has shown me that I'm on a *completely* different page than the devs. So many of the changes just leave me scratching my head.