Pledge To Protect

[CaptainPatch]

I've been wondering about this ever since the vanilla Civ V. Just what is the upside of Pledge To Protect a City State? I've never seen anything on this, and after Searching the Civiliopedia as best I could, I couldn't even find a reference to it, much less just what it is that you get by making such a Pledge. I would _imagine_ that by pledging you would gain some Influence, or perhaps shift the Influence base point for as long as the Pledge is in effect. But I've never seen that confirmed.

It also seems to me that _failure_ to uphold the Pledge by declaring war on an attacker, or donating units to the CS in question, would result in a sharp LOSS of Influence. Not just with that CS, but pretty much with ALL CSs, because you have demonstrated just what your Pledges are worth. But once again, I've never seen any confirmed details as to how the mechanism works.

 

[redwings1340]

Pledge to protect is a kind of broken/powerful mechanic. If you take the patronage/consulates social policy and pledge to protect every city state you meet, you are perma friends with everyone spending 0 effort caring about them. If other civs demand tribute or declare war on these guys, just say "you'll pay for this", and the diplo hit is so minimal it's irrelevant to their future actions towards you, even if you tell them to stop 100 times.

Pledging to protect with consulates is way too powerful a combo to ignore on immortal/deity. I sometimes also pledge to protect when I know I'm getting close to completing a quest for a city state or am going to give them money soon, because that way I get to remain allies and friend with them for a few more turns than I would otherwise after I complete the quest/give the money.

 

[redwings1340]

Now, I think the way it should work is that if you pledge to protect city states near you, that can give other civs an idea that if they attack the civ, they're in trouble with you. So, it should work that you want to protect your nearby allies, as a warning to other civs and to deter them from attacking these city states.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Thanks for the quick reply. Your explanation is pretty much spot on to what I would _expect_ the mechanics to be. Buuuuttttt, two questions:
1) You say "perma friends". Mechanically that would require that the CS's Influence _minimum_ should shift to 30. Would Patronage Aesthetics be swallowed by that, or be added to it? (The greater of the two applies.) Or would it be added to it? (30 + 20 = 50, _minimum_.)
2) Can you link to how the works, in the game manual or Civilopedia? I've looked, but never found it.

 

[Stellarnight]

Pledge to protect increases your resting point to 10 and Consulates increase that resting point by 20 which gives 10 + 20 = 30 which is the minimum for friends. Basically your influence will always gravitate towards 30 as long as you maintain your pledge. Not sure what you mean by patronage aesthetics.

 

[Browd]

Aesthetics was the pre-BNW name for the Patronage social policy that BNW renamed as Consulates (since BNW created a new Aesthetics policy tree).

To answer the OP's other question, a Pledge to Protect a CS is not a defensive pact and does not require that you DOW or Denounce an aggressive AI civ that is bullying the CS or has DOWed a protected CS. All that is required to maintain your pledge, when the diplo screen pops up with the AI taunting you about your inability to actually protect your "pet" CS, is to tell the AI that "they will pay" -- results in a modest diplomatic penalty with that AI, but not a large enough penalty to interfere with otherwise healthy relations. You can think of "you will pay" as the mildest of the three available forms of disapproval: DOW, Denunciation and "You Will Pay."

The combination of Pledge and Consulates(BNW)/Aesthetics(G&K) is extremely powerful (particularly when playing Siam!), and has long been decried by some as overpowered or an exploit, but Firaxis apparently disagrees (the upcoming patch will not change this mechanic).

 

[Luckystrike77]

I can't say I find the Consulates policy more powerfull then going Humanism in Rationalism for instance (also with the Rationalism opener compared to that of Patronage).

Mind that my comment is purely based on multiplayer. I never play singleplayer.

 

[brindle]

I can't say I find the Consulates policy more powerfull then going Humanism in Rationalism for instance (also with the Rationalism opener compared to that of Patronage).

Mind that my comment is purely based on multiplayer. I never play singleplayer.

you should try it Lucky, especially in 8 person game. I have tested in 6 person (12 CS) many time, and easily have +4 food/cap, +6 happy, +12 faith, +16 culture and a random mil unit gifted (that I can then just re-gift for more influence) by turn 70ish (quick speed). all for 2 social policy!

it's way overpowered. (at least when combined with Pledge to Protect.)

 

[Ayestes]

I think the current two policy dip into Consulates and Humanism are both too strong and should probably be weakened in some form. I can't speak for Luckystrike, but I imagine he meant something similar with that comment. If anything it could slow down the game a little in the later stages.

I previously threw down the idea of Pledge to Protect requiring you to already be friends in order to be available, and as for Humanism I honestly wouldn't mind if it was only +1 Science. I'd probably still always get it anyway.

 

[TheBlackHole]

I think the Consolates overpoweredness could just be solved by making Pledge to Protect actually mean something, instead of something you spam with almost no consequence. Just make it so that if you fail to uphold a Pledge to Protect, that CS will hate you (let's say, your influence is directly set to -30 or so), since you straight up lied to them. Plus -10 to every other CS that you pledged to protect since now they're really questioning whether your pledge actually means anything. That way, even with Consolates, if you fail to uphold a single pledge, you'll be without your all of your "perma-friend" buddies for at least 10 turns. Numbers can be debated, of course, but at least it makes it something that you'll only pledge if you're serious about upholding it.

 

[kaspergm]

I think the Consolates overpoweredness could just be solved by making Pledge to Protect actually mean something, instead of something you spam with almost no consequence. Just make it so that if you fail to uphold a Pledge to Protect, that CS will hate you (let's say, your influence is directly set to -30 or so), since you straight up lied to them. Plus -10 to every other CS that you pledged to protect since now they're really questioning whether your pledge actually means anything. That way, even with Consolates, if you fail to uphold a single pledge, you'll be without your all of your "perma-friend" buddies for at least 10 turns. Numbers can be debated, of course, but at least it makes it something that you'll only pledge if you're serious about upholding it.

Well what do you mean about "uphold"? They sort of tried to make it like what you say in the sense that you need to tell AIs that bully the city state off, giving a diplo hit, but obviously people don't find this hit bad enough to worry.

I think in order to Pledge To Protect a CS, you need to have a military presence somewhere close to them, similar to how it works if you want to bully them or use gunboat diplomacy. It makes no sense to PTP a CS where you haven't got a single military unit within miles distance.

 

[TheBlackHole]

Well what do you mean about "uphold"?

"Uphold" simply means that when the AI attacks one of your CSs, you actually respond with the "You'll pay for this" (or whatever the response is) and thus willing to incur that diplomatic hit. As far as I know, that's the ONLY way that "Pledge to Protect" even affects the game. In the real world, "pledge to protect" should probably mean a defensive pact (i.e. if AI attacks the CS, you immediately declare war on them), but gameplay-wise there's no way I would enter a defensive pact with a measly city-state, so that might be too restrictive to require that you do that. Forcing the military presence, as you suggest, could work too. Just something that makes me do something with that pledge.

As it is, I frankly don't care if my CS friend gets attacked. Sure, I lose them for about 10 turns, but hey, I have 15 other city-state friends! If, though, I lost 10 or so points with all of them (and thus losing a bunch of friends for a while), now that's a different story. Just some kind of wide-reaching penalty like that. As it is, I frankly don't even really care that much if any individual city-state HATES me. If I suffered consequences with all of them, though, I'd take my pledges (and pledge giving) more seriously and judiciously.

 

[CaptainPatch]

It seems that there is something of a hole in the diplomacy with City States. Further, the labels really fail to properly reflect the mechanism being labeled.

Just what does "Pledge to protect" really mean? What _should_ it mean? I read "Pledge to protect" and get the impression that the idea is that if the CS is threatened -- bullied, extorted, invaded, assailed by barbarians, etc. -- the pledge-giver is obligated to to dispatch at least _some_ military force to bolster the CS garrison. X turns later, barbs dead, bully backed off, invader sent packing, the pledge has been upheld. Failure to send those units constitutes a breach of promise -- and how _should_ your Reputation be impacted once it is commonly known that you don't keep your promises? -30 across the board with EVERY CS seems appropriate, I think.

Gift-giving: How does one _know_ just how much is enough when giving? Obviously, the bigger the bri-, uh, gift, the more likely to get a favorable and larger reaction. But I'd think it was more reasonable if the outcome was random, modified by a variety of factors. _Probably_ +30, but with a +/- of up to 20 (?). That seems more logical tto me.

Alliance -- Obviously, a Military _alliance_. Mutual Defense Pact, Lend Lease, Foreign Aid, etc. It's a _commitment_. So if anyone declares war on the CS, the player should be obligated to declare war on the aggressor. Failure to fulfill that obligation is an even bigger breach of promise than failure to uphold a Pledge to Protect. So, CS Influence across the board = -50.

What's missing but has been present in the form of Alliance as it _is_ already is a Diplomatic Accord: We help you out by doing you favors and Foreign Aid, and the CS reciprocates by returning resources and less tangible things like Faith, Culture, Happiness, etc.

Resource improvement investment: This doesn't feel quite right as it currently is. You send the CS the necessary cash to develop a resource and then IF YOU'RE _THE_ ALLY of the moment -- you get those resources. But in practice, what is being modeled is Third World Foreign Investments. The country gets an new/expanded industry which = more, and better-paying jobs for its citizens, while the foreign investor gets the resources being exploited. Win-(theoretical) win. Unless there is a MAJOR change in the politics of the CS, whoever paid for those resources should continue to get those resources, until such time as the CS becomes downright _hostile_ towards the original investor. (Then the industry gets "nationalized".)

Retract Pledge: There are the occasional Good reasons for taking back the pledge. Like when it's obvious to everyone that the pledge-giver is no longer in a condition that is good enough to back such a pledge. Yes, it's better to acknowledge the ability to fulfill the pledge is no longer there, but the recipient _still_ won't be feeling all that positive towards the pledge-giver for backing out of the deal. Better than finding out help won't be coming when they NEED that help. Others may not feel quite so peeved just because Civ A reneged on a deal with CS B. So, I figure the CS in question would be about Influence -20 while all the other CSs would be about Influence -10.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Maybe the following change to Pledge to Protect would work out well? If another Civ attacks a CS you have pledged to protect, a window opens with the question: Do we join the war on the side of CS X vs Civ X? If your answer is no, it should dramatically reduce your influence over that CS. Something like losing arround 60 influence points.

This would also give Pledge to Protect an opportunity cost in multiplayer, with all the worker stealing going on.

 

[katfish]

Maybe the following change to Pledge to Protect would work out well? If another Civ attacks a CS you have pledged to protect, a window opens with the question: Do we join the war on the side of CS X vs Civ X? If your answer is no, it should dramatically reduce your influence over that CS. Something like losing arround 60 influence points.

This would also give Pledge to Protect an opportunity cost in multiplayer, with all the worker stealing going on.

I actually don't care, but it wont help. If civ outright attacks CSs others will hate it, and you actually want to dow and happliy await for dogpile. Its like provoking enemy civ in previous versions but better! And in multiplayer everyone uses consulates, so it balances itself out.

 

[Luckystrike77]

And in multiplayer everyone uses consulates, so it balances itself out.

Not actually, my solution will give some trade offs in multiplayer to Pledge to Protect. Now they are non-excistant, it's always pure benefitial to make this pledge.

You will not always declare war on the civ attacking your pledged CS for a worker or any other reasons. The consequences of that can be: losing trade deals and routes, RAs, setting the very excistance of your Civ at risk etc.

If refusing to declare war on the aggressor made you lose the CS ally asap, it would help alot. It would be even better if this also gave you a one time drop in influence to all CS's you have pledged to protect, not only the one being attacked. Perhaps a one time drop of 20-30 influence points to all CS's under your protection (when they realize they can't trust you will protect them).

 

[Lucius_]

I've always thought the city state mechanics have been broken one way or another. Pledge to Protect has pretty much always been meaningless, beyond +10 influence. Not enough risk or penalty to discourage spamming pleadges.

Also, hi Captain!

 

[killmeplease]

If refusing to declare war on the aggressor made you lose the CS ally asap, it would help alot. It would be even better if this also gave you a one time drop in influence to all CS's you have pledged to protect, not only the one being attacked. Perhaps a one time drop of 20-30 influence points to all CS's under your protection (when they realize they can't trust you will protect them).

and even bigger penalty if protected CS was captured

 

[Vidszhite]

Pledge to protect is being nerfed in the next update to the fall patch beta.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12808434&postcount=2