Poll: Should Defensive Pacts be nerfed?

[JamesNinelives]

I think you need to make an effort to better understand people's logic on this forum, before getting "hurt". His posts are frankly much more clear and easy to understand than yours (sorry but I cannot follow your first post about "counterplay" at all). If he misunderstands your argument, it's because you haven't said it well, and that is on you, not him.

He literally created a poll to hear the community's voices and I don't think he claimed to represent the community at any point. that's an unfair accusation. The only person in this thread who has claimed to represent more than one voice is you.

So it's on me to understand other people, but asking other people to try to understand me is unreasonable? I give up. I don't see the point in having a conversation if the only kind of response I'm going to get is 'everything you've said is wrong and also having emotions is bad'.

 

[ElliotS]

It's very easy to see how a human could more easily get a defensive pact from this. A simple example would be a game with 8 civs.
Two AI form a DP.
A different two AI form another defensive pact.
Here, the next AI to seek a DP either gets one with the player, or the two remaining AI.
The seventh civ can only form a DP with the player, or must go without one.

You could increase the number allowed over time, through technologies, world congress, or maybe even a wonder. Either way, this means that I would have to declare war on at most 2 civs, instead of 5 in my current game, which is a very real balance problem.

Writing this out actually made me like this idea a lot more than I initially did.l I thought about the above. I think several alliances would be a lot more interesting than the single ball of alliances with a few outcasts that I've seen twice this patch.

I think you need to make an effort to better understand people's logic on this forum, before getting "hurt". His posts are frankly much more clear and easy to understand than yours (sorry but I cannot follow your first post about "counterplay" at all). If he misunderstands your argument, it's because you haven't said it well, and that is on you, not him.

He literally created a poll to hear the community's voices and I don't think he claimed to represent the community at any point. that's an unfair accusation. The only person in this thread who has claimed to represent more than one voice is you.

In particular these sentences from elliot
"It's not "one half of the world against the other" or even "2 against 3" because there isn't a great way to declare joint wars. In fact it's almost impossible to get an AI civ to declare war against a DP group together, and totally impossible to get "half the world" to declare a war against the other half."

To me, his meaning is very clear, and your response seems to be arguing a totally different thing.

• There isn't a good way to declare joint wars (just a fact about the mod)
• it's very hard to get the AI to agree to joint wars against a large DP group (can be explained by analyzing the AI's logic)
• It's "totally impossible" to get "half the world"................. (I suppose he is wrong in that it's not literally 100% impossible, but his overall point is right)

I think bullet point 1 is the best point made in favor of a DP cap, starting at 1, and increasing as techs get discovered. You could make a wonder or a social policy grant more too, could be a really interesting mechanic. the feature should AI friendly. It could also start at 2 or 3 on larger map sizes. FYI, I avoid playing big maps partially for this reason.
Now perhaps you experience differs with points 2 and 3, and if does you should by all means share. But that isn't what you were counterarguing.

I also like azumroll's suggestion of a shorter duration though.

I'm glad you're seeing the logic behind my idea more, I guess I should have explained it more like you did from the get-go.

However I think there is one more unintuitive thing many people are missing: Increasing the number of DPs per player isn't necessarily a great idea except in niche scenarios.

For example you mention that the cap could start at 2 or 3 on large maps, and others have expressed that it could increase by era. Those ideas sound good on their face, and sound intuitively correct. However your ability to declare wars with more people doesn't increase via map size or era, so I don't think that is a good idea. Being on a huge map won't make a 4 civ coalition easier to deal with (outside of cases where one is too far away to help, not something you rely on.) and being in a later era likewise won't help.

For the later era argument you might claim that by that point you should be better able to fight more civs as a warmonger, but I don't like the idea of freezing all non-warmongers out of wars by that same logic. Someone going for a culture victory should have the option of smashing the capital of their main rival to clear a path towards victory, and if it's gated behind 3 or 4 other civs that's no longer an option.

That's why I was very careful about restricting where allowing more DPs could be done, because otherwise I think we'll get the same problems, but a bit later.

 

[Stalker0]

That's why I was very careful about restricting where allowing more DPs could be done, because otherwise I think we'll get the same problems, but a bit later.

You could try to increase it through Ideology. Perhaps DPs with two civs of the same Ideology doesn't "count against the limit". This allows for a more block like manner in the late game, more "freedom block vs authority block". Might still be too much but something to consider.

Also, how would vassal DPs work in this limited system? Are vassals DP also "free", or would vassals not automatically provide DP benefits anymore?

 

[Gizmoman]

Also, how would vassal DPs work in this limited system? Are vassals DP also "free", or would vassals not automatically provide DP benefits anymore?

Vassals are not civs anymore, so of course they do not count

 

[JamesNinelives]

For example you mention that the cap could start at 2 or 3 on large maps, and others have expressed that it could increase by era. Those ideas sound good on their face, and sound intuitively correct. However your ability to declare wars with more people doesn't increase via map size or era, so I don't think that is a good idea. Being on a huge map won't make a 4 civ coalition easier to deal with (outside of cases where one is too far away to help, not something you rely on.) and being in a later era likewise won't help.

IMO making warmongering more difficult is the whole point of defensive pacts. If you want max 2 civs with no way to increase that number I don't see how you are going to make domination difficult on larger maps. Once you conquer the first 2 civs you're twice the size of everyone else. You don't care about sanctions. Where's the 'counter' for that?

At least with 4-civ alliances it's only defensive; they can't invade you - all they can do is sit there and hope you don't win a science victory. But if I sail across the seas to find the second continent is occupied by The Huns and their 2 vassals, there's very little chance of winning in a war against them.

 

[Recursive]

You could try to increase it through Ideology. Perhaps DPs with two civs of the same Ideology doesn't "count against the limit". This allows for a more block like manner in the late game, more "freedom block vs authority block". Might still be too much but something to consider.

Also, how would vassal DPs work in this limited system? Are vassals DP also "free", or would vassals not automatically provide DP benefits anymore?

Vassals are not civs anymore, so of course they do not count

You can't make DPs with vassals to begin with, they have no rights.

 

[Recursive]

IMO making warmongering more difficult is the whole point of defensive pacts. If you want max 2 civs with no way to increase that number I don't see how you are going to make domination difficult on larger maps. Once you conquer the first 2 civs you're twice the size of everyone else. You don't care about sanctions. Where's the 'counter' for that?

At least with 4-civ alliances it's only defensive; they can't invade you - all they can do is sit there and hope you don't win a science victory. But if I sail across the seas to find the second continent is occupied by The Huns and their 2 vassals, there's very little chance of winning in a war against them.

I think this is a good point. There's already criticism that war is too easy, and limiting DP alliances limits potential counterplay. War is also more powerful earlier in the game, when proposals are for the number of DPs to be lower. There isn't really an option for many smaller nations to band together against a larger foe.

On the other hand, there is a strong argument for nerfing the existing coalitions, as having to declare war on many civs at once (particularly friends) to make progress is not a fun mechanic.

 

[Gizmoman]

I think this is a good point. There's already criticism that war is too easy, and limiting DP alliances limits potential counterplay. War is also more powerful earlier in the game, when proposals are for the number of DPs to be lower. There isn't really an option for many smaller nations to band together against a larger foe.

On the other hand, there is a strong argument for nerfing the existing coalitions, as having to declare war on many civs at once (particularly friends) to make progress is not a fun mechanic.

Except DPs doesn't make domination harder, if anything it makes domination easier by completely removing the ability to declare any war at all while playing peacefully.

Yeah maybe that wasn't very clear. The point is that DP spam makes it impossible to declare one war, because you're going to be at war with everyone and you'll be branded a warmonger forever by everyone in the game. This doesn't change anything for someone going for domination, by the time DPs become a thing they've probably earned themselves enough global hate already to not care about it.
What the DP spam actually does is removing any possibility of making a timing-based push with your unique unit (if you have one coming online later in the game) without completely committing to a domination victory, as you pretty much lock yourself out of diplo and culture victories completely by antagonizing the entire world. I'm honestly not aware that these specific strategies were actually considered good, doing timing-pushes with unique units was mostly something fun to do as a distraction while waiting for your culture or diplo victory.

And as far as the AI goes, the DP spam seems to make them just not war with each other at all once the medieval era hits, so that's not exactly fun either, it just creates a stale gameplay.

 

[JamesNinelives]

On the other hand, there is a strong argument for nerfing the existing coalitions, as having to declare war on many civs at once (particularly friends) to make progress is not a fun mechanic.

I don't think there's any contraversy about that. Perhaps I've been unclear, but I support nerfing DPs. I simply don't want to see my options restricted to only 1 regardless of the circumstances.

The stakes aren't 'all or nothing'. We have the option to be nuanced about this.

 

[CrazyG]

Except DPs doesn't make domination harder, if anything it makes domination easier by completely removing the ability to declare any war at all while playing peacefully.

That's how I see it. If you've been peaceful for three eras, you don't have the strength to war half of the world. If you rely on trade routes or luxuries or any other form of cooperation you are just screwed.

On the other hand, if you play someone such as the Aztec and just decide to kill everything that moves from turn 1, you can actually war everyone at once.

 

[ElliotS]

Okay so we have 2 issues that need solving for: 1- Warmongers shouldn't have an easy time crushing everyone 2- The countermeasure to #1 shouldn't completely ice anyone that's not already an extremely powerful warmonger out of the game.

Here is my solution: Rather than these giant blanket DPs that can freeze everything over, make the AIs much more responsive and willing to declare wars against a warmonger that recently declared a war. (Or maybe any time the warscore is about even.) It's on the same path as my idea about greater anti-snowballing behavior being the major solution to snowballing AI, and would work much more dynamically and better imo.

Basically if a nation declares a war and seems to have a clear advantage over the other side, the AIs will see "Can I make a difference by joining in and declaring against them?" or if no "Can I ask any of my friends and can both of us join together to help?"

If they're able to help, then they can decide to join in depending on their relation with the attacker. If they're friends with them, joining in to stop them may not be worth their while. If they hate them, they might be willing to risk joining even if they're not as able to help. (Which might cause other AI to decide that now they can help.)

This makes diplomacy still worth it as a warmonger. (Which is often chalked up as a lost cause. I think there should be/is some ability to balance warmongering and diplomacy.) It also creates a new counter-force to exist against warmongers that is both more fluid than the current one, and probably more powerful. (Because you don't know for sure if anyone will join in, so you need to plan a bit more conservatively or be willing to take risks.)

Meanwhile with DPs reduced to 1 max (in most cases) then non-warmongers aren't locked out either.

Thoughts?

 

[Recursive]

Okay so we have 2 issues that need solving for: 1- Warmongers shouldn't have an easy time crushing everyone 2- The countermeasure to #1 shouldn't completely ice anyone that's not already an extremely powerful warmonger out of the game.

Here is my solution: Rather than these giant blanket DPs that can freeze everything over, make the AIs much more responsive and willing to declare wars against a warmonger that recently declared a war. (Or maybe any time the warscore is about even.) It's on the same path as my idea about greater anti-snowballing behavior being the major solution to snowballing AI, and would work much more dynamically and better imo.

Basically if a nation declares a war and seems to have a clear advantage over the other side, the AIs will see "Can I make a difference by joining in and declaring against them?" or if no "Can I ask any of my friends and can both of us join together to help?"

If they're able to help, then they can decide to join in depending on their relation with the attacker. If they're friends with them, joining in to stop them may not be worth their while. If they hate them, they might be willing to risk joining even if they're not as able to help. (Which might cause other AI to decide that now they can help.)

This makes diplomacy still worth it as a warmonger. (Which is often chalked up as a lost cause. I think there should be/is some ability to balance warmongering and diplomacy.) It also creates a new counter-force to exist against warmongers that is both more fluid than the current one, and probably more powerful. (Because you don't know for sure if anyone will join in, so you need to plan a bit more conservatively or be willing to take risks.)

Meanwhile with DPs reduced to 1 max (in most cases) then non-warmongers aren't locked out either.

Thoughts?

Not a bad solution IMO, but it'll require a fair amount of work on my part. I'll bump up "major revision of diplomacy AI's DoW logic" on my to-do list.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Okay so we have 2 issues that need solving for: 1- Warmongers shouldn't have an easy time crushing everyone 2- The countermeasure to #1 shouldn't completely ice anyone that's not already an extremely powerful warmonger out of the game.

Here is my solution: Rather than these giant blanket DPs that can freeze everything over, make the AIs much more responsive and willing to declare wars against a warmonger that recently declared a war. (Or maybe any time the warscore is about even.) It's on the same path as my idea about greater anti-snowballing behavior being the major solution to snowballing AI, and would work much more dynamically and better imo.

Basically if a nation declares a war and seems to have a clear advantage over the other side, the AIs will see "Can I make a difference by joining in and declaring against them?" or if no "Can I ask any of my friends and can both of us join together to help?"

If they're able to help, then they can decide to join in depending on their relation with the attacker. If they're friends with them, joining in to stop them may not be worth their while. If they hate them, they might be willing to risk joining even if they're not as able to help. (Which might cause other AI to decide that now they can help.)

This makes diplomacy still worth it as a warmonger. (Which is often chalked up as a lost cause. I think there should be/is some ability to balance warmongering and diplomacy.) It also creates a new counter-force to exist against warmongers that is both more fluid than the current one, and probably more powerful. (Because you don't know for sure if anyone will join in, so you need to plan a bit more conservatively or be willing to take risks.)

Meanwhile with DPs reduced to 1 max (in most cases) then non-warmongers aren't locked out either.

Thoughts?

I honestly don't know what the optimal solution is. It's above above my head at the moment so it's difficult for me to give you critical feedback from a game balance perspective. I really really appreciate that you've taken in different people's thoughts and come up with something that might address multiple potential issues though . That's not an easy thing to do.

 

[crdvis16]

I kinda wish DPs lasted a shorter amount of time. I dunno what (if any) effect it would have on people's concerns in this thread but 50 turns feels way too long to lock DPs in to me. Maybe half it to 25?

 

[Vhozite]

Honestly the more I think about this the more I think we shouldn’t make huge changes to Defensive Pacts before we see how they work when better communicated to the player. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I feel like there is some confirmation bias on my end regarding how powerful and annoying they are since I only ever really notice them when they are in the way. Better communication won’t fix the issue of one DoW leading to a world war, but better transparency will at least let us see just how much of a problem it is.

Also, I wonder how much of the player’s difficulty in getting DP’s is related to stubborn trade logic. A bunch of deals have “impossible” next to them no matter what you offer, so I wonder if fixing that (if it’s indeed an issue) would bridge some of that gap.

I mention both of these things because I don’t want to see Pacts gutted, just slightly toned down. As annoying as half-map coalitions can be to deal with, imo they should still be possible under certain circumstances.

 

[azum4roll]

I watched several AI games. There's almost always a war going on from Classical onward, and DPs didn't stop them in the slightest, since the other AI(s) is likely already locked up in another war.

Of course, things could be vastly different in a Pangaea map and different map sizes, as well as game speed.

I propose to just shorten the DP duration and watch the next version.

 

[Gizmoman]

One thing that I see as either a bug or just a gross violation of the rules of the game is that DPs ignore existing peace-treaties. Nothing else in the game acts that way.
If you have one of those 10 turn 'peace-treaty' things with a civ after a war, a dp should not be able to pull you into a war with that civ.

 

[wobuffet]

Honestly the more I think about this the more I think we shouldn’t make huge changes to Defensive Pacts before we see how they work when better communicated to the player. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I feel like there is some confirmation bias on my end regarding how powerful and annoying they are since I only ever really notice them when they are in the way. Better communication won’t fix the issue of one DoW leading to a world war, but better transparency will at least let us see just how much of a problem it is.

I propose to just shorten the DP duration and watch the next version.

+1 from me as well.
Halve DP duration to 25 turns or so + increase visibility (to human players and hopefully to AIs too), then see what folks think.

No sense in starting from scratch when changing 1 constant and adding little accessibility/transparency might be good enough.

 

[Stalker0]

I also think shortening the DP is the simplest out of the gate fix (heck I think 20 turns on standard speed is still a very solid treaty length that's almost half an era right there). That way you can see if the nuances of diplomacy prevent the blocks from being stagnant.

 

[JamesNinelives]

My main concern with shortening the length of DPs is that it won't be easy to renew them after they've ended. It's much easier for the AI to scroll through their contacts and ask if anyone is interested in a DP than it is for the human. I think that's part of the reason that the AI tends to have more than human players - it costs them nothing to ask whereas for humans you are more or less waiting for someone else to make the offer to you.

I do support small changes over a rework though. And while I think a limit of 1 would be stifling, I think a limit of 3 or 4 could make things more interesting for human players.