Possible bug: United Front policy

[clearbeard]

Version 1.0.0.62

Apparently, you now get a pop-up message when someone else adopts "united front" and your influence with city states drops faster. This is good. However, after getting a second notice of this, from a second civ, I notice the effect is cumulative. Seems like a bug to me, but if it's a feature, my question is: just who are you all uniting with, and against who?

Vaguely remember reading some discussion about this policy's wonkery elsewhere, but couldn't find a related thread here.

 

[DaveGold]

It was probably my thread elsewhere which I ought to probably retract.

I expect united front to be cumulative. If that's how it's working then it is at worst a feature.

 

[clearbeard]

It was probably my thread elsewhere which I ought to probably retract.

I expect united front to be cumulative. If that's how it's working then it is at worst a feature.

A very odd feature, among a long list of questionable ones then. Something like an increased relation decay rate only for city states you are at least friends with would make more sense. Rather than "I know we're at war and all, but you really don't want to be friends with anyone except for me."

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well if it is cumulative, then it stops city states from being friends with Any one

ie5 civs... 1 with united front... the other 4 lose at a 33% increased rate
if 2 have united front... the other 3 lose at 66%, and the 2 each lose at 33%
if 3 have united front... the other 2 lose at 99%, and the 3 each lose at 66%
if 4 have united front... the other 1 loses at 132%, and the 4 each lose at 99%
if 5 have united front... they all lose at 132% increased rate

Essentially, the more civs have United front, the less worthwhile City-State "Friends" are. While an ally is more worthwhile, it might not be worth investing money if you will only reach friend status.

 

[clearbeard]

Well if it is cumulative, then it stops city states from being friends with Any one

ie5 civs... 1 with united front... the other 4 lose at a 33% increased rate
if 2 have united front... the other 3 lose at 66%, and the 2 each lose at 33%
if 3 have united front... the other 2 lose at 99%, and the 3 each lose at 66%
if 4 have united front... the other 1 loses at 132%, and the 4 each lose at 99%
if 5 have united front... they all lose at 132% increased rate

Essentially, the more civs have United front, the less worthwhile City-State "Friends" are. While an ally is more worthwhile, it might not be worth investing money if you will only reach friend status.

Depends on how good your economy is, and how highly you value city states. In the above referenced game, the second civ taking UF came late. By the end, I was making ~400 gold/turn, or ~1100/turn during golden ages. So even losing 1.41 influence per turn (1.00-0.25+0.66), all it really did was let me secure everyone else's city states faster for more food, great people, and a little culture. Chalk it up to another example of the AI being dumb and leave it at that, I suppose. Even losing 2.07 influence per turn if all 4 of my remaining opponents had it would not have been an issue. Rationale still doesn't make sense to me, but I'll withdraw my complaint about it being a bug.

 

[Nebuzaradan]

Here's an additional possible bug for United Front (or working as intended?)

I got the pop-up letting me know that the Japanese had adopted United Front, well since my strategy was strongly based on my friendliness with CS, I immediately headed my army over there and completely destroyed them (wiped them out completely). I got the notice that they had been destroyed...but my influence is still dropping at the increased rate...

 

[mihaifx]

Here's an additional possible bug for United Front (or working as intended?)

I got the pop-up letting me know that the Japanese had adopted United Front, well since my strategy was strongly based on my friendliness with CS, I immediately headed my army over there and completely destroyed them (wiped them out completely). I got the notice that they had been destroyed...but my influence is still dropping at the increased rate...

I agree, it happened to me too. Once you destroy the civ that adopted it, it should go off. But it doesn't, and it's annoying.

 

[clearbeard]

I agree, it happened to me too. Once you destroy the civ that adopted it, it should go off. But it doesn't, and it's annoying.

I'm sure this is how it's intended too, annoying or not, since it's possible for eliminated major civs to return to the game if someone liberates them. It should suspend eveything from that civ that affects the game until the unlikely event of their return, but that might be too tricky to program. Or better yet, not let them come back at all, because really, when does that ever happen?

 

[DaveGold]

Or better yet, not let them come back at all, because really, when does that ever happen?

You liberate them for a vote in the UN.

 

[clearbeard]

You liberate them for a vote in the UN.

Do you have issues not being able to win a diplo victory? In all my games so far that have lasted that long, I have had to manipulate things so that I don't automatically win when someone else builds the UN and I vote against myself. Usually that means declaring war on 2-3 of my city state allies, which always ticks me off. Now I always play with diplo victory turned off, because it's just stupid (IMO). Have others not run into this?

 

[DaveGold]

You mean like this? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=390089

 

[clearbeard]

You mean like this? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=390089

Nope, more like "you need 12 votes to win. You currently have 20 of 25 possible votes." And that is after voting against myself. Yours seems more an issue with killing/enslaving too many players to win diplomatically, though I agree that the display could be more helpful in that regard. The numbers above are not exactly what I had, but something close. Comes from liberating/allying with too many city states.

 

[DaveGold]

I think that's your personal chosen problem.

 

[mihaifx]

I'm sure this is how it's intended too, annoying or not, since it's possible for eliminated major civs to return to the game if someone liberates them. It should suspend eveything from that civ that affects the game until the unlikely event of their return, but that might be too tricky to program. Or better yet, not let them come back at all, because really, when does that ever happen?

Ok I see why this is not an issue. Even if they're dead, they have already indoctrinated the city states to hate you.

Comes from liberating/allying with too many city states.

Yea, you don't have to be the nice guy all the time. You can always go for the 'X wants Y eliminated' quests, or simply puppet them for resources. If you play nice I guess you deserve a diplo win

 

[Perkus]

Well if it is cumulative, then it stops city states from being friends with Any one

ie5 civs... 1 with united front... the other 4 lose at a 33% increased rate
if 2 have united front... the other 3 lose at 66%, and the 2 each lose at 33%
if 3 have united front... the other 2 lose at 99%, and the 3 each lose at 66%
if 4 have united front... the other 1 loses at 132%, and the 4 each lose at 99%
if 5 have united front... they all lose at 132% increased rate

Essentially, the more civs have United front, the less worthwhile City-State "Friends" are. While an ally is more worthwhile, it might not be worth investing money if you will only reach friend status.

Let's try to get back on topic... While I agree there are multiple valid interpretations possible, I don't think this is what the original designer had in mind. Whether the penalty is going to accumulate or not, if you adopt United Front yourself you should eliminate all the penalties to you. The name of the policy suggests it's not supposed to make city-states hate everyone more & more. Instead it leads them into co-operating with you politically, presenting a united front. Everyone who is doing this shouldn't have any advantage over anybody else doing it, only those who are not. The influence drop is only logical when it's between those who have this policy and those who do not.

 

[mihaifx]

Let's try to get back on topic... While I agree there are multiple valid interpretations possible, I don't think this is what the original designer had in mind. Whether the penalty is going to accumulate or not, if you adopt United Front yourself you should eliminate all the penalties to you. The name of the policy suggests it's not supposed to make city-states hate everyone more & more. Instead it leads them into co-operating with you politically, presenting a united front. Everyone who is doing this shouldn't have any advantage over anybody else doing it, only those who are not. The influence drop is only logical when it's between those who have this policy and those who do not.

Hmm, it's hard to say what they had in mind here. I'm not sure if I remember right, but in one of the interviews I believe they said social policies are something that's imprinted in the minds of the citizens. So probably once they start hating you, they cannot go back.
What you're saying makes sense, but i'm not sure if it was their intention. It's still hard for me to digest that you can't do anything to make the penalty go away.