PROPOSAL: Split Sanctions resolution into Diplomatic & Economic Sanctions

[Recursive]

@LifeOfBrian and @DoctuhD have made a suggestion to split the Sanctions resolution which I really like.

Here is the proposal, with a few modifications from me:

Sanctions will be split into two resolutions, Economic Sanctions and Diplomatic Sanctions. Only one of the two can be placed on a civ at a time; to pass the other you must first repeal the first. This makes them mutually exclusive.

Economic Sanctions: Cannot buy or sell Cities, Technologies, Maps or Resources in Trade Deals (except Peace Deals). Cannot Request Help or make Demands of other civs. Cannot form Trade Routes to or from other civs or City-States. Nullifies all of this player's Monopoly bonuses (both Luxury and Strategic) except for the ability to form a Corporation. No foreign Corporate Franchises can be built in this player's cities, and they cannot spread their Corporation to other players' cities. All existing Corporate Franchises affected by this are destroyed.

Diplomatic Sanctions: Can't make Declarations of Friendship or Coop War Agreements with other civs. Can't trade Embassies, Open Borders, Defensive Pacts, Research Agreements, World Congress Votes, Third Party War/Peace or Voluntary Vassalage with other civs (exception: Iron Fist tenet allows accepting Voluntary Vassals regardless of Sanctions). Cannot Denounce other players. Warmongering penalties for declaring war on this player or capturing their cities are halved, and bonuses for liberating their cities are also halved. This player's warmongering penalties (existing and new) are doubled.

When Sanctions are passed, all ongoing Trade Deals with a player are terminated immediately. For Diplomatic Sanctions: Embassies, Open Borders, Defensive Pacts, Research Agreements are also immediately terminated. Voluntary Vassalage is also terminated, except for Masters with the Iron Fist tenet.

Sanctions do not apply between Teammates; however, if one player on a team is sanctioned, the entire team is sanctioned in the same way.

Sanctions do not apply between a Master and their Vassals; however, Vassals are subject to the same sanctions as their Master until they request independence or are liberated.

Please vote YES if you agree with this change and NO if you do not agree with this change.

If you only agree with SOME parts of the change, then please vote OTHER and explain your reasoning below.

Edit: Can't send trade routes to an economically sanctioned civ either

 

[Recursive]

To make Diplomatic Sanctions more on par with Economic Sanctions, maybe we could replace 2x warmongering with increase in the CS Influence decay rate (double/triple)? Just had this idea. Would be better for multiplayer.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the inclusion of monopoly bonuses in the sanctions, that make sense to me. I also like the notion of stopping your TRs but not other peoples. But I think we are splitting down the wrong axis here. It feels like economic is trying to have some diplomatic cake as well, and I don't think that is necessary. It also just adds confusion on what sanction does what.

So I would split it this way:

Economic Sanctions

• No TRs to other civs or CS (other players can still make TRs to you).
• Lose all existing Franchises (but opponent franchises remain. While its true that you get a little benefit from outside franchises, its so minor compared to the corp holder that this is a greater penalty to the corp holder than the sanctioned player).
• Lose Strategic/Monopoly bonuses

Diplomatic Sanctions

• No dealmaking (except for peace deals)
• Warmongering penalties halved against you.
• Player's warmongering penalties are doubled.

Also, sanctions are too common right now, and there's no "cause" for them, you just do them because mechanically you want to hurt other civs. It would be nice that in order to propose a sanction, the other civ you have some warmonger hate against or something....aka some diplomatic penalty that gives you justification for the sanction, rather than "I just want to!"

 

[Recursive]

Economic Sanctions shut down economic options, Diplomatic Sanctions shut down diplomatic options.

I don't see the confusion, personally; also, I meant to include "other players can't form trade routes to them" too. The idea is to prevent imports and exports in order to weaken a civ, much like real economic sanctions.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't see the confusion, personally; also, I meant to include "other players can't form trade routes to them" too. The idea is to prevent imports and exports in order to weaken a civ, much like real economic sanctions.

Just like Franchises, my issue with that is it actually hurts other players more than the sanctioned player. For example, the number 1 player, one of the best peaceful ways you have to catch up is to send a lot of TRs to them and milk science and culture bonuses. Sure the player gets some bonus as well, but it pales in comparison. When TRs get broken, the biggest loser isn't the sanctioned player, its everyone trying to siphon.

And besides, even in real life there's always some blackmarket behind the scenes people that are violating the sanctions, so the trickle of funds you get from opponent's TR can represent that.

I do like the increased influence decay idea.

 

[Recursive]

Also, sanctions are too common right now, and there's no "cause" for them, you just do them because mechanically you want to hurt other civs. It would be nice that in order to propose a sanction, the other civ you have some warmonger hate against or something....aka some diplomatic penalty that gives you justification for the sanction, rather than "I just want to!"

I can't think of a way to code this, and I think it would weaken the power of the resolutions significantly. To pass sanctions on someone they need to be hated by a majority of voting delegates, and I think using diplomatic power to bully/punish other civs is a valid mechanic.

If the AI is deploying them too often that's a separate problem.

Just like Franchises, my issue with that is it actually hurts other players more than the sanctioned player. For example, the number 1 player, one of the best peaceful ways you have to catch up is to send a lot of TRs to them and milk science and culture bonuses. Sure the player gets some bonus as well, but it pales in comparison. When TRs get broken, the biggest loser isn't the sanctioned player, its everyone trying to siphon.

And besides, even in real life there's always some blackmarket behind the scenes people that are violating the sanctions, so the trickle of funds you get from opponent's TR can represent that.

I do like the increased influence decay idea.

Fair enough. Could justify it as economic exploitation of the other civ.

 

[Stalker0]

If the AI is deploying them too often that's a separate problem.

I would say about a third to a forth of all proposals I see are sanction related, on the first several votes its even more, yeah its very common.

 

[Recursive]

I would say about a third to a forth of all proposals I see are sanction related, on the first several votes its even more, yeah its very common.

Paging @Milae!

 

[Revolutionist_8]

I'm a bit torned about being mutually exclusive. It feels a bit weird for me that a civ is being sanctioned diplomatically, but trade? Yeah, sure, let's keep going. Although I understand both at the same time would be very punishing (or would it?! )

I'm not sure about losing the monopoly bonus tho. It's already included when banning a resource, is it really necessary?

Also, is this split really necessary?

 

[Stalker0]

Also, is this split really necessary?

Its a great and important question. The proposal came out of a desire to tone down sanctions a bit, which lead to some interest in breaking out the main sanction components into a couple of different proposals, rather than just dropping certain mechanics wholesale. But it should be asked, do most people think the original sanctions are too strong?

And if yes, then do we need the two proposals, or just one of them and drop the other?

 

[Solic]

I don't understand why it has to be a mutually exclusive proposal? I can understand that having to defend against a double simultaneous sanction would be very tough, but then I'd rather have that not be allowed, then disallowing dual sanctions completely. I think it should still be an option to be able to first economically sanction and then diplomatically sanction. If not, you're defanging the current sanction weapon by only allowing half of its effect roughly.

On the premise of even making this change, I like WC variety and having more possible proposals fits with that. These also seem distinct enough to be standalone, so I'm good with it, but I definitely don't think it's a necessity or anything.

 

[Milae]

I would say about a third to a forth of all proposals I see are sanction related, on the first several votes its even more, yeah its very common.

Yea that's why I brought it up in the first place. When I was doing the AI I just put in my own valuation of things and realised it meant sanctions would happen all the time. I also find it annoying but I also think it's correct because it's such a good way to hurt your enemies without hurting yourself as much.

Me making them choose it less doesn't really solve the actual issue which is that it is just much better than the other proposals until some of the victory condition proposals come in and humans would still be able to use it whenever they want to ruin someone.

 

[Rafs]

While I don't mind the split, the economic sanction is way too powerful imho. No trade deals, no monopolies, corporation nuking and no trade routes with anyone? To me that's excessive. It was already very hard on your finance before without losing your monopolies honestly..

 

[Milae]

Not 100% on the monopoly thing but not completely against it either.

Some ideas on the Diplomatic sanctions: No diplomats in foreign cities. -33% production on diplomatic units and -33% Great Diplomat generation.

As you mentioned otherwise diplomatic might be a bit irrelevant in multiplayer since warmonger penalty isn't really a thing.

 

[Zuizgond]

Love the idea of the 2 separate sanction types. And agree with Revolutionist that monopoly bonus should not be tied with these sanctions as they are already a consequence of luxury ban.

 

[InkAxis]

Me making them choose it less doesn't really solve the actual issue which is that it is just much better than the other proposals until some of the victory condition proposals come in and humans would still be able to use it whenever they want to ruin someone.

I don't think people are understanding how the WC works. There is no reason to make the proposals equal power, that's not how balancing them works. It also makes all of the proposals really boring.

Sanctions is better than other proposals, but because it's stronger that also means it's harder to pass. If I'm about to get sanctioned then I'll put everything I've got into making sure it doesn't pass. So, automatically better proposals are harder to pass, so there is no need to balance it! You can't just use it "whenever", you need a majority of votes. If the player has a lot of votes, then he's played the WC well. Or if an opponent has no friends so they can't get enough votes... well that's the whole point of sanctions, if everyone hates you then you should get sanctioned.

The only condition here is the AI. The AI needs to understand that Sanctions are hard to pass. The WC has what is called an opportunity cost, because the WC only meets a certain amount of times then you need to try to maximize your proposals, more or less. If the AI constantly proposes sanctions but they never get passed, that's not an issue with sanctions. That's an issue with the AI not knowing when to use them. The AI should only propose things it thinks can actually pass the WC.


So with that out of the way, I think everyone needs to agree that we are implementing this for reasons other than "nerfing" sanctions.
I'm fine with how it currently is, maybe this suggestion will make the game more interesting so overall I'm neutral on it. I just would keep the resource monopoly stuff separate, there is already a ban luxury proposal that I think we can keep as is.

 

[usadefcon1]

My vote is to keep the sanctions the way they are now, but they only last for 50 turns and you can still trade with declared friends.

 

[Stalker0]

Sanctions is better than other proposals, but because it's stronger that also means it's harder to pass.

You are correct...to a point. Proposals don't need to be hard balanced in the same way as other things. The issue with sanctions is that unless you are going statecraft, late game its easy to get completely outvoted by the top people. So if they want you sanctioned....your sanctioned....there's no real defense. If I'm playing artistry on immortal....I just assume I will be sanctioned in the late game, so in my experience you really can't defend yourself against it unless you are going hard CS play.

Now compare that with decolonization, where the stronger the proposal would be (aka you have a lot of CS) also does mean the harder it is to pass, because if you have a lot of CS you have a lot of votes.

 

[InkAxis]

You are correct...to a point. Proposals don't need to be hard balanced in the same way as other things. The issue with sanctions is that unless you are going statecraft, late game its easy to get completely outvoted by the top people. So if they want you sanctioned....your sanctioned....there's no real defense. If I'm playing artistry on immortal....I just assume I will be sanctioned in the late game, so in my experience you really can't defend yourself against it unless you are going hard CS play.

Now compare that with decolonization, where the stronger the proposal would be (aka you have a lot of CS) also does mean the harder it is to pass, because if you have a lot of CS you have a lot of votes.

I guess that is true. But I feel like that might also just be a side effect of playing on a harder difficulty and winning? Because surely not every single player except the top 2 are getting sanctioned, and also I think there do need to be some big rewards late game for going for CS. But maybe you are right, I can see why there might need to be a nerf, but only a small one.

Edit: actually, don't sanctions also stop other people from trading with you? So overall in most cases you shouldn't want sanctions on another player because it actually makes it worse for you. Maybe the AI should factor that in. So it would make sense for the AI to vote against sanctions where the AI is neutral towards the sanctioned player.

 

[Stalker0]

I guess that is true. But I feel like that might also just be a side effect of playing on a harder difficulty and winning? Because surely not every single player except the top 2 are getting sanctioned, and also I think there do need to be some big rewards late game for going for CS. But maybe you are right, I can see why there might need to be a nerf, but only a small one.

Edit: actually, don't sanctions also stop other people from trading with you? So overall in most cases you shouldn't want sanctions on another player because it actually makes it worse for you. Maybe the AI should factor that in. So it would make sense for the AI to vote against sanctions where the AI is neutral towards the sanctioned player.

So funny enough I have had games were nigh every civ was sanctioned, it can happen. Your about TRs is quite correct, I honestly think sanctions against the top civ is often a bad decision because of the loss of yield siphons.