PROPOSAL: Split Sanctions resolution into Diplomatic & Economic Sanctions

[azum4roll]

Sanctions have been more commonly proposed this patch because there really aren't that many resolutions to choose from when the world congress is first founded, and many of them are global and can only be passed once. AIs also don't really propose World Religion and Ban Luxury anymore.

I think the suggested proposals are even stronger than the existing sanctions. Currently you can still send trade routes and establish franchises in city states; your monopolies are still intact, and on the diplomatic side you can still use the Discuss options. Trade deals don't immediately end either.

If the common opinion is that current sanctions are too strong, keeping existing franchises on vassals and city states is an enough nerf.

 

[frktest]

I think that is a good proposal the yours, with the following exceptions:

and they cannot spread their Corporation to other players' cities. All existing Corporate Franchises affected by this are destroyed.

That will deny the whole idea of Corporation add-on on VP. The corporations nature is a sort of over-nation powers. However I think that could be limited to 'foreing franchises are removed from sanctioned player cities'.

Cannot form Trade Routes to or from other civs or City-States.

Well, my gameplay experience is that if Trade Routes are banned both frome others Civs and CS you cannot win. In the way of your proposal AI's players can kill a victory of UP simply put the Economic sanction.
Moreover in the Civilisation game philosophy the CS's act independently from Civ players.
Thus I think that the sanction should limited to others Civs trade and not to CS.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

The more I think about it the more I'm concerned about the split to be honest. I just really can't see the real benefit in the change.

How is someone "diplomatically sanctioned" anyway? It's already true if everyone hates you, I don't see the justification to make it "formal" in a World Congress proposal.

"Can't make Declarations of Friendship" - this is especially worrying for me.
Let's say my ally is being sanctioned (and I voted against it but couldn't prevent it), but I want to keep up my alliance with them. I can't because others said so? I can't say that "I don't care, I stick to my ally", and I rather turn against the world? (which is potentially not even the opinion of the whole world, because there can be just 1 or 2 civs who "rule" the Congress with their votes)
If I keep my cooperation with them I'm already risking repercussions in the form of negative diplo opinions.

This artificial limitation makes absolutely no sense for me, whatsoever.

 

[looorg]

Splitting it into different things might be a thing, after all there is very rare to have a total boycott world wide on all stages vs any country. The sanctions are usually quite limited to either trade or diplomatic reasons. Even then not everyone cuts the cord. Perhaps even better might be to have it as a "deal" where it eventually just ends instead of having to be repelled. So instead it would then be upon the AI that wants the sanctions in place to renew it over and over again.

 

[pineappledan]

Agree that luxury monopoly stuff should be taken out. It’s redundant with luxury ban.

also agree with others that they should NOT be mutually exclusive. You should be able to inflict both sanction types on a single player. It takes twice as many votes and turns to do both, and they are weaker individually, so it’s already balanced by how doing both takes twice as much work.

However, I think you should only be able to do 1 sanction against 1 player per congress session. You should have to pass economic and diplomatic sanctions in two separate sessions on the same civ, or else you could use 1 sanction to bait out their ‘Nay’ votes and pass the other.

 

[Zuizgond]

Agree that both sanctions could be inflicted on a same player, but what about them lasting for a specific amount of turns (let's say 50 on standard, like it was suggested somewhere in this thread) ?

 

[InkAxis]

Agree that both sanctions could be inflicted on a same player, but what about them lasting for a specific amount of turns (let's say 50 on standard, like it was suggested somewhere in this thread) ?

Don't really see the point, you'll come out of sanctions as soon as you get enough diplomatic leverage anyway. I don't think there needs to be an arbitrary limit.

 

[pineappledan]

Yeah, just repeal it. Or else we have even fewer proposals

 

[Zuizgond]

When everybody hates you, which always happen at some point as there are so many negative modifiers, it's impossible to repeal a sanction against you with just your own (and vassals) votes.

 

[InkAxis]

When everybody hates you, which always happen at some point as there are so many negative modifiers, it's impossible to repeal a sanction against you with just your own (and vassals) votes.

Then that's a problem with the AI hating you too much. They should only be like that if you're winning a lot or did a lot of bad stuff. So maybe we need an adjustment there.

 

[Recursive]

So there seems to be a clear consensus in favor of weakening/splitting sanctions, but many different ideas about how to approach it. At this stage despite the vote I'm not ready to change it yet.

Also there seems to be several thoughts on what the problem is: the AI is too aggressive, the AI is too willing to sanction, sanctions are too powerful, WHY sanctions are too powerful.

I'm wondering how to get at the root of this.

 

[Recursive]

Maybe I should post the new code for how the AI determines Approach and Opinion and relationships for people to make suggestions?

Problem is only a few people give feedback when I do this.

 

[InkAxis]

I think people feel bad that they get sanctioned nearly every game, so they want to change sanctions. But really the problem is that the AI is being too aggressive/being too willing to sanction.

Maybe I should post the new code for how the AI determines Approach and Opinion and relationships for people to make suggestions?

Problem is only a few people give feedback when I do this.

You can, I think not a lot of people reply because: 1) it's pretty long 2) not everyone can understand code easily.
If you want more people to respond then making like a list of what the AI decides (a list of what each if statement does) would make it easier, if you want.

 

[pineappledan]

Move fast and break stuff
The concept has a mandate so I would just do it

 

[Stalker0]

Also there seems to be several thoughts on what the problem is: the AI is too aggressive, the AI is too willing to sanction, sanctions are too powerful, WHY sanctions are too powerful.

So if we want to start simple, right now the AI sanctions too much, and again part of the issue here is that a sanction is a double edged sword. If I want to have a lot of TRs with a civ....then I should never want to sanction them, that is just shooting myself in the foot. So in terms of incremental adjustments that is the lowest hanging fruit to me. Regardless of how/if we change sanctions, it should be a scalpel, not a blunt hammer the AI wants to just use game after game after game.

 

[Recursive]

I think people feel bad that they get sanctioned nearly every game, so they want to change sanctions. But really the problem is that the AI is being too aggressive/being too willing to sanction.


You can, I think not a lot of people reply because: 1) it's pretty long 2) not everyone can understand code easily.
If you want more people to respond then making like a list of what the AI decides (a list of what each if statement does) would make it easier, if you want.

I have done that before and didn't get much feedback either, since the code is still complicated even when explained in plain text.

Move fast and break stuff
The concept has a mandate so I would just do it

Yes it does, but it's a lot of work to do.

So if we want to start simple, right now the AI sanctions too much, and again part of the issue here is that a sanction is a double edged sword. If I want to have a lot of TRs with a civ....then I should never want to sanction them, that is just shooting myself in the foot. So in terms of incremental adjustments that is the lowest hanging fruit to me. Regardless of how/if we change sanctions, it should be a scalpel, not a blunt hammer the AI wants to just use game after game after game.

@Milae feels that the AI sanctions too much because sanctions are too powerful, and he may be right.

 

[Stalker0]

@Milae feels that the AI sanctions too much because sanctions are too powerful, and he may be right.

But since we agree that it sanctions too much, but don't agree on sanction options, seems the simplest thing to start is to lower the AIs desire for sanctions.

 

[Recursive]

But since we agree that it sanctions too much, but don't agree on sanction options, seems the simplest thing to start is to lower the AIs desire for sanctions.

This logic presumes that the AI sanctioning is a bad decision and it's harming itself. With the selling resources exploit there's a fair argument but otherwise I'm not sure that it really is. Sanctions are double-edged but the AI has other trade opportunities.

It's not a fun mechanic for sure, and that's why I think the problem is with the resolution itself.

 

[pineappledan]

Making two separate sanction actions which, when combined, are only 10% more punishing than the current setup already fixes a large portion of the problem without touching AI behaviour. The AI has to work twice as hard for twice as long to accomplish the same amount of damage using the WC resolutions.

 

[tommytoxen]

@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

Sounds good and adds a little realism to the game. Very rarely in real life do you have complete carpet embargoes. There's always economic sanctions or political repercussions. Liking that vassals take the hit along with their master too!