Refinement of a Proposal: Diplomatic Penalties for player for gifting units to City states with the AI is at War with

cidk2000

Warlord
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
131
Location
Wales UK
Currently the AI has no idea if the human player is sending military units to city states or gets annoyed doing so.
If this is possible to program the human player should recieve diplomatic penalties to sending troops and equipment to a city state at war with the AI and the human player should be aware of it too.

Currently the human player can see on the screen when hovering the mouse pointer over the city state units if it has come from the player only.

An example with a game: India (ai) was a war with zanibar . I have DOF with India and Allies with Zanibar, I gifted lots of units to Zanzibar and Zanzibar managed to turn the tide and survive (they were down to yellow on city health) India wasnt annoyed at all with me gifting those units. Never question at all

In the real world, sending troops and equipment in aid to countries Can cause diplomatic problems you dont have to look very far in 2022 to find current conflicts

Im wondering back in civ 5 if this can be scaled to era / culturural influence over rival civ ai for severe penalties for example if Human sending troops in information era to a city state that said city state is at war with an opposing Ideology civ ai and the human isnt an influential civ I would suspect this would cause massive diplomatic issues. in comparison to a medivial civ that no has DOF and possibly behind on tech.

The effects could be an increased difficulty in the civ state game and more late game conflicts. it would certainly add more fun to see if the human player would get caught. I feel the AI should be annoyed ending DOF etc or even declaring war in rage.

on The Human side id probably let the player figure out if the AI is sending troops to your conflict with a city state its quite easy to see thje changes in colour when the gifting happens.

the Above text is posted in the Proposal congress but unfortunatly has been vetoed because I have not specified how this will occur

would the community agree with the proposal? if so how would we apply the penalty I was thinking if you have a DOF with the AI the penalty should be higher , it should scale with era with very little in ancient and highest in information. it should be random number and random chance with the chance weighted towards the type of unit for example if its A UU it should higher chance from being caught its id say probably -20 for standard per unit. Would anyone like to discuss ?
 

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
3,880
Location
Antarctica
For clarification, a new diplomacy mechanic is indeed an acceptable VP Congress proposal. :)

Also, the best way to program something like this would be to add an opinion bonus/penalty if a condition is met. I would want numbers!
 

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
As I said in the other topic. Realistic but unfun as a gameplay mechanic. And more likely to happen from a bug than an actual common in game situation to have a whole new rule set around it.
I'm against having it at all regardless of numbers.
 

cidk2000

Warlord
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
131
Location
Wales UK
its almost exploity from a Players point of view, AI at war with city state , you gift units weaken the AI militaristically with no diplomatic penalty you vote against them in the Congress/ take land/ spread religion/ ideology etc why not a penalty ? but unfun ? the fun part is Whether you are caught!

if so you should have penalty based upon era/ DOF/Ideology/or even a defence pact

Id say base 1 in Ancient rising until information with the penalty multiplied by 10 for DOF and 20 for Defence pact. so at Information age 10 base *10 for a DOF so -100 penalty or -200 for defence pact?

The chance to be caught is 1 in 5 for lower science 2/5 same science 3/5 for higher science 4/5 for UU or 5/5 UU higher science

note im not a maths wiz or a programmer so feel free to adjust the numbers accordingly to see fit.
 

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
The unfun part is you have less options of what you can do to protect a CS. Without this proposal you can either help that CS discreetly or just outright warn/dow on the oppressing civ, but with this proposal you can only do the later.
If you call that exploitive then bribing other civ to go to war with another is just as exploitive since you don't get "called out" either. Or even selling them strategic resources to help them win the war.
It's part of diplomacy, even in real world, as even if ppl knows you're sending troops to help or sabotage someone else they can't outright act on it unless they want full on aggression against the puppeteer.
 

cidk2000

Warlord
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
131
Location
Wales UK
thats interesting, that there isnt no diplomatic penalty for it for bribing another civ this would certainly make the proposal unfun! perhaps the diplomatic system needs refining. The sphere of influence thing also ticks me off too i thought having a sphere of influence would be empire proximity, military, science etc not a simple vote in the congress but i digress thats another discussion
 

Rekk

Emperor
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,998
Being able to keep an ally is mostly a function of proximity, so that proposal would lean towards your inclination.
 
Top Bottom