(Rising Tides) Quill 18's Chungsu Gameplay

[poom3619]

Well the alternative is leaving the AI as a one city civ, getting energy per turn as tribute and getting powerful agreements from them again. Rinse and repeat with every civ. That would be a strong game exploit and if the devs let it in, we would be hearing cries to remove it. Now I can't speak for the devs but maybe they just wanted to try to remove that exploit?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

I think there are a lot of middle ground where diplomacy actually work.

 

[Westwall]

Well the alternative is leaving the AI as a one city civ, getting energy per turn as tribute and getting powerful agreements from them again. Rinse and repeat with every civ. That would be a strong game exploit and if the devs let it in, we would be hearing cries to remove it. Now I can't speak for the devs but maybe they just wanted to try to remove that exploit?

That makes no sense whatsoever. A player should be allowed to set whatever terms he wants and if the AI is willing to agree to them, fine. And if not, then those terms should be adjustable. If what you say was true and removing that "exploit" (which is no more an exploit than winning a game is an exploit) was really the intention of the devs, then there were far better ways to do it than to force terms the AI has no chance to agreeing on, and then not giving a way for the player to at least ask "Well, what would you be willing to give up?"

I understand you wanting to give the devs the benefit of the doubt, I really do.

But even you can't seriously think something this broken was intentional and the way War Score was "supposed to work."

"It's a feature!"

No, no it really isn't.

 

[Ryika]

An easy fix would be to make it hard to recover your diplomatic standings with a Civ after you've captures a lot of their Cities. Combine it with not allowing deals on low relationship level and there you go, problem solved.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

In other words, https://youtu.be/j4Gge5Par_I?t=6m15s This don't need to be fixed.

I am not saying it does not need to be fixed. I am saying that I don't think the devs thought it needed to be fixed until now.

 

[Westwall]

An easy fix would be to make it hard to recover your diplomatic standings with a Civ after you've captures a lot of their Cities. Combine it with not allowing deals on low relationship level and there you go, problem solved.

I'm of the opposite opinion. I don't think players should be punished for wanting spoils of war.

When you have another faction backed against the wall, there should be a way for them to declare complete fealty to you as an allied vassal or puppet state.

They should also be open to whatever trade deals you want to conduct, maybe even at a discount on diplomatic capital. And the texts they constantly send you should suddenly become all praises or polite advice.

That's not an "exploit," that should be your reward for defeating an opponent.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

But even you can't seriously think something this broken was intentional and the way War Score was "supposed to work."

A scenario where the peace terms demand an AI surrender their very last city, I would call a bug. But situations where the AI is losing a war badly and the peace terms demand it give up a city that is not their last city and the AI refuses, that is not a bug. Just because the war score is 1000-0 does not mean that the AI MUST agree to peace. That is a misconception that players have about how the war score should work.

Again, let me reiterate, I am not saying that the war score is perfect. It is far from perfect. And I hope the devs do improve it. I am just trying to look at things as objectively as possible from both sides of the issue.

 

[GenEngineer]

I am not saying it does not need to be fixed. I am saying that I don't think the devs thought it needed to be fixed until now.

Then all of the complaints that the devs don't know what they're doing have merit. As has been mentioned elsewhere, even if it was done to remove an exploit, doing it in the way that breaks or removes literally everything else about the system is a problem that they should have realized long before now.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

That's not an "exploit," that should be your reward for defeating an opponent.

Of course, it would be an exploit. You don't think that declaring war on the AI, taking their cities for free through war spoils and then getting all your agreements back with them soon afterwards would be an exploit? You know players would be saying that it is too easy to defeat the AI, getting their cities and then getting all their agreements back and repeating that process with the other AIs makes the game too easy to win.

 

[GenEngineer]

Of course, it would be an exploit. You don't think that declaring war on the AI, taking their cities for free through war spoils and then getting all your agreements back with them soon afterwards would be an exploit? You know players would be saying that it is too easy to defeat the AI, getting their cities and then getting all their agreements back and repeating that process with the other AIs makes the game too easy to win.

Then make the AI refuse the agreements? We've already seen them do that in the Let's Plays, just make it so that no agreements will be accepted until they've burned off their anger at you, similar to how that number was already tracked in Civ:BE.

An exploit can be fixed without ruining the system as a whole. And if getting cities for free is part of that exploit, maybe there should be an option to choose something else? Maybe there always should have been that option?

 

[Ryika]

I'm of the opposite opinion. I don't think players should be punished for wanting spoils of war.

When you have another faction backed against the wall, there should be a way for them to declare complete fealty to you as an allied vassal or puppet state.

They should also be open to whatever trade deals you want to conduct, maybe even at a discount on diplomatic capital. And the texts they constantly send you should suddenly become all praises or polite advice.

That's not an "exploit," that should be your reward for defeating an opponent.

Ultimately, balance comes first. If you're able to take a lot of cities from a city, have them as a reward and then also get an ally for the rest of the game that you can use and abuse without any downsides, then any strategy that doesn't involve heavily offensive play is a lot weaker than a strategy that involves conquering.

Ergo: No. Unless you at the same time make sure that the bonuses you get are somehow counter-balanced (for example by everyone else who's strong enough to not totally fear you, hating you for what you did and no longer accepting deals) I don't think that vague idea goes against anything I'd call good game design.

 

[Westwall]

I'm referring specifically to situations where the AI is down to its last city. If you still consider that imbalanced or exploitative, then the problem lies with the AI itself being too ineffectual at combat.

The thing that should be discouraging you from going warmonger every game is the threat of losing or souring your relations with other factions, not that the potential rewards from the faction you're at war with won't be worth it. That's just bad game design.

 

[Ryika]

I'm referring specifically to situations where the AI is down to its last city. If you still consider that imbalanced or exploitative, then the problem lies with the AI itself being too ineffectual at combat. The thing that should be discouraging you from going offensive every game is the threat of losing or souring your relations with other factions, not that the potential rewards from the faction you're at war with won't be worth it. That's just bad game design.

I have no idea how you got the impression that I'm suggesting that the "potential rewards should not be worth it". Obviously a well-fought war should always pay out, but it still needs to be in relation to the effort spent. Getting a ton of cities AND getting a BFF seems like complete overkill for me given the fact that the way war currently plays out is at a rather good state, when it comes to the investment-reward ratio.

Other than that your way of thinking also runs into the weird situation where you'd always want to let a Civilization live with a single city. It would literally be the only viable choice, because you prevent the Diplomatic Penalty and get a willing slave compared to a single city.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'm of the opposite opinion. I don't think players should be punished for wanting spoils of war.

When you have another faction backed against the wall, there should be a way for them to declare complete fealty to you as an allied vassal or puppet state.

They should also be open to whatever trade deals you want to conduct, maybe even at a discount on diplomatic capital. And the texts they constantly send you should suddenly become all praises or polite advice.

That's not an "exploit," that should be your reward for defeating an opponent.

They have that...send your troops into their cities and make them puppets.
Earn science, energy, culture, strategic resources, and healing support bases.


I can see the AI giving a white peace and sanctioning you till games end, when you have crushed them. I see no reason for them to give you more benefits than finishing them off. Diplo Agreements v. The majority of their empire puppeted...choose 1.


Also, haven't seem all the streams, but the AIs can refuse diploagreements, as in ones that you want to buy from them?
That seems silly, if they want you not to buy their agreements, they should Sanction you... That should be the mechanic, the control you have over what others do with you diplomatically is the 5 states of War-Allied. (you should be able to warn the AI that doing X will lower/raise your standing with me and vice versa)

 

[Westwall]

I have no idea how you got the impression that I'm suggesting that the "potential rewards should not be worth it". Obviously a well-fought war should always pay out, but it still needs to be in relation to the effort spent. Getting a ton of cities AND getting a BFF seems like complete overkill for me given the fact that the way war currently plays out is at a rather good state, when it comes to the investment-reward ratio.

Other than that your way of thinking also runs into the weird situation where you'd always want to let a Civilization live with a single city. It would literally be the only viable choice, because you prevent the Diplomatic Penalty and get a willing slave compared to a single city.

What's weird about it? Isn't it great?

I think it's fantastic.

Meanwhile, they get to keep their relative autonomy.

Mutually beneficial. Almost... symbiotic.

 

[Ryika]

Well, glad you're not the game designer then.

 

[GenEngineer]

@ KrikkitTwo - At one point, Quill tried to buy an agreement from the PAU that would give 1 energy for every tile he owned. Barre refused (likely because as large as Quill is, that would be too much for him to give away). As for the AI not being allowed to refuse, then should we not be allowed to refuse selling agreements to the AI? Considering also that there is a diplomatic capital cost per turn, and it makes sense that the agreements are handled on a case by case basis instead of all or nothing based on relationship status. As for the AI being able to refuse, I would like to know why, but I'm not against the concept. If under certain circumstances the AI doesn't want you to get farther ahead, that seems fair in my opinion, as long as they agree most of the time and the logic behind it is evident.

@ Westwall - I think you confused 'symbiotic' with 'parasitic'. That seems like too much of a case of having your cake and eating it too, if you can get the benefits from nearly wiping out a civ and all of the benefits from having sucked up to them all game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

@ KrikkitTwo - At one point, Quill tried to buy an agreement from the PAU that would give 1 energy for every tile he owned. Barre refused (likely because as large as Quill is, that would be too much for him to give away). As for the AI not being allowed to refuse, then should we not be allowed to refuse selling agreements to the AI? Considering also that there is a diplomatic capital cost per turn, and it makes sense that the agreements are handled on a case by case basis instead of all or nothing based on relationship status. As for the AI being able to refuse, I would like to know why, but I'm not against the concept. If under certain circumstances the AI doesn't want you to get farther ahead, that seems fair in my opinion, as long as they agree most of the time and the logic behind it is evident.

@ Westwall - I think you confused 'symbiotic' with 'parasitic'. That seems like too much of a case of having your cake and eating it too, if you can get the benefits from nearly wiping out a civ and all of the benefits from having sucked up to them all game.

If they don't want you to get ahead, they Sanction you...very simple.
The diplo capital cost is to the buyer who decides on a case by case which to buy (since they can only have 5)... but selling imposes no cost on you (I assume you can sell the same agreement to multiple civs)

 

[GenEngineer]

If they don't want you to get ahead, they Sanction you...very simple.
The diplo capital cost is to the buyer who decides on a case by case which to buy (since they can only have 5)... but selling imposes no cost on you (I assume you can sell the same agreement to multiple civs)

But there are more to the relationship levels than just the agreements - the ability to send trade routes, open borders, defensive pacts, etc...

Selling does not impose a cost to you, true, but it does give benefit to the other player. For an AI that's already far behind the human, not wanting to let them gain 100 or so Energy per turn might be a way of keeping the AI from being a pushover while still allowing participation in the diplomatic system. Likewise, if the relationship is based on fear and the AI is planning to backstab you in the next 10 turns (not the case in Quill's LP, but a possible scenario nonetheless), then they might want to not drop into sanctioned just yet, but not give you benefits just before the war breaks out.

Of course, this is assuming that the AI is actually weighing the decision before refusing, instead of doing it at random.

 

[Westwall]

Well, glad you're not the game designer then.

And I'm glad you'll never be one.

 

[Barathor]

Well the alternative is leaving the AI as a one city civ, getting energy per turn as tribute and getting powerful agreements from them again. Rinse and repeat with every civ. That would be a strong game exploit and if the devs let it in, we would be hearing cries to remove it. Now I can't speak for the devs but maybe they just wanted to try to remove that exploit?

I was saying that too. But, I no longer "fully" believe in that, since if the losing civ peaces out and the attacker lets them, the attacker is only hurting themselves a bit. That civ is still alive and may have good relations with your competitors and continues to feed them bonuses. Plus, I learned some other things:

1) At sanctioned, I don't think you can trade traits, along with other things.

2) It looks like leaders are limited to gaining only 5 additional traits from other leaders, is this correct?

3) Leaders can always deny a trait deal proposal, even when allies. This one surprised me, but I like it, it's not only a matter of having the DC to buy them.

So, I think factions should still try to survive and peace out. But, the attacker shouldn't be able to get higher than sanctioned with that leader for a long time, as punishment, before you can start repairing relations with them and trade with them again for bonuses.

I think this would give a good balance to either exterminating them for good and also removing any bonuses from your competitors, OR letting them live with a few cities for the chance to trade with them again if you're willing to back off of them and wait for a while.

Personally, I still don't want the inferior trading table back. But I also don't want cities as the only bargaining chip - that kind of sucks and you often will get crap cities. Players would often rather get nothing than that, since you're already satisfied with what you've conquered. Plus, you can't gain anything from smaller skirmishes won. Finally, giving up cities messes with the AI accepting peace, if they're willing to at the time.

In the other thread I suggested a Spoils of War system, which I think could improve the War Score system if it was implemented in some form and polished. You're rewarded for the score you accumulate and for simply winning, it makes it more competitive.

(written on my phone, hope it makes sense!)