Personally, I don't think the World Congress sanctions should apply in two distinct cases: when you're making a trade demand of a sanctioned civ, and between vassals and their masters, or masters and their vassals. Hear me out:
1) Demands. Sanctions are meant to punish civs for their (real or perceived) bad behavior, such as being a warmongering menace to the world. The intention of sanctions in the real world is generally to prevent a hostile state from obtaining resources it would use for harmful purposes - for some real life examples, we can look at the Iran nuclear deal, or the sanctions placed on North Korea - intended to stop them from obtaining materials, technology or money to develop nuclear weapons.
However, demands take resources, technology or money away from another civ without giving them any resources in return they could use. While a case could be made that you don't want a sanctioned civ giving away their materials to a friend who could then use it against those who sanctioned them, a demand is made without consent and harms relations.
If a demand succeeds against a sanctioned civ, it only weakens the target civ; thus, the objective of the sanctions is fulfilled.
Gameplay-wise, I don't feel it's fun that I can't demand resources from a civ after proposing and passing sanctions on them. It punishes civs other than the target of the sanctions; and considering that sanctions greatly reduce the warmongering penalty for attacking and conquering the civ directly, it makes no sense that taking things without actually going in to conquer their lands should be given more of a punishment.
It also removes another tool that can be used to punish high difficulty AIs, against which sanctions aren't as effective due to their large bonuses.
Note that to completely stop trade you also need to pass City-State Sanctions in most cases, and that hurts you as well as them. Another reason why I feel demands shouldn't be blocked.
(NOTE: I do think sanctions should still apply to gifts, and to demands made by the sanctioned civ. Stopping a bully from making demands of other civs is effective use of sanctions; and it makes sense that having a DoF with a sanctioned civ would come with a cost.)
2) Masters/Vassals. There are several reasons why I think masters and their vassals should be able to trade with each other in spite of the WC resolution:
First, let's look at a real life comparison. Arguably, North Korea has been a vassal state of China for many years, definitely so prior to its obtaining nuclear weapons; it has been allowed to carry out its atrocities because they were under China's protection against the rest of the world powers.
And in spite of the many sanctions placed on them by the UN (even by China themselves), they still sneak in a lot of trade with NK, just because they can, and it keeps that regime afloat, because there's no way they'd be able to do it on their own; plus, China doesn't want a flood of refugees going across the border, nor U.S. allies so close by.
For another example, we have Russia basically annexing (or at least puppeting) Ukraine. Even if the UN were to pass sanctions against either of them, do you think that would stop Russia from trading or demanding stuff?
A vassal state is not a mere extension of the master's country, but it is a country in which the master is the dominant political and economic presence (reflected in-game by the vassal tax system and the loss of some political independence).
There are other reasons why I support this that are more related to gameplay:
Reason one, it offers masters who have been sanctioned by the World Congress due to their enemies having dominant control of world politics a comeback mechanic for trade, although one which is a challenge to obtain - conquering enough of a nation to vassalize it is a challenge and requires skilled warfare, at least at higher difficulties. It's a way to balance World Congress control VS. no World Congress control.
It also allows sanctioned masters to obtain money from their vassals to cover vassal maintenance without the heavy diplomacy penalty that high taxes bring; the current system might force a master to be harsh and impose high taxes - which goes against the idea of sanctions being a punishment for bad behavior and deterrent to future bad behavior.
Reason two, it offers vassals a comeback mechanic. Suppose the vassal was sanctioned and then conquered due to these sanctions. Part of the idea behind vassalage is that it allows the vassal to come back and fight for their independence if they manage to get back up on their feet again. However, it's extremely difficult to do this if you've not only lost many cities but can't even trade with a single other civilization. And it's not like this doesn't come with a cost: vassals' items are worth 20% less in trade, unless VP changed that.
Reason three, the above two issues effectively create an incentive to wipe out a sanctioned civ entirely rather than vassalize them. The same people that would argue for war against a misbehaving civilization in real life would probably also not be okay with another civilization committing genocide against them; and gameplay-wise, it would result in more civilizations being wiped out entirely rather than having a second (if slight) chance to come back. Taking over their city-state embassies, stopping them from denouncing people and completely eliminating them as a competitor are already strong incentives; do we really need more?
Reason four, it's a good tactic to place sanctions against a civilization before going to war with them, because it reduces your warmongering penalty and weakens them economically. However, if you then conquer them and vassalize them, you can't trade with them - which I personally find rather dissatisfying, since when I have control of the WC, I generally want to use my delegates to propose something more beneficial than unsanctioning my vassal. It feels like a punishment for all the work it took to A) get sanctions passed, and B) conquer their country. I don't think it's a fun mechanic, as-is.
Expanding on this, it's not exactly unheard of in history for one power to use their dominant political and military presence to force another power to trade mostly or only with them. I think it would be fun for players who like to play that way, and it would reward them for the work required to defeat their enemy rather than punish them. The vassals could still retaliate with their own WC delegates, or with world diplomacy (denunciations etc.), or by trading enough to build up a military and biding their time.
Reason five, changing this would make masters a bit more of a threat and incentivize other players (humans and AI alike) to attempt to have them liberated, or to propose Global Liberation, which I don't think is a bad thing. I find it a bit too easy to conquer multiple countries and vassalize them, without having Global Liberation proposed, and I think more of a challenge in this area would be a good thing.
And finally, reason six, if a master cannot trade with or demand things from their vassal, then the vassal tax system makes zero sense. I can demand money from them through the tax system, but can't demand money from them through the trade window?
Before Stalker0 yells at me for proposing to change something technically locked
, I'd like to point out that the sanctions resolution applying to trade deals is 1) a recent mechanic, not one that's been debated over years, at least to my knowledge; 2) does not really require balancing if changed in this way, and 3) I'm not the first to bring up this concern, although it wasn't mentioned in that thread specifically.
And the sanctions resolution applying to demands might even be an unintended consequence of sharing trade window code, rather than an intended mechanic.
I'd like to hear other opinions on this before bringing it up on Github for the almighty G's consideration, because I think this is a change that a lot of people could get behind and think is logical/fun.
Let me know what you think, please!
1) Demands. Sanctions are meant to punish civs for their (real or perceived) bad behavior, such as being a warmongering menace to the world. The intention of sanctions in the real world is generally to prevent a hostile state from obtaining resources it would use for harmful purposes - for some real life examples, we can look at the Iran nuclear deal, or the sanctions placed on North Korea - intended to stop them from obtaining materials, technology or money to develop nuclear weapons.
However, demands take resources, technology or money away from another civ without giving them any resources in return they could use. While a case could be made that you don't want a sanctioned civ giving away their materials to a friend who could then use it against those who sanctioned them, a demand is made without consent and harms relations.
If a demand succeeds against a sanctioned civ, it only weakens the target civ; thus, the objective of the sanctions is fulfilled.
Gameplay-wise, I don't feel it's fun that I can't demand resources from a civ after proposing and passing sanctions on them. It punishes civs other than the target of the sanctions; and considering that sanctions greatly reduce the warmongering penalty for attacking and conquering the civ directly, it makes no sense that taking things without actually going in to conquer their lands should be given more of a punishment.
It also removes another tool that can be used to punish high difficulty AIs, against which sanctions aren't as effective due to their large bonuses.
Note that to completely stop trade you also need to pass City-State Sanctions in most cases, and that hurts you as well as them. Another reason why I feel demands shouldn't be blocked.
(NOTE: I do think sanctions should still apply to gifts, and to demands made by the sanctioned civ. Stopping a bully from making demands of other civs is effective use of sanctions; and it makes sense that having a DoF with a sanctioned civ would come with a cost.)
2) Masters/Vassals. There are several reasons why I think masters and their vassals should be able to trade with each other in spite of the WC resolution:
First, let's look at a real life comparison. Arguably, North Korea has been a vassal state of China for many years, definitely so prior to its obtaining nuclear weapons; it has been allowed to carry out its atrocities because they were under China's protection against the rest of the world powers.
And in spite of the many sanctions placed on them by the UN (even by China themselves), they still sneak in a lot of trade with NK, just because they can, and it keeps that regime afloat, because there's no way they'd be able to do it on their own; plus, China doesn't want a flood of refugees going across the border, nor U.S. allies so close by.
For another example, we have Russia basically annexing (or at least puppeting) Ukraine. Even if the UN were to pass sanctions against either of them, do you think that would stop Russia from trading or demanding stuff?
A vassal state is not a mere extension of the master's country, but it is a country in which the master is the dominant political and economic presence (reflected in-game by the vassal tax system and the loss of some political independence).
There are other reasons why I support this that are more related to gameplay:
Reason one, it offers masters who have been sanctioned by the World Congress due to their enemies having dominant control of world politics a comeback mechanic for trade, although one which is a challenge to obtain - conquering enough of a nation to vassalize it is a challenge and requires skilled warfare, at least at higher difficulties. It's a way to balance World Congress control VS. no World Congress control.
It also allows sanctioned masters to obtain money from their vassals to cover vassal maintenance without the heavy diplomacy penalty that high taxes bring; the current system might force a master to be harsh and impose high taxes - which goes against the idea of sanctions being a punishment for bad behavior and deterrent to future bad behavior.
Reason two, it offers vassals a comeback mechanic. Suppose the vassal was sanctioned and then conquered due to these sanctions. Part of the idea behind vassalage is that it allows the vassal to come back and fight for their independence if they manage to get back up on their feet again. However, it's extremely difficult to do this if you've not only lost many cities but can't even trade with a single other civilization. And it's not like this doesn't come with a cost: vassals' items are worth 20% less in trade, unless VP changed that.
Reason three, the above two issues effectively create an incentive to wipe out a sanctioned civ entirely rather than vassalize them. The same people that would argue for war against a misbehaving civilization in real life would probably also not be okay with another civilization committing genocide against them; and gameplay-wise, it would result in more civilizations being wiped out entirely rather than having a second (if slight) chance to come back. Taking over their city-state embassies, stopping them from denouncing people and completely eliminating them as a competitor are already strong incentives; do we really need more?
Reason four, it's a good tactic to place sanctions against a civilization before going to war with them, because it reduces your warmongering penalty and weakens them economically. However, if you then conquer them and vassalize them, you can't trade with them - which I personally find rather dissatisfying, since when I have control of the WC, I generally want to use my delegates to propose something more beneficial than unsanctioning my vassal. It feels like a punishment for all the work it took to A) get sanctions passed, and B) conquer their country. I don't think it's a fun mechanic, as-is.
Expanding on this, it's not exactly unheard of in history for one power to use their dominant political and military presence to force another power to trade mostly or only with them. I think it would be fun for players who like to play that way, and it would reward them for the work required to defeat their enemy rather than punish them. The vassals could still retaliate with their own WC delegates, or with world diplomacy (denunciations etc.), or by trading enough to build up a military and biding their time.
Reason five, changing this would make masters a bit more of a threat and incentivize other players (humans and AI alike) to attempt to have them liberated, or to propose Global Liberation, which I don't think is a bad thing. I find it a bit too easy to conquer multiple countries and vassalize them, without having Global Liberation proposed, and I think more of a challenge in this area would be a good thing.
And finally, reason six, if a master cannot trade with or demand things from their vassal, then the vassal tax system makes zero sense. I can demand money from them through the tax system, but can't demand money from them through the trade window?
Before Stalker0 yells at me for proposing to change something technically locked
, I'd like to point out that the sanctions resolution applying to trade deals is 1) a recent mechanic, not one that's been debated over years, at least to my knowledge; 2) does not really require balancing if changed in this way, and 3) I'm not the first to bring up this concern, although it wasn't mentioned in that thread specifically.And the sanctions resolution applying to demands might even be an unintended consequence of sharing trade window code, rather than an intended mechanic.
I'd like to hear other opinions on this before bringing it up on Github for the almighty G's consideration, because I think this is a change that a lot of people could get behind and think is logical/fun.
Let me know what you think, please!
Last edited:
