Should hostile greetings cost influence? - Rethinking the Greeting Mechanic in Civ 7

PauI

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 11, 2024
Messages
41
Rethinking the Greeting Mechanic in Civ 7:hug:


I’ve been reflecting on the greeting mechanic in Civ 7 and wanted to get your thoughts on how it’s balanced.

When you meet another player, you’re given three options:

  1. Friendly Greeting – Costs 20 influence, reveals both capitals, and adds +20 to the relationship.
  2. Neutral Greeting – Costs 0 influence, no bonuses or penalties.
  3. Hostile Greeting – Costs 20 influence, subtracts -20 from the relationship.
Here’s my question: Does it make sense for a Hostile Greeting to cost influence?

I understand that influence is a vital resource in Civ 7, used for diplomatic actions like agreements, sanctions, and more.
It makes perfect sense that hostile actions in general have an influence cost, as they represent deliberate moves that affect diplomacy.
However, the Hostile Greeting feels like an exception where the mechanics don’t quite match the logic.

At the moment, tearing down relationships (via a Hostile Greeting) costs the same amount of influence as building them (Friendly Greeting).
Wouldn’t it make more sense if the Hostile Greeting were free, or even rewarded you with a small amount of influence, reflecting the ease of initiating conflict compared to fostering goodwill?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that hostile diplomatic actions as a whole should be cheaper—just that the greeting mechanic could be rebalanced to better reflect the nature of these initial interactions.

Would a no-cost (or influence-gaining) Hostile Greeting make the mechanic more intuitive, or do you think the current balance is fine as-is?
 

Attachments

  • unfriendlyciv7.png
    unfriendlyciv7.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 18
To be clear i am fully with you that you both build negative & positive relationships with investing influence. That is a good game mechanic.

My point is: should the greeting between 2 players be an exception of that rule? Wouldn't that add more flavor?
 
To be clear i am fully with you that you both build negative & positive relationships with investing influence. That is a good game mechanic.

My point is: should the greeting between 2 players be an exception of that rule? Wouldn't that add more flavor?
I think the current influence system is the first in the Civ history, which allows using the same diplomacy for both single and multiplayer games (at least in theory). I don't think breaking this achievement that way is worth it.
 
Rethinking the Greeting Mechanic in Civ 7:hug:


I’ve been reflecting on the greeting mechanic in Civ 7 and wanted to get your thoughts on how it’s balanced.

When you meet another player, you’re given three options:

  1. Friendly Greeting – Costs 20 influence, reveals both capitals, and adds +20 to the relationship.
  2. Neutral Greeting – Costs 0 influence, no bonuses or penalties.
  3. Hostile Greeting – Costs 20 influence, subtracts -20 from the relationship.
Here’s my question: Does it make sense for a Hostile Greeting to cost influence?

I understand that influence is a vital resource in Civ 7, used for diplomatic actions like agreements, sanctions, and more.
It makes perfect sense that hostile actions in general have an influence cost, as they represent deliberate moves that affect diplomacy.
However, the Hostile Greeting feels like an exception where the mechanics don’t quite match the logic.

At the moment, tearing down relationships (via a Hostile Greeting) costs the same amount of influence as building them (Friendly Greeting).
Wouldn’t it make more sense if the Hostile Greeting were free, or even rewarded you with a small amount of influence, reflecting the ease of initiating conflict compared to fostering goodwill?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that hostile diplomatic actions as a whole should be cheaper—just that the greeting mechanic could be rebalanced to better reflect the nature of these initial interactions.

Would a no-cost (or influence-gaining) Hostile Greeting make the mechanic more intuitive, or do you think the current balance is fine as-is?

Well, you DO have to replace some messengers when you send them to insult you new neighbours, I suppose? :devil:
 
Rethinking the Greeting Mechanic in Civ 7:hug:


I’ve been reflecting on the greeting mechanic in Civ 7 and wanted to get your thoughts on how it’s balanced.

When you meet another player, you’re given three options:

  1. Friendly Greeting – Costs 20 influence, reveals both capitals, and adds +20 to the relationship.
  2. Neutral Greeting – Costs 0 influence, no bonuses or penalties.
  3. Hostile Greeting – Costs 20 influence, subtracts -20 from the relationship.
Here’s my question: Does it make sense for a Hostile Greeting to cost influence?

I understand that influence is a vital resource in Civ 7, used for diplomatic actions like agreements, sanctions, and more.
It makes perfect sense that hostile actions in general have an influence cost, as they represent deliberate moves that affect diplomacy.
However, the Hostile Greeting feels like an exception where the mechanics don’t quite match the logic.

At the moment, tearing down relationships (via a Hostile Greeting) costs the same amount of influence as building them (Friendly Greeting).
Wouldn’t it make more sense if the Hostile Greeting were free, or even rewarded you with a small amount of influence, reflecting the ease of initiating conflict compared to fostering goodwill?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that hostile diplomatic actions as a whole should be cheaper—just that the greeting mechanic could be rebalanced to better reflect the nature of these initial interactions.

Would a no-cost (or influence-gaining) Hostile Greeting make the mechanic more intuitive, or do you think the current balance is fine as-is?
A bad relationship is a valuable thing. It lets you declare war with less penalties. and probably has other things it allows as well (sanctions, etc)..it probably also stops the other civ from profiting off of you through endeavors.

It is valuable in a game mechanics sense so it should cost influence.
Even between 2 humans…if I declare war without a bad relationship I will have penalties, so I need to invest influence to make us hate each other. (of course , they can invest influence to make us like each other, so that I will have penalties if I am mean)
 
In my opinion, the "hostile greeting" button will rarely be used unless a player is planning to attack or sanction their neighbor right away.
In multiplayer games, signaling "war" that early is often unwise, as it alerts your opponent and gives them time to prepare.

Introducing a reward like influence for using a hostile greeting could provide an alternative incentive.
Players could justify their decision by saying, "I just wanted the points," rather than exposing aggressive intentions.

Currently, choosing a hostile greeting almost always reveals a player's warlike intentions. After all, why would someone willingly invest in a bad relationship early unless they were preparing for conflict?
This change could create more nuanced diplomacy by adding ambiguity to player actions.

Or am i just an dishonest warmonger? :lol:
 
In my opinion, the "hostile greeting" button will rarely be used unless a player is planning to attack or sanction their neighbor right away.
In multiplayer games, signaling "war" that early is often unwise, as it alerts your opponent and gives them time to prepare.

Introducing a reward like influence for using a hostile greeting could provide an alternative incentive.
Players could justify their decision by saying, "I just wanted the points," rather than exposing aggressive intentions.

Currently, choosing a hostile greeting almost always reveals a player's warlike intentions. After all, why would someone willingly invest in a bad relationship early unless they were preparing for conflict?
This change could create more nuanced diplomacy by adding ambiguity to player actions.

Or am i just an dishonest warmonger? :lol:
With this diplomacy it's totally possible to play as dishonest warmonger by attacking civilizations without lowering relations first. You just need to accept what your own population will not be happy being led by a dishonest warmonger, so be ready for their reaction.
 
A bad relationship is a valuable thing. It lets you declare war with less penalties. and probably has other things it allows as well (sanctions, etc)..it probably also stops the other civ from profiting off of you through endeavors.

It is valuable in a game mechanics sense so it should cost influence.
Even between 2 humans…if I declare war without a bad relationship I will have penalties, so I need to invest influence to make us hate each other. (of course , they can invest influence to make us like each other, so that I will have penalties if I am mean)
I am with you. As i said it is all about the greeting for me :wavey:.
 
In my opinion, the "hostile greeting" button will rarely be used unless a player is planning to attack or sanction their neighbor right away.
In multiplayer games, signaling "war" that early is often unwise, as it alerts your opponent and gives them time to prepare.

Introducing a reward like influence for using a hostile greeting could provide an alternative incentive.
Players could justify their decision by saying, "I just wanted the points," rather than exposing aggressive intentions.

Currently, choosing a hostile greeting almost always reveals a player's warlike intentions. After all, why would someone willingly invest in a bad relationship early unless they were preparing for conflict?
This change could create more nuanced diplomacy by adding ambiguity to player actions.

Or am i just an dishonest warmonger? :lol:
If you want to be a dishonest warmonger, just take the penalty.
 
Think the influence cost of an hostile greeting as not that of the greeting itself, but that of explaining all other nations why you think the receiving end deserves such a treatment.

If you are a pure warmonger an you are not caring of the reaction of other nations when you start a war (because, nevertheless, you will be at war with them also before of after…) then I agree neutral greeting and saving influence is preferred.

But probably, if you are playing alliances and other diplomacy-ish sort of things, hostile greeting may have a meaning (also it may be even rewarded with positive influ points for the greeted civ’s enemies).

In any case, it is an active diplomatic action and the cost makes sense.
 
Maybe ut should cost half as much as it does now?

You save Influence vis a vi the cost of countering the war support penalty you would get if you suprice wared.

But you also telegraph your intentions a long time before you would have needed and other neflgative Diplomatic options gives you stuff or hinders the enemy.

I just don't see hostile greeting being used almost at all if it feels expensive, since Influence seems to be a scares resource in the beginning. You also don't know much about the civ that you just met and therefore would be even less inclined to waste Influence.
 
Think the influence cost of an hostile greeting as not that of the greeting itself, but that of explaining all other nations why you think the receiving end deserves such a treatment.

If you are a pure warmonger an you are not caring of the reaction of other nations when you start a war (because, nevertheless, you will be at war with them also before of after…) then I agree neutral greeting and saving influence is preferred.

But probably, if you are playing alliances and other diplomacy-ish sort of things, hostile greeting may have a meaning (also it may be even rewarded with positive influ points for the greeted civ’s enemies).

In any case, it is an active diplomatic action and the cost makes sense.
I mean it would't make sense mechanically, yes, that it is my point. But it would create much more depth imo:

Players might press the button to gain influence early and optimize their early game, especially since influence seems to be critical for progressing in other areas(befriending ip's for example).
Even if they aren't planning war, they could justify their actions by saying "I'm just farming influence for independent powers"

By making the button useful beyond just "war prep," players gain more reasons to use it, keeping the strategy unpredictable and dynamic.


Again to clarify: i'm just talking about greetings. Denouncing & other hostile actions should cost influence.
 
Push! Still relevant i think :). Do you press the button? And in multiplayer there is no greeting mechanic at all it seems?
 
It’s better to do a friendly greeting even if you want to attack someone. Then you get to see there capitol is and know which way to scout their cities and you can reduce your relationship with the hinder military sanction. So a solution might be to keep the Hostile Greeting but it would reduce the cost of sanctions. Sanctions feel like they should be a more expensive, although my sample size is small on that.
 
Top Bottom