Should pacts of secrecy be brought back?

[civnoob13]

It's all well and good being able to denounce your opponents, but I think specifically conspiring against an opponent would reintroduce a nice diplomatic edge to it. This would be likely to increase backstabbing frequency, so this should be decreased significantly. Thoughts?

 

[black213]

Did the pacts even work?

 

[jdog5000]

They sure sound cool by name, but I never understood what actual affects they were supposed to have.

 

[BobDole]

No, they were lame. No one understood what they did or what they meant, and I'm not really sure if they actualy did anything to begin with. Maybe add other ways to isolate an enemy through trade embargo agreements or something else, but no pacts of secrecy. I don't even think the term "Pact of Secrecy" can come back cause it was probably the worst (and symbolic) part of Civ V's diplomacy at launch. Everyone was glad when it got the axe.

 

[Revoran]

Maybe add other ways to isolate an enemy through trade embargo agreements or something else, but no pacts of secrecy

+1 to this.

 

[Strategist83]

You can practically do the exact same thing now except it isn't 'secret'. When you denounce somebody all your friends get a massive negative modifier with them as well making it very likely they'll denounce too. It is extremely easy to build the exact diplomatic relationships you like by manipulating the current system.

Also, the current system has the advantage that your friends will like you even more when you have this denouncement-pact against another player due to receiving the 'having denounced same leaders' modifier.

No, they were lame. No one understood what they did or what they meant, and I'm not really sure if they actualy did anything to begin with.

They worked perfectly fine and the game even explained how they worked.