Spring 2017 patch notes

@kaltorak Do you think that in reality allies just "get on".

A General may not think diplomatically but certainly many have an ego and will feel to a degree jealous but certainly having the allies there is better than nothaving them their.
A diplomat thinks completely differently and I am not willing to enter that space without a full Hazard suit on

What I am saying is human nature makes people percieve the largest threat... once you are indeed beating your opponent they my not be considered your greatest threat and your ally may be. I think WW2 is a great example of this because of the democracy / communism espoused view although there was also many many other political considerations that are not so easily statable publicly.

I guess we can just agree to differ
So, you ally yourself with somebody, to fight against somebody else. And your ally beating the enemy, doesnt make you happy? At least "by default", not considering exceptions.
Then you could better have allied yourself with the other guy.

Talking about real leaders, not gamers. In the game we want all the cities for ourselves. But real leaders are not always trying to conquer the world. Only some.
Its not about polarisation and A=B

A is freinds with B and C is being warlike.
So sure you hate C and love B so you both go to war with C
Early in the war B takes some ground and cities and you cheer ... C is being beaten.
Later in the war B takes a lot more ground than you and now has a lot more forces than you... do you still cheer as loud? ... or is it a smaller cheer and you start thinking I am next or they will get better world politics out of this claiming we hardly helped them? or will B give C back its land after?... You will give the cities you have taken back to C but will B do the same?
Is B pillaging their cities and raping the people?
Do you as a politician own land in the area B has just taken?

Cmon... this is real life stuff.
I agree with your example. But there is one problem:
"Early in the war B takes some ground and cities and you cheer ... C is being beaten."

That doesnt happen in civ.

Sure, if you adquire all of C power and are now a threat, its fine they fear/hate me. But let that be because I am too powerful. Not because I captured cities, and even less if its a few and not lots. But afaik, capturing cities always gives you warmongering, more or less depending on some factors. While the real thing would be that some of them would even make them happy, not less mad.
That doesnt happen in civ.
Sure it does... they just average it out at 40% over the war... more biased toward game mechanics than real life.

Its a finer point and sure I'll concede it could be a better % quite happily. Its more about war weariness is not strong enough... or as others say turning off barbs (we counter barbs better than the AI) and encouraging them to build more districts all help but that will not help them use bombers more effectively. I have no issues there is plenty wrong with the game. My personal one is that you can win all victory conditions with Dom and just ignore warmonger regardless of the 40%

I think bottom line is the 40% could be more and I agree with you that is perhaps a little low but it is a new 40% introduced in the last patch so may be changed.
@kaltorak yes I see your point in real life you would probably more happy than sad but it is being used here as a game mechanic (badly) to limit warmongering.
If you are unaware I am one of the more positive believers in diplomacy but this area just does not work well enough
it is being used here as a game mechanic (badly) to limit warmongering.

Im not concerned because I want to make doing wars easier. It's the oposite. In my experience, what this is achieving is that there can not be any middle point. In all of my games, I have to decide to either go 100% peaceful (even in defenisve wars), or 100% conquest.

I find it pretty boring and sad, that there cant be games where you fight against 1 or 2 enemies, and remain ally wiht the rest. Once you capture 1-3 cities, theres a snowball which leaves you winning a conquest victory. Even if you just wanted to secure 2 useful cities, or destroy one annoying oponent, but you were in best relations with the rest.

This 100% peaceful or total war, makes the game less interesting imo
there cant be games where you fight against 1 or 2 enemies, and remain ally wiht the rest.
I do that all the time, I can even change alliances. Not sure what your issue is, you can do it fine with diplomacy.
You just have to remember its a game where you should not have pride when dealing with an AI.
The game I finished yesterday, I won a conquest vicotry and declared 0 wars. Thats quite.... ridiculous imo xD. OFC; later I already decided i was going conquest and kept pushing, but not before everybody was already angry.

Japan declares on me. Beat him but dont take any city. Everybody happy.
Japan declares on me again. Beat him but dont take any city again. Everybody happy.
Japan declares on me again. Beat him and take 2 of his 3 cities. half of the others angry, the others content.
2 of the angry ones declare on me at the same time. I beat one taking 2 cities and peace with the other one.
Everybody angry now.
They keep declaring on me, until I end up with a conquest victory.

Come on.
There are mods for that. And, all I can say is, there is no way to master diplomacy in *any* Civ game without playing it for a while. One game every couple of months won't probably get you there....
Top Bottom