I like better scaling by age... but still better than the current system.
Taking enemy capitals
- Thread starter Abaxial
- Start date
I like better scaling by age... but still better than the current system.
I mean warmonguering scales with age. So it will only make sense. Since the game was designed with the idea than the more advanced we are, the less agresive we are...
Im sure FXS was not paying attention in WW history
.But this has been a civ thing for a long time, and is well integrated with the casus belli system. Going to war has more diplomatic penalties as history progresses, but you also are given more tools. And while im not sure I agree. I totally think that ancient age should be exent of any diplomatic consequence for agression. As you actually dont know anyone jet, and you start literally less powerful than a barbarian camp.
Ultimately is the separation of grievances and diplomatic favor what is totally senseless. Probably just diplomatic favor scaling with the grievances you have with the world would be a simpler better solution.
Weraptor
King
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2017
- Messages
- 723
Remember that there's is already a DF penalty based on excess grievances.
Equilin
King
- Joined
- May 8, 2017
- Messages
- 686
and that penalty just got increased with the latest patch too!
I mean this specific -5 modifier with every foreign capital you have thing. That should, I think, just be removed in favour of something based on grievances.
We have a new mechanic to modify the DF, and is meant to punish the same things grievances are meant to punish, when already grievances modify the DF.... Only this new mechanic is totally unbalanced because does not take any context into account. When grienvances are much better implemented already.
DWilson
Where am I? What turn is it?
I'm gonna go the other way, and disagree with the majority of the last many posts. The meta for Civ VI is and has always been you will always be better off to sack several civs as soon as possible. Even still, going to war and conquering some cities is almost always going to be a net good to your empire.
It's funny to me how often people have said DF is useless, or that it's only useful for selling to the AI, who always overpay for it. Tack on a penalty to taking capitals specifically, and suddenly it's a devastating new cost? I don't buy that. With hard effort, it doesn't prevent you from winning any diplomatic victory (the key to which is making opportune votes, boosting visibility and learning AI voting patterns, winning relevant contests (for favor or votes), buying DF as needed, building the right wonders, and teching well).
If you're that worried about it that much, conquer only non-capital cities. It should add challenge to what is generally not a difficult part of the game (war with the AI), and incentivize use of other options to sideline the AI (like pillaging them into oblivion and abusing their output by forcibly taking their gold, resources, and DF).
It's funny to me how often people have said DF is useless, or that it's only useful for selling to the AI, who always overpay for it. Tack on a penalty to taking capitals specifically, and suddenly it's a devastating new cost? I don't buy that. With hard effort, it doesn't prevent you from winning any diplomatic victory (the key to which is making opportune votes, boosting visibility and learning AI voting patterns, winning relevant contests (for favor or votes), buying DF as needed, building the right wonders, and teching well).
If you're that worried about it that much, conquer only non-capital cities. It should add challenge to what is generally not a difficult part of the game (war with the AI), and incentivize use of other options to sideline the AI (like pillaging them into oblivion and abusing their output by forcibly taking their gold, resources, and DF).
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
I'll give the same suggestion I gave on Reddit, to make it less damaging for people who conquers only a neighbor or two. It could increase based on how much capitals you own. Example: you get -2 if you conquer one capital, -6 if you conquer a second one (-3 for each), -12 if you conquer a third (-4 for each), then -5 for each if you conquer four or more capitals.
You can put your army to good use and go liberate those conquered city-states.
That's what I do. In my current diplo game, I conquered a city from Brazil and razed another that rebelled, I conquered one from the Maori and captured way too many settlers from them, and I captured two cities from Phoenicia, who is now my ally. Conquering some cities is even an advantage while going for diplomatic, if you control grievances, since that might trigger an emergency against you and emergency = favors. I fight a lot of wars in diplo game, because of emergencies and mainly because I go out liberating city states. I already liberated two CSs from Phoenicia, one from the Maya and now I'm on my way to liberate Geneva from Arabia, the last captured CS.
I don't like to eliminate other Civs, so I rarely do it. If I need to deal with another Civ violently, mainly because of territorial dispute, I capture a couple of cities to keep, another to return it to them (remove the -18 penalty) and I call it a day. I might also set some cities to rebel later. I prefer to keep other Civs alive, it keeps the game interesting.
You can put your army to good use and go liberate those conquered city-states.
That's what I do. In my current diplo game, I conquered a city from Brazil and razed another that rebelled, I conquered one from the Maori and captured way too many settlers from them, and I captured two cities from Phoenicia, who is now my ally. Conquering some cities is even an advantage while going for diplomatic, if you control grievances, since that might trigger an emergency against you and emergency = favors. I fight a lot of wars in diplo game, because of emergencies and mainly because I go out liberating city states. I already liberated two CSs from Phoenicia, one from the Maya and now I'm on my way to liberate Geneva from Arabia, the last captured CS.
I don't like to eliminate other Civs, so I rarely do it. If I need to deal with another Civ violently, mainly because of territorial dispute, I capture a couple of cities to keep, another to return it to them (remove the -18 penalty) and I call it a day. I might also set some cities to rebel later. I prefer to keep other Civs alive, it keeps the game interesting.
Liberating City States does not give you back DF per turn. This also does not solve the problem of lack of balance on this new mechanic.
Early game is natural to conquer capitals. As there are the only cities around. This also does not solve the problem of lack of balance on this new mechanic.
These coments sound like. Well the game maybe is not well balanced, but you should deal with it, instead of asking fot the problem to be fixed...
I disagree, I think the game is unbalanced by how poorly implemented this mechanic is. This mechanic is also immersion breaking, and WC breaking (more). I dont want to change my playstyle around a poorly implemented mechanic. I think giving feedback on the game problems, and sharing suggestions on how the problems can be fixed are some of the reasons for this community to exist.
Saying, war with the AI is very easy anyway, so you can use this as an oportunity to challenge yourself, is not useful at all.
Last edited:
criZp
Deity
Well I guess, but only because Firaxis can't properly code the AIs valuation of the favor
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
It gives you 100 favors and +1 DF per turn. +2 if you build Országház. Another 100 favors if you do that while in an emergency.
I didn't say that to justify the current balance. In the same post, I proposed a change to make it less punishing. I'm just suggesting something you can do to overcome the penalty.
Thank you, I was not aware of the +1 DF per turn. A problem with this aproach is that in addition to require a war, maybe in a different continent, generating more grievances while you do so (Im unaware if the casus belli would apply here to liberate a city state you maybe even dont knew). This approach requires you to invest more in military, setting you more and more in the path of war, and making you lag even more in diplomacy, science or culture.
Sostratus
Deity
People seem to somehow be overlooking that when you conquer another Civ you get all their stuff. This ranges from either a nice city (capital) early game if you decided to torch everything else up to a nice chunk of the map, which can include thousands and thousands of hammers worth of district, buildings, wonders, and improvements.
Which you are getting because you spent a few hundred hammers on units and paid some gold to upgrade them. Oh and you get to keep the military units. This is why war is so good- it is one of the best returns on investment. If you can’t leverage the fact that you more than doubled your territory into a science advantage then you really need to rethink your approach to management.
Everybody recognizes conquest is an advantage. Also, you are assuming there is no risk in conquest and if you invest in units you will automatically conquer anything you want. This is not a reasonable assumption for an average player.
Also, the point is not that you are or are not able to leverage those advantages. The point is that excluding a player that conquered two capitals from diplomatic and WC interactions (with no reasonable means of recovery) is not a problem of the player. Is a problem of the system not being balanced properly. You can disagree with this, of course. But I don’t think it is reasonable at all to expect that conquering two capitals in ancient age requires to be excluded from all future WC votings and diplomacy favor systems.
Furthermore, as it is implemented now, the sooner you conquer a capital, the more DF points you will lose because of it. Which is in total contradiction to the general design of the game.
The player can have a little warmongering... as a treat.
I think this is a non issue. -5 per capital is a small price to pay for the huge bonus conquering gives you. I don’t see the need for it to decay over time... it’s not like the advantage to the player from eradicating an opponent decays over time either...
If you want to take a capital or two, you should have to play the Diplomatic game harder, or at least try Lily’s trick where you offload them through loyalty and giveaways.
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
Just to be clear, the +1 DF comes from being suzerain of the CS. When you liberate it, you get envoys (3, 6 or 9 envoys, depending on the era) and anyone who had envoys there lost it when the city was captured, so you'll be the sole player with envoys in that CS. If you declare a formal war, 100 grievances isn't enough to generate a favors penalty, and you get a reduction in grievances when you liberate a CS. You also get a positive relationship modifier with everyone. You can also invite other Civs to join your war, which gives you another positive modifier. The only disadvantage is that, if the Civ you declare war on is suzerain of a CS and you didn't complete that CS quest yet, you lose the quest. That can, however, be beneficial if the CS has a quest you can't complete, allowing you to get rid of it and get a new quest in the next era.
Liberating City-states is fun, I love to move my army around the world, liberating the little ones.
tedhebert
Emperor
I know this is a discussion mainly on DF and WC... but the point about the new malus being in action for the while game... That's really nothing new. The AI has always held grudges forever in CIV 6; If you take even one single city from an enemy, even in the first 40 turns, you will have to work AWFULLY hard if you do not want that civ to hate and denounce you all game long.
in this instance, it's simply more widespread. I agree it's harsh at -5, but I really like this change. Honestly, I feel it's really easily avoidable. Just DON'T kill that last city. leave it alone. It'll flip through loyalty, and then you can take it as a free city without the maluses.
in this instance, it's simply more widespread. I agree it's harsh at -5, but I really like this change. Honestly, I feel it's really easily avoidable. Just DON'T kill that last city. leave it alone. It'll flip through loyalty, and then you can take it as a free city without the maluses.
Casworon
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 548
An argument could be made however for what exactly you get out of WC resolutions.
Taking one of them for example. +100% production towards buildings in a district. Very powerful if you get the reduction towards the district you want. But is this advantage comparable to effectively owning two civilizations worth of cities, buildings, districts, wonders etc. Probably not.
Also even if you don't get it towards the district you want, you will probably have at-least one or two copies of the district that get's chosen so it still has some bonus for you.
if -5 diplopoints is the price to pay for owning two empires then i will gladly pay it.
If the WC resolutions where more powerful or had more of an impact it might be more of a choice, but atmo it doesn't seem like much of a trade off.
Taking one of them for example. +100% production towards buildings in a district. Very powerful if you get the reduction towards the district you want. But is this advantage comparable to effectively owning two civilizations worth of cities, buildings, districts, wonders etc. Probably not.
Also even if you don't get it towards the district you want, you will probably have at-least one or two copies of the district that get's chosen so it still has some bonus for you.
if -5 diplopoints is the price to pay for owning two empires then i will gladly pay it.
If the WC resolutions where more powerful or had more of an impact it might be more of a choice, but atmo it doesn't seem like much of a trade off.
It is a problem. -5 is ok. And is reasonable to asume most players will conquer at least one civ early. The problem is if you go beyond that. You will not be able to vote on any future WC session for the remaining of the game. And you will therefore, most likely be excluded of the DV. This is not a small or reasonable prize to pay.
Also, then you could argue that Grievances should not decay at all over time. If you dont get grievances early, and your grievances decay overtime and depend on the context. You should not get plain DF penalties with no context, no decay and regardless the era.
Also WC being pointless is not a very good reason for this mechanic. The WC should not be pointless; and even if it is, no player should have to suffer the chore of going trough all WC votings without being able to vote.
Also another problem is that you will pay the same prize for conquering 2 capitals or 7. As 0 DF is the same as -20 DF. That is also not reasonable at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
I don't think it should decay either, but it could have a smooth increase, being more damaging if you capture multiple capitals than if you capture only one or two. The problem that this penalty intends to correct only exists if you eliminate several Civs. People that like to conquer a Civ or two isn't what is being targeted by this change, so they shouldn't be punished as heavily.
Similar threads
