JaeChunDaeSung
Prince
I always found AI response to be so predictable when it came to "requests", not demands.
Any time you typically ask a civ to stop spreading their religion, they doggedly refuse, UNLESS by some lucky chance they give the "Yes response," but seriously, since when have they ever complied?
My idea would be to implement a three strike system to penalize repeat offenders, be it religious conversion, spying, or unwanted aggression on city states or allies. IN THEORY, by adding a punishment or penalty for recidivist promise breakers or leaders who don't listen, it damages their reputation diplomatically, making it harder for them to do what they want without having to go full aggro or change gears to "play nice" or "behave themselves" in the face of others
Tell a Civ to stop their actions - Strike 1
Civ repeats behavior, potentially breaking a promise if they agreed not to, denouncing them - Strike 2
Strike 3...In the event they commit the act during denouncement, they incur a Diplomatic Favor penalty against them as punishment, the same kind from "Excess Grievances" or "Occupying foreign capital", potentially incurring some kind of negative modifier to diplomatic relations with other civs who are made aware of their actions (e.g. -x ( x = negative value) You are untrustworthy/You are a repeat offender/You do not keep promises) FURTHERMORE, this enables you the Cassus Belli - War of Retribution, which doesn't incur grievances for declaring, as long as you don't fully aggro, you have the high moral ground in taking affirmative action.
Can I just get some opinions on this? Personally, if something like this existed as a deterrent, it can weed out AI civs and force them either to adapt to the situation, or just go hog, making them a prime, justifiable target.
Any time you typically ask a civ to stop spreading their religion, they doggedly refuse, UNLESS by some lucky chance they give the "Yes response," but seriously, since when have they ever complied?
My idea would be to implement a three strike system to penalize repeat offenders, be it religious conversion, spying, or unwanted aggression on city states or allies. IN THEORY, by adding a punishment or penalty for recidivist promise breakers or leaders who don't listen, it damages their reputation diplomatically, making it harder for them to do what they want without having to go full aggro or change gears to "play nice" or "behave themselves" in the face of others
Tell a Civ to stop their actions - Strike 1
Civ repeats behavior, potentially breaking a promise if they agreed not to, denouncing them - Strike 2
Strike 3...In the event they commit the act during denouncement, they incur a Diplomatic Favor penalty against them as punishment, the same kind from "Excess Grievances" or "Occupying foreign capital", potentially incurring some kind of negative modifier to diplomatic relations with other civs who are made aware of their actions (e.g. -x ( x = negative value) You are untrustworthy/You are a repeat offender/You do not keep promises) FURTHERMORE, this enables you the Cassus Belli - War of Retribution, which doesn't incur grievances for declaring, as long as you don't fully aggro, you have the high moral ground in taking affirmative action.
Can I just get some opinions on this? Personally, if something like this existed as a deterrent, it can weed out AI civs and force them either to adapt to the situation, or just go hog, making them a prime, justifiable target.
