We are winning, they fear us

[Archon_Wing]

Well, that's kind of odd. Maybe this doesn't work in the wood league difficulty (Prince?) I'm clearly going to win but can't get that modifier with anyone. Most civs hate me and Cleo has every reason to hate me since I wiped out the Greeks and took most of her cities but....

Spoiler :

Maybe it only applies to domination? Could live with that.

 

[Silverdawn]

Just won today at King diff as Nubia via cultural victory. No modifier showed in AI. I only had Kinetikam and Improved Fog of War mods enabled. Any idea why this modifier didn't show?

@Victoria I think there is at least another factor involved in that diplomacy penalty appearing. The following are my last two games, one where the penalties appeared and another where they didn't.

Set up: King, Standard speed, Standard map, Fractal, no mods (just DLC)

Game 1: As Nubia, won Science victory on turn 350. Gandhi and Kongo both going to science victory as well. Qin was going for culture victory. I was only in two wars, both with Teddy, taking all his cities the second time (razing one). Kongo could have captured Spain's last city, having it down to 0 health with field cannons, but never decided to finish it off. At the end, had a -14 "we are winning, they fear us" penalty with everyone.



Game 2: As Cyrus, won Cultural victory on turn 312. I started on an isolated continent and expanded, never fighting a war with anyone. Four civs captured the capitals of other civs so it wasn't peaceful on the main continent (Brazil was in 11 wars). Never saw the "we are winning" penalty.



So there must be one or more factors beyond reaching 50% and winning overall for this penalty to be assessed. Does being in wars affect it? What about total turns of the game?

 

[Victoria]

So there must be one or more factors beyond reaching 50%

Quite possibly, All I did is run a few tests and expose what appears to be the case, I naturally was careful as always to say "seems to". I have been tied up with a heavy family weekend and am teaching next week which slows me down somewhat.

In game 1 others were close to you in scienc, I suspect this had an impact, for example political agendas do not trigger at 101% but typically 120% (like better than them at science or production)

Game 2... weird, I'll have to try a culture and see

Maybe it only applies to domination? Could live with tha

@Silverdawn test above shows it for science... maybe it's broken for culture. I just checked my original culture test, while Inwon a culture victory I was over 50% in Dom.

 

[cazaderonus]

I have mixed feelings on this.
Prior to reading these posts I'd have said it should be essential part of the game. If an AI is winning, I'm going to become crazy aggressive, why shouldn't an AI do the same if I'm winning?
However, I do accept the arguments for immersion and that it essentially breaks a peaceful game.

This. Yes it s inelegant, but it makes sense. Civ is a game, not a civ simulator. Or, there wouldnt be any victory condition to start with. If this change can make the end game a bit more tensed, i m sure it can only be a goid thing though it will probably need to be balanced. Imo, a civ you re allied with shouldnt get that modifier or at least have it grow a lot slower. This would at least give value to the diplomatic work you did over the course of the game.

 

[Karmah]

Quite possibly, All I did is run a few tests and expose what appears to be the case, I naturally was careful as always to say "seems to". I have been tied up with a heavy family weekend and am teaching next week which slows me down somewhat.

Yeah real life can be very hard that way. Sometimes you even have to communicate without any kind of written channel, can you imagine that ?

 

[JH12345]

Does anyone know how to modify the files to remove it?

 

[Victoria]

Does anyone know how to modify the files to remove it?

I had a quick look in the xml files, it was not apparent

 

[Archon_Wing]

@Silverdawn test above shows it for science... maybe it's broken for culture. I just checked my original culture test, while Inwon a culture victory I was over 50% in Dom.

Heh, funny oversight. I wouldn't mind if they didn't "fix" it.

"Oh NO, the tourists"

Though currently, I've always been able to keep at least one friend regardless and despite the theoretical -14 for winning, I would still have +7 with Qin due to always joint warring with him so he didn't mind the warmongering too much and that stuff degrades anyways I Less if I didn't wipe out Greece, but they and their culture was annoying.

 

[JH12345]

I had a quick look in the xml files, it was not apparent

Thanks it would be so helpful.

 

[Brutus2]

The just finished a tiny 4-civ continent game. Was planning a peaceful scientific victory but I did need to take out my neighbor (Monty) who was expanding aggressively. This resulted in me controlling half the capitals from very early and the other two civs hating me the entire game for winning but they never did anything about it.

In my game before that the AI did make a lot of spy attempts against my space port so it did seem they were trying to stop me but again never actually declared war.

Overall this seems like just a diplomacy hit but the ai still doesn't do much to really stop you from winning.

 

[Photi]

"peace n flowers on the world"

sing kumbaya and praise (him,her,it) for its well deserved win ? 'guess not.

i haven't had a chance to play a game since the new patch, so i cannot comment on the new anti-diplomacy mechanic. i am leery of it though, as i often spend a good portion of my game (to the extent the game allows) trying to improve relations with all AIs on the map. it would suck to see all that disappear all in the interest of making the late game more "interesting."

however, i think Karmah misses the point about what people get out of this game. if one chooses to be a warmonger conqueror, the game allows it. but why is the game trying to discourage peacemongering? there are elements of roleplaying that people use in this game and it seems shortsighted for the developers to encourage only one type of role play. i doubt the reason for this has anything to do with being anti- "peace n flowers" . maybe they just think war is more interesting.

your (Karmah's) sentiment though is one where you think peace is weak. that's your prerogative i guess, but the game shouldn't be forcing that worldview. i personally spend a lot of time reading about US imperialism (esp re: the Middle East) and how it uses violence and domination to achieve its aims. i'm not naive, i'm well aware of the violence of the real world. so for me, being able to escape into a peaceful yet challenging game of civ to escape that brutal reality is one of the reasons why i play the game. and i think to a certain extent the developers have created a challenging game when in peace mode, i have lost several games at deity by either culture or science victories on the AI part where i didn't bring war to them when it was clear they were winning. that said, AI victory scripts need more refinement and i hope to see that in the first expansion and i further hope the devs don't keep going in this 'more war' direction. the civ fanatics warmongers aren't even asking for more war, their want is more challenging warfare and hopefully the devs see the difference.

 

[gettingfat]

My old habit of cleaning up my continent before making contact with other continents and behaving like a peace lover no longer work now.

 

[Karmah]

i haven't had a chance to play a game since the new patch, so i cannot comment on the new anti-diplomacy mechanic. i am leery of it though, as i often spend a good portion of my game (to the extent the game allows) trying to improve relations with all AIs on the map. it would suck to see all that disappear all in the interest of making the late game more "interesting."

however, i think Karmah misses the point about what people get out of this game. if one chooses to be a warmonger conqueror, the game allows it. but why is the game trying to discourage peacemongering? there are elements of roleplaying that people use in this game and it seems shortsighted for the developers to encourage only one type of role play. i doubt the reason for this has anything to do with being anti- "peace n flowers" . maybe they just think war is more interesting.

your (Karmah's) sentiment though is one where you think peace is weak. that's your prerogative i guess, but the game shouldn't be forcing that worldview. i personally spend a lot of time reading about US imperialism (esp re: the Middle East) and how it uses violence and domination to achieve its aims. i'm not naive, i'm well aware of the violence of the real world. so for me, being able to escape into a peaceful yet challenging game of civ to escape that brutal reality is one of the reasons why i play the game. and i think to a certain extent the developers have created a challenging game when in peace mode, i have lost several games at deity by either culture or science victories on the AI part where i didn't bring war to them when it was clear they were winning. that said, AI victory scripts need more refinement and i hope to see that in the first expansion and i further hope the devs don't keep going in this 'more war' direction. the civ fanatics warmongers aren't even asking for more war, their want is more challenging warfare and hopefully the devs see the difference.

Alright. My good manner in social networking -when addressed in a wall of text- compel me to either not answer or take the time to write an answer far away from the brevity I'm accustomed to in order to show respect to the initial effort. So here goes :

Spoiler My own wall :

Ok first of all , I'm not a fanatic of war or warmongering strategies. Not especially , I like to RP as much as my neighbour and tend to play according to the image I have of my leader. So ... I said it already somewhere here.

War in this game is the ONLY logical answer when facing a steamrolling/winning civ. It's a vanilla version of Civ. Vanillia version of civ5 (and in some respect civ4) tend to be centered around waring early game and do not have enough complex content late game except warring.
If they were other means to deal with a winning civ , I'd be glad to use it ... and see it used against me. It's not too far a stretch to expect some form of diplomatic aggression in civ6 at some point such as coalition buildings , embargos (btw since you mixed game and rea l life , I don't consider embargos to be peacefull actions seeing as they are brutal retorsions on the population of embargoed countries and all the example I have in mind led to war , civil or against the embargo'er'. We are still witnessing it right now) . But ok if they were such actions implemented in the game , I'd expect them to be used . Or rather , since I also like a bit of immersion , RP as you call it , I'd expect a brute such as Monty to use war to prevent me to win , and some connving intriguante such as de medicis to use diplomatic retortions.
Right now , there isn't any alternatives so the choice is : either war or let me win. I choose the IA to be more aggressive when facing defeat by me winning rather than stupidly passively let me win.

About the real life very personal part ...well this is gonna turn on beliefs and politics , which is always so slippery on a forum. Granted civfanatics is a bit different so let's try it out. With more than a grain of salt and a lot of sugar.
I don't understand people who puts needs immersion before the game. OK when saying such thing , I'm not trolling , I'm not judging. My take in life is 'when you don't understand something , It's your own lack of knowledge which is at fault' , said differently , the rational part of my brain always remind me not to judge before I know (But hey once I do...) .
So I don't understand how some people manage to RP deeply in Civ. I mean it's a game where you play as a member of a community of toons, It's actually a good thing that they came to make that apparent with the new look and feel of the leaders. They are simplistics enough so that you recognize them when you interact with them. I can't really take the civ leaders 'seriously', nor can I feel any empathy for the people I kill by thousands when invading another country. It is really a game before a story. (again for me). And it is good , I get to play the evil butcher as well as the nice cultured guy. A caricatural RP in a caricatural world , yet very enjoyable. A bit the way some people play dungeons and dragons and calls that roleplaying. It's not very subtle but is fun.
About the peacefull in life , naivety and all that... Well I don't consider wanting peace in our world something hippy and definitely not something naive. It's a view on the world where one is asked to always aspire to a more civilized world.I think it should be everyone's aspiration. It is by no means easy , childish. Espcially consideing that is always easier to say 'kill the *****' rather than ' let's understand the context around the action of this person who appears evil , see how much I can understand , see how we got there , how we can resolve the issue , how we can modify the world not to have this reproduced ' .... definitely not naive. I'd say that in our current context of the human race rushing into extinction it is something that should be asked from our leaders. Now nature tends to be lazy and love the path of least resistance, I'm not sure this view will prevail , at least not before we lose something like a third of our population. Then we might come to reason.

So yeah , we got veryyy far the original topic. I hope the spoiler tag helped not derive the thread for any reader.

Back on earth : It's a vanillia game , wait for an expansion if you want to win peacefully. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure a huge majority plays the game to win it , AI should too !

 

[Photi]

Alright. My good manner in social networking -when addressed in a wall of text- compel me to either not answer or take the time to write an answer far away from the brevity I'm accustomed to in order to show respect to the initial effort. So here goes :

Spoiler My own wall :

Ok first of all , I'm not a fanatic of war or warmongering strategies. Not especially , I like to RP as much as my neighbour and tend to play according to the image I have of my leader. So ... I said it already somewhere here.

War in this game is the ONLY logical answer when facing a steamrolling/winning civ. It's a vanilla version of Civ. Vanillia version of civ5 (and in some respect civ4) tend to be centered around waring early game and do not have enough complex content late game except warring.
If they were other means to deal with a winning civ , I'd be glad to use it ... and see it used against me. It's not too far a stretch to expect some form of diplomatic aggression in civ6 at some point such as coalition buildings , embargos (btw since you mixed game and rea l life , I don't consider embargos to be peacefull actions seeing as they are brutal retorsions on the population of embargoed countries and all the example I have in mind led to war , civil or against the embargo'er'. We are still witnessing it right now) . But ok if they were such actions implemented in the game , I'd expect them to be used . Or rather , since I also like a bit of immersion , RP as you call it , I'd expect a brute such as Monty to use war to prevent me to win , and some connving intriguante such as de medicis to use diplomatic retortions.
Right now , there isn't any alternatives so the choice is : either war or let me win. I choose the IA to be more aggressive when facing defeat by me winning rather than stupidly passively let me win.

About the real life very personal part ...well this is gonna turn on beliefs and politics , which is always so slippery on a forum. Granted civfanatics is a bit different so let's try it out. With more than a grain of salt and a lot of sugar.
I don't understand people who puts needs immersion before the game. OK when saying such thing , I'm not trolling , I'm not judging. My take in life is 'when you don't understand something , It's your own lack of knowledge which is at fault' , said differently , the rational part of my brain always remind me not to judge before I know (But hey once I do...) .
So I don't understand how some people manage to RP deeply in Civ. I mean it's a game where you play as a member of a community of toons, It's actually a good thing that they came to make that apparent with the new look and feel of the leaders. They are simplistics enough so that you recognize them when you interact with them. I can't really take the civ leaders 'seriously', nor can I feel any empathy for the people I kill by thousands when invading another country. It is really a game before a story. (again for me). And it is good , I get to play the evil butcher as well as the nice cultured guy. A caricatural RP in a caricatural world , yet very enjoyable. A bit the way some people play dungeons and dragons and calls that roleplaying. It's not very subtle but is fun.
About the peacefull in life , naivety and all that... Well I don't consider wanting peace in our world something hippy and definitely not something naive. It's a view on the world where one is asked to always aspire to a more civilized world.I think it should be everyone's aspiration. It is by no means easy , childish. Espcially consideing that is always easier to say 'kill the *****' rather than ' let's understand the context around the action of this person who appears evil , see how much I can understand , see how we got there , how we can resolve the issue , how we can modify the world not to have this reproduced ' .... definitely not naive. I'd say that in our current context of the human race rushing into extinction it is something that should be asked from our leaders. Now nature tends to be lazy and love the path of least resistance, I'm not sure this view will prevail , at least not before we lose something like a third of our population. Then we might come to reason.

So yeah , we got veryyy far the original topic. I hope the spoiler tag helped not derive the thread for any reader.

Back on earth : It's a vanillia game , wait for an expansion if you want to win peacefully. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure a huge majority plays the game to win it , AI should too !

Now yours is a wall of text, mine was more like a berm. I'd also say my post was only slightly off topic, but at the same time am not trying to derail Victoria's thread. Her OP specifically deals with mechanics, whereas I was speaking about the direction the new mechanics seem to be taking the game.

If I choose to role play ( and I only call it that bc many around here do) a certain way bc the game has historically allowed it, it's not such a big thing to expect it now.

Lastly, when you use phrases like "peace n flowers" or "kumbaya" its loaded with right wing anti-peace meanings. So maybe you should choose less condescending words.

 

[Karmah]

Lastly, when you use phrases like "peace n flowers" or "kumbaya" its loaded with right wing anti-peace meanings. So maybe you should choose less condescending words.

Right, it felt like a wall of text on my phone.
And if I did quote kumbaya it was sarcastic for sure, kind of gently mocking the picture of the civ leaders all at peace (some if not most of them do not fit à hippy community membership). Now it was mockery but meant to be harmless . If that offended you I apologize. As for the right wing figure of speech, I wasn't aware of it.

Peace out

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well that's sorta weird. I racked up -50 in one game for winning when I went for space and took 2 capitals but this game where I go for space there's none of that. I did take 1 capital....

Spoiler :

Actually that was the frandliest game evar!! Oh, Pedro hated me, but it's Pedro so nobody cares. And Japan died off screen.

Incidentally, it would probably be the best to get the GP to boost your space projects before people have time to get mad at you.

 

[JH12345]

So is it fully random or can I edit through the files to get rid of the modifier?

 

[Vandlys]

Should there be a mod to switch this off in the future I will immediately do so. The Scandinavian countries are doing consistently well in polls regarding happiness of life, social and economic standards, etc. The US have the (or one of the?) largest world economies. There are countries much more cultural than where I live. There are countries more populous. You could say they are all winning, should we then start hating and fearing them? Ridiculous.
Personally, I think the domination victory should be the only one incurring this penalty. Cultural and science victories might be threatening but it's all about how they are used. I remember in Civ V that if I wanted to play peaceful, but I was miles ahead of the competition, I would help them out by offering research agreements benificial to them, giving them gold and resources, paying for their troops if they were at war. I did this because I wanted to play ruling the world like I would like to in real life.
This gameplay mechanism destroys that completely, and makes the game too one-sided in my opinion. Incidently, I played my first post-patch game (Nubia vs Congo duel) on Immortal, and I had a -134 penalty because I was winning. Because I got bored of their anger I took their capital in the renaissance era.

Edit: I just want to add that from a gameplay perspective this rule also does not make sense. If the AI considers "winning the game" all-important, how is getting angry with the soon-to-be victor going to help? Shouldn't they try to befriend and benifit? Send trade routes that get you more science, deal in culture to get your theming bonuses, ask for money, etc...

 

[Karmah]

Should there be a mod to switch this off in the future I will immediately do so. The Scandinavian countries are doing consistently well in polls regarding happiness of life, social and economic standards, etc. The US have the (or one of the?) largest world economies. There are countries much more cultural than where I live. There are countries more populous. You could say they are all winning, should we then start hating and fearing them? Ridiculous.
Personally, I think the domination victory should be the only one incurring this penalty. Cultural and science victories might be threatening but it's all about how they are used. I remember in Civ V that if I wanted to play peaceful, but I was miles ahead of the competition, I would help them out by offering research agreements benificial to them, giving them gold and resources, paying for their troops if they were at war. I did this because I wanted to play ruling the world like I would like to in real life.
This gameplay mechanism destroys that completely, and makes the game too one-sided in my opinion. Incidently, I played my first post-patch game (Nubia vs Congo duel) on Immortal, and I had a -134 penalty because I was winning. Because I got bored of their anger I took their capital in the renaissance era.

Edit: I just want to add that from a gameplay perspective this rule also does not make sense. If the AI considers "winning the game" all-important, how is getting angry with the soon-to-be victor going to help? Shouldn't they try to befriend and benifit? Send trade routes that get you more science, deal in culture to get your theming bonuses, ask for money, etc...

Ridiculous ? Yeah well , real life comparison in a board game is always limited. As far as I expect , the world should not simply vanish out of existence if some nation launches some populated rocket to some uncharted space territory. A lot of things may happen but certainly not the total annihilation of everyone as if they never existed. Which is what happens when someone wins the game... hence the fact that you can't compare the end turns of civ with real life in my very humble opinion ,especially not in terms of the attitude of the immortal leaders ruling the nations.
The victory (or defeat ) screen is very immersion breaking , don't you think ?

 

[Exodite]

Any sign of this mechanic respecting game speed?

If not that's yet another aspect of the game that would have vastly different implications on Online vs. Marathon speed, given the accumulating nature of the penalty. (250 vs. 1500 turn games and all that...)