[GS] What are your thoughts on trading favor (Civ6) vs promising votes (Civ5)?

[darkace77450]

I like the Civ6's mechanic of trading diplomatic capital, but I dislike the inability to secure votes for various proposals via trade/negotiations as we were able to do in Civ5.

"But trading favor means you can throw more votes at a proposal, so it's essentially the same thing."

Not really. In Civ5, if I convinced my ally to vote with me on a proposal then our votes were tallied together. In Civ6 I can secure some of my allies' diplomatic favor, but they might still vote against my interests, meaning some of all of my votes might be offset by a leader who might have worked with me under a different set of rules.

"The current system can't allow promises on votes because proposals are randomly selected when the World Congress convenes."

This is true. Allowing players (including the AI) to select proposals or offering a preview of upcoming randomly chosen proposals would address this, but to my knowledge we have no indication Firaxis is interested in making such changes.

But I'd like to hear your thoughts on the system as is and if you prefer it to past iterations.

 

[SxSnts9]

I'm fine keeping with the random proposals as it doesn't allow the player to completely dominate in every way. But I think there should be a 5 turn warning of the proposals. In those 5 turns the player and AI would be able to make deals to secure votes for the upcoming session. In case I'm not being clear here's how I see it:

Turn 100: Window pops up much like the World Congress does now. It says here are the proposals that will be voted upon in 5 turns (Lets pretend Mercenary Companies is one of the proposals). You have the next 5 turns to make deals in order to sway the outcomes.

Turn 101-104: You're allowed to diplomatically contact other leaders you're not at war with and trade an option that says "Vote in this manner on Mercenary Companies." You would be able to include both rounds of vote i.e. (Part A)+100% cost or -50% cost and (Part B) production, gold or faith. So you're offer would look something like "Vote +100% cost on faith purchasing units."

Turn 105: The Congress pops up. You and the AI may then vote however you choose. If you promised to vote a certain way, but do not then you would generate grievances. Same for the AI they may promise to vote a certain way for your incense and 250 gold but if they don't you get some grievances against them.

In my mind any 'per turn' deals would automatically cancel once a "Vote this way" promise has been broken.

I think this would add some needed politicking and a nice backroom deal kind of vibe going. Russia traded me 200 gold to vote this way, but little do they know I already agreed to vote the other way with their nemesis Scotland who only offered me 400 gold.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The new system is more abstract, but also more versatile. It's also less tedious than checking in with every AI and bartering for their vote. On huge maps that is tiresome.

 

[darkace77450]

On huge maps that is tiresome.

I don't play larger maps, so that's something I hadn't considered. I don't imagine it's anymore tedious than negotiating normal trade deals and diplomatic alliances, but if can see where stacking tedium upon tedium would might be a bit much for some.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't play larger maps, so that's something I hadn't considered. I don't imagine it's anymore tedious than negotiating normal trade deals and diplomatic alliances, but if can see where stacking tedium upon tedium would might be a bit much for some.

Here's something that would make trading a lot less tedious on the whole:

If you could simultaneously do a "what would you give me for this" to every civ in the game, then allows you to negotiate with whichever makes the offer you like best.