What do you expect from the diplomacy update?

[Porry]

The developers have confirmed they are working on improving the diplomatic aspect of Civ 7. What new features or returning elements from older titles would you like to see?
An improvement is essential, as there is a lack of options for greater freedom in managing diplomatic relations, and I often end up with excess influence that I don't know what to do with.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

More options for different treaties, like non-aggression pacts, defensive pacts, etc...

Bring back vassals from civ4 where a smaller or inferior civ could become the vassal to another.

More dialogue choices, ex: asking a civ to remove units from your borders.

 

[Siptah]

In addition to what @SupremacyKing2 said, I want to be able to spend influence to reduce a civs opinion of a third civ.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I expect very careful update. Current system has only meaningful options and I'd prefer that to stay. For example, I'm not sure about other types of agreements, I expect them to be added only if they have clear use. Things like non-aggression pacts rarely work well.

From quality of life point of view, I expect city-state liberation option in peace treaty screen if one of civilization controls conquered city state. This should be paired with direct city-state liberation if you conquer it. Some other options could be helpful too.

On wild fantasy point of the scale, probably espionage action to flip a settlement which is too forward-settled near your territory, with ability to counter the process with influence for owner of this settlement. Something like this to have more active alternative to Civ6 loyalty system.

 

[Taefin]

More options for different treaties, like non-aggression pacts, defensive pacts, etc...

Bring back vassals from civ4 where a smaller or inferior civ could become the vassal to another.

More dialogue choices, ex: asking a civ to remove units from your borders.

I sort of play acted vassals in a previous game, viewing the civs I brought down to 3-4 settlements as unhappy vassals under my protectorate. When an ally attacked my vassal I declared on the ally instead.

I was thinking that getting trade routes to all vassal settlements would work well, rather than have to invest in merchants and influence to do so. That’d also give the vassal gold and not hamper their growth or relegate them to minor-civ status. It’d also avoid creating the massive yield bonuses of having vassals as we saw in Humankind. Trade routes could also be just to settlements that were returned in a peace deal, since the resources are often the only point of keeping those settlements. Vassal could be released if you decline to join a war declared on them.

 

[Porry]

Well, I haven't had a chance to play it myself, but I've watched a few videos, and the diplomacy in humankind seems pretty complex and satisfying to me. They should take a leaf out of that book—what do you think?

 

[sethjohnson]

some sort of loyalty mechanic to stop the settling in the modern era in some free space right in the middle of your empire

 

[UWHabs]

Honestly, I do actually like the current diplomacy in a lot of cases. Influence is the one yield which doesn't grow exponentially, and because you have a lot of things you need it for, more often than not it's the one yield that I really have to pay attention to. Especially if you need to be defensive to cancel opponent sanctions.

I do think a little scaling would help - 6 culture when your empire makes 12 is worth a lot more than 6 culture when your empire makes 80, or 12 culture when your empire is pulling in 1000 per turn. I kind of feel like endeavors should be balance so it's more like "the other person gets 10% of your culture per turn" if it's accepted. So if you make 20 and they make 40, then you should get 4 culture from it and they should get 2. That way, if I'm making like 800 culture per turn, and an AI opponent is making 250, I would only get 25 from it, but they would get 80. I think it would change some of the dynamics.

 

[Kwami]

From quality of life point of view, I expect city-state liberation option in peace treaty screen if one of civilization controls conquered city state. This should be paired with direct city-state liberation if you conquer it. Some other options could be helpful too.

Definitely this! This was one of the first deficiencies that I noticed when I started playing the game.

One reason that influence becomes less valuable over time is because endeavors become much less valuable over time. Getting 6 science per turn in the early turns is huge. Getting 6 science when you already have 400 per turn is less exciting. So, some way to keep endeavors interesting might be good. They'd have to be careful about balance, though.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yes, I really want to be able to liberate my city states. Actually any warning they are being attacked would also be nice.

 

[Taefin]

Definitely this! This was one of the first deficiencies that I noticed when I started playing the game.

One reason that influence becomes less valuable over time is because endeavors become much less valuable over time. Getting 6 science per turn in the early turns is huge. Getting 6 science when you already have 400 per turn is less exciting. So, some way to keep endeavors interesting might be good. They'd have to be careful about balance, though.

Combat strength Wonder building endeavors remain as useful throughout the age, so it seems that the others should be able to scale without upsetting balance.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

More agreements would be good too. We have open borders and trade agreements. Can we have agreements regarding missionaries and explorers?

missionary/explorer agreement:

Agree: Sender's missionaries/explorers gain +1 movement in recipient's territory. Recipient receives a currency bonus (Food? Influence? Happiness toward celebration?) for each conversion/excavation
Decline: Sender's missionaries/explorers get -1 movement in recipient's territory and each Conversion/excavation action in their territory has an Influence cost

 

[Disgustipated]

And we really should be able to get a civ's gold in a peace deal if we hurt them bad enough. It's crazy that I got 1 civ down to 1 town. And shortly thereafter they have managed to build 5 more settlements and create an army of over 10 units. How did they manage this? They must have had a lot of gold.

 

[Porry]

I’ve been thinking for a while that diplomatic agreements and sanctions shouldn't be limited to just one active instance of the same type. Instead, I’d make the cost increase with each action (just like they did with IPs). This would make sense of both the low yield of agreements in later ages—since I have so much influence, I can strike multiple agreements at once—and the excessive influence gained in those later stages.

 

[Kwami]

Combat strength Wonder building endeavors remain as useful throughout the age, so it seems that the others should be able to scale without upsetting balance.

Well, +X combat strength is always useful because of the way combat works. It doesn't matter where in the age you are. And the wonder building one is a percentage, so it's also always useful until there aren't any more important wonders to build.

The others are all flat values, though.

 

[gbw]

The barebones system absolutely needs an overall. Like religion, the oversimplification of the Diplomacy mechanic is one of the more lacking parts of the game.

IPs

• Need to be able to be liberated (both as the conquered and the conqueror)
• Need to be re-suzable, or at a minimum, offer engagement options (e.g. trade, unit leverage, etc.) for a non-Suze Civ.

AI

• Enhanced peace deals (including gold, tech, open borders etc.)
• Counters to AI missions other than a flat "it takes 25% longer" and a dice roll.
• Offensive enhancements that increase the odds of a mission. This could be complex based on many factors, but perhaps certain tech, leader abilities, etc. influence the success rate of a mission.
• The ability to flip a city itself with substantial influence (provided it's bordering the empire) and/or set it in revolt

 

[Taefin]

Well, +X combat strength is always useful because of the way combat works. It doesn't matter where in the age you are. And the wonder building one is a percentage, so it's also always useful until there aren't any more important wonders to build.

The others are all flat values, though.

I was just explaining why I don’t think making yield endeavors scale would break things.

 

[Taefin]

I’d love a few more options:

- influence another civ to become at peace with an IP and unable to attack/disperse it without declaring war on you
-(echoing above) influence AI relationships of one another
-demands that could be met instead of war

My mostly I’d want something that makes AI feel more relatable. I’ve not thought about AI agendas for a single turn of playtime. Maybe the agendas could be replaced by AI request events. Being able to persuade or disuade an ally from declaring war or securing peace could require navigating an event with costs. Maybe AI should have personality stats that event decisions can affect their interest in pursing each of the four victory types, which could impact how peaceful they are, how much they pursue science or wonders or set up trade routes, expand past settlement limit etc. I suspect this would be hard to make fun or fit the spirit of VII, but something to make AI leaders/civs feels less abstract.

 

[Kwami]

I was just explaining why I don’t think making yield endeavors scale would break things.

But I think it might. Yields are already pretty high if you play well. There are some special agreements that already use a % scaling value (e.g. Himiko's Friend of Wei), but they're pretty rare and usually have extra requirements (in that case, it only works with an ally). Getting two or three +x% science/culture agreements from different leaders would start to get pretty crazy.

My point was that the combat strength and wonder construction agreements are fundamentally different from the others and are therefore irrelevant when considering whether scaling the other agreements might break stuff.

 

[Krikkit1]

1. Third party relationship affects from war/alliance
If I enter war/alliance with a civ, I should get a relationship penalty/bonus with all the civs that like them (reversed for those that dislike them)…UI must make this clear

2. Third party direct relationship effects
a Sanction/Endeavor that you do to 2 other civs that affects their relationship to each other. They would both have a chance to reject it. (which would affect their relationship to you)

3. Liberating settlements for another civ or a CS (which gives you the bonus)

4. Peace agreements that include changes in diplo status (war/peace/alliance) with third civ, and include Influence.

5. SHOW WHERE THE CITIES ARE ON THE MAP FOR PEACE AGREEMENTS

6. rebalance some of the Endeavors/Sanctions

7.More benefits from befriending a CS even if you are NOT the suzerain (Trade routes allowed if you are at peace with the suzerain, +1/3/5 yield in your capital)

…Longer shots
8. allow neutral CS, possibly “liberate” conquests as neutral CS

9. Contest CS suzerain options

10. Change Government/Ideology as agreement/War settlement (possibly religion as well if we move away from the one civ=one religion)