what is the point of denouncing??

[Jim Bro]

any idea what this is suppose to bring to the game? i simply do not get it.
to me, it's as stupid as saying "get over it" instead of "we're sorry" when another leader is offended by something. no tangible consequences whatsoever...
plus why would a liberated civ denounce its liberator to everyone else? another nonsense.
if it wasn't for diplomacy, the game would be perfect. unfortunately, the Civ5 AI has a macchiavelic 1930s-like attack-before-getting-attacked kind of mentality that would be more suitable in the Risk boardgame. the AI cannot be trusted. other civs are only useful to snatch resources/tech/money from them. there is no benefit from mutual confidence, which is the basis of world diplomacy. hopefully, real world affairs are not like in Civ5. if it was, we would definitely live in a nuclear-wasted dump.

 

[Pac-Dragon]

If you denounce a civ that other civs have already denounced you'll get a diplo bonus with those other civs.

 

[trueblue]

diplomacy needs improvement obviously.

why? because you dont understand the way it works?

Moderator Action: You can contribute to the discussion without using mocking questions.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[CV-110]

It tells the AI where they and you stand in international politics. And it can be very influential. I was playing on Prince and didn't like the way Hiawatha was expanding (as always, very aggressively). In addition, he had that 'they covet your lands' thing, as always. So I denounced him. Next turn, both of my friends, Suleiman and Ghandi, dencounced him too and soon they both DOW'd him. Then I attacked too so I could have a slice of the Iroqois pie. Kind of scary actually.

Also, remember that this is a game with winning conditions, that the AI is aware of. It tries to win.

 

[Jim Bro]

right

 

[SpearMan153]

denouncing helps galvanise alliance blocks

the liberated civ denouncing you is a bug imo (and a sloppy one at that)

 

[aatami]

To the "We are sorry." thing, that actually has a consequence too. If you break your promise, you get a larger negative result compared to if you would say get over it.

 

[Bibor]

any idea what this is suppose to bring to the game? i simply do not get it.

These are basic tools of world politics, JimBro. And they are pretty straightfoward.

Friendship - getting diplo bonuses from AI, fair trades, less chance of backstab etc.
Friendship block - getting diplo bonuses with each other, fair trades, very likely to go after "other block".
The added security from friendships and Fr. blocks has to be paid in whatever the AIs ask of you. That's the tradeoff. On the upside, you need to invest less into happiness, military etc. because you're more likely to get good deals out of them anyway. Keep your money low and your resources sold and you'll be okay.

Denouncement - diplo boni from friends who share the hate, diplo hits from target civ. Trade with denounced civ unfair, wars likely.
Denouncement block (i.e. chain-denouncement) - A friendship block denouncing/going to war with a civ or another "friendship block".

 

[Usuno]

I've found that unless you know that the other civ has allies, it's good to denounce a civ that denounces you immediately, ends up in less of a diplo hit with other nations and puts you in a good spot if they have enemies.

Other than that, I try to stay out of the denouncement game, too wildly PMS-based for my taste. One minute leaders will be peachy with each other, the next its a 5-man denouncefest on one guy who gets eaten alive. Avoid making declarations of friendship so you don't get dragged into warring blocs and asked for help (think there's a diplo hit for being friends then refusing to go to war). Friendship in my experience is just a mid-game AI trap atm, at least until the AI learns to distinguish between warmongering for them and against them.

Unless ofc you wanna play as warmonger, in which case you ignore all of that and denounce the crap out of everyone you're about to war with.

 

[aatami]

(think there's a diplo hit for being friends then refusing to go to war).

There isn't.

 

[Firvulag]

There isn't.

There is if they ask you and you refuse. There isn't otherwise

 

[Nares]

It's a nonsensical mechanic the AI uses irrationally in order to achieve something approaching the same effect of what was accomplished in CIV primarily through religious blocks.

the AI cannot be trusted.

That was one of their targeted goals with the diplomacy AI; they felt CIV's AI was "too predictable," and that CIV's diplomacy UI was too mechanical, notable merits/demerits. Granted, as time as passed, Firaxis has made more and more relationship information visible within the UI; a soft concession that CIV got that right, I feel.

Either mechanic is intended to spur the AI to action. From what I recall, denouncements weren't particularly bad in the regard. However, they completely undermine any human-AI interaction, which is ultimately the purpose of a diplomacy system.

 

[aatami]

There is if they ask you and you refuse. There isn't otherwise

Not if you say your not interested.

 

[JoeBas]

Not if you say your not interested.

Don't mistake "Being Friendly" with being "Friends" (I.E. Declaration of Friendship in effect)

Refusing a "Friend" (DoF) ANYTHING carries a diplo hit.

Delaring war before denouncing? Especially if you've had dealings in the past? That's a diplo hit.

Saying your sorry and doing it anyway? That's a diplo hit.

Saying you won't let attacking a city state affect your relations, then declaring? That's a diplo hit.

In fact, just assume that unless you're COMPLETELY HONEST with the AI in what you click on, you're going to take a diplo hit.

 

[aatami]

I'm wan't mistaken. Giving the "I'm not interested" answer to war requests doesn't give any hit, regardless of the status of your friendship agreement between the asking AI.

 

[neilkaz]

denouncing helps galvanise alliance blocks

the liberated civ denouncing you is a bug imo (and a sloppy one at that)

It also silly to make peace with a civ and have them denounce you one or two turns later.

Things like that make me wonder how much real play testing this game really gets before release.

 

[Disgustipated]

actually that isn't that far fetched. Just because they made peace with you, doesn't mean they like you. For example, just because North Korea made peace with South Korea in 1952 (well technically it was a cease-fire) doesn't mean the two countries liked each other afterwords. North Korea still could be considered to be denouncing South Korea.

 

[lucifero]

the only advantage i've seen in having them friendly, is better trading deals. they dont give u good deals at neutral, and almost not worth trading if its less than neutral.

besides that, any type of nation has always attacked me no matter how good relation i had kept through all game.. even india. even if i helped them in war, gave in to their demands.. no difference at all, they backstab u same exact way as any other player.

 

[Paradigne]

I can tell you I was playing a game the other day and every one denounced England. A few turns later I befriended England and the rest of the world declared war on me. It was a blast

 

[Unhappy Ood]

thanks for tips