Whatever else happens... we need to talk about unintentional diplomatic victory (UDV)

[oSiyeza]

It's just not investing in something unrelated to your VC

Is this now what Civ is, abandon all resemble of roleplaying and Empire building? Planning what not to do in order to avoid winning?

Yes when you casually play the game and win without even realize it, that is a problem of the game not the player, and winning unintentionally is a thing as it is a problem. I don't know how redefining the word intentionally to not mean what it means in a valid excuse for a bad game design, or why a player would want to do that to deny the experience of other players or to ignore the problems the game has.

Winning unintientionally means winning without taking any concious action to win. And there is not such a think as unconsciously intentional winning or intentionally pursuying a victory without knowing it.

So I would like players to stop pretending to know what is on the mind of the people, and to stop pretending they know the true intentions of others are. When somebody says, I won without intending to, the response should not be: "You did inted to", or pretend people don't know their own intentions but is ok, because you can tell them.

Winning the game while just building the best empire and when you are late game or clearly ahead makes sense. But there is a problem if you won and you think you shouldn't and don't deserve it. Because winning should feel like you have accomplised something, and sometimes it doesn't.

Also the game has so many pointless mechanics and so many things that don't matter at all, that you will end engaging with mechanics just because they pop up, and randomly click things and vote random resolutions; or build wonders just because there is nothing else to do and at least the wonders look cool. This is a problem with the game, and not the player.

So I understand the feeling, and I have won by accident and looked at the screen trying to understand what was happening till suddenly I understand I have won somehow. And that feels undeserved and wrong to me.

I don't think a strategy game where no strategy is required to win is a good strategy game. But that is the issue, Civ is not really a strategy game any more.

Civ 6 has for me 3 types of victories.

Chore victories: military which should be exciting but is not because I end razing cities just to avoid managing them and still get frustrated by how tedious and repetitive can be. Not talking that you always play them alone, cause no other AI civ ever tries to put a competition on domination; and religion which is like military but a hundred times more shallow and repetitive. But the AI at least does something.

Random victory types. These feel empty bonus races where the rivals are all handicapped, cultural and Diplomatic V. They do not require planning and can be obtained without any strategy just by engaging with the game. These can be achieved by the AI, because don't require any AI. Diplomacy is harder to win by accident just because the go ahead AI "mechanic", but still is a diplomatic victory with no diplomacy..

Science: the only I like, though I hate the accelerate spaceship projects and miss the space station building... of Civ 1, so Fxs is not getting any cuddos here. The good: The AI can get it too, and difficulty affects it directly which is something good. You also see the progress of other civs in a natural way and requires strategy. The bad: The magic acceleration projects, I understand why they are here, but zombies and vampires are realisitc in comparision (and yes people complaining about zombies and not about this made me loss faith in humanity) (religious magic is worse though). More bad: The AI kind of gets stuck in it waiting for the player before wining. And the required strategy is actually as simple as spam the campus district with not thought required unless you pump the AI science bonus so hard the game turns into a game of sudoku against the clock.

I would say that Civ 6 may be a nice building-exploration game. But exploration and building can only sustain the game for the first ages. The strategy side, the simulation side and the management side of civilization are unexistent... My favourite strategy game of all time is now an ok building game with a nice exploration side but no strategy.

Maybe it is just me, but I think that is a problem and winning should require a plan and some thought in a game that pretends to be grand strategy. Civ should at least pretend better.

 

[Socrates99]

Is this now what Civ is, abandon all resemble of roleplaying and Empire building? Planning what not to do in order to avoid winning?

Yes when you casually play the game and win without even realize it, that is a problem of the game not the player, and winning unintentionally is a thing as it is a problem. I don't know how redefining the word intentionally to not mean what it means in a valid excuse for a bad game design, or why a player would want to do that to deny the experience of other players or to ignore the problems the game has.

Winning unintientionally means winning without taking any concious action to win. And there is not such a think as unconsciously intentional winning or intentionally pursuying a victory without knowing it.

So I would like players to stop pretending to know what is on the mind of the people, and to stop pretending they know the true intentions of others are. When somebody says, I won without intending to, the response should not be: "You did inted to", or pretend people don't know their own intentions but is ok, because you can tell them.

Winning the game while just building the best empire and when you are late game or clearly ahead makes sense. But there is a problem if you won and you think you shouldn't and don't deserve it. Because winning should feel like you have accomplised something, and sometimes it doesn't.

Also the game has so many pointless mechanics and so many things that don't matter at all, that you will end engaging with mechanics just because they pop up, and randomly click things and vote random resolutions; or build wonders just because there is nothing else to do and at least the wonders look cool. This is a problem with the game, and not the player.

So I understand the feeling, and I have won by accident and looked at the screen trying to understand what was happening till suddenly I understand I have won somehow. And that feels undeserved and wrong to me.

I don't think a strategy game where no strategy is required to win is a good strategy game. But that is the issue, Civ is not really a strategy game any more.

Civ 6 has for me 3 types of victories.

Chore victories: military which should be exciting but is not because I end razing cities just to avoid managing them and still get frustrated by how tedious and repetitive can be. Not talking that you always play them alone, cause no other AI civ ever tries to put a competition on domination; and religion which is like military but a hundred times more shallow and repetitive. But the AI at least does something.

Random victory types. These feel empty bonus races where the rivals are all handicapped, cultural and Diplomatic V. They do not require planning and can be obtained without any strategy just by engaging with the game. These can be achieved by the AI, because don't require any AI. Diplomacy is harder to win by accident just because the go ahead AI "mechanic", but still is a diplomatic victory with no diplomacy..

Science: the only I like, though I hate the accelerate spaceship projects and miss the space station building... of Civ 1, so Fxs is not getting any cuddos here. The good: The AI can get it too, and difficulty affects it directly which is something good. You also see the progress of other civs in a natural way and requires strategy. The bad: The magic acceleration projects, I understand why they are here, but zombies and vampires are realisitc in comparision (and yes people complaining about zombies and not about this made me loss faith in humanity) (religious magic is worse though). More bad: The AI kind of gets stuck in it waiting for the player before wining. And the required strategy is actually as simple as spam the campus district with not thought required unless you pump the AI science bonus so hard the game turns into a game of sudoku against the clock.

I would say that Civ 6 may be a nice building-exploration game. But exploration and building can only sustain the game for the first ages. The strategy side, the simulation side and the management side of civilization are unexistent... My favourite strategy game of all time is now an ok building game with a nice exploration side but no strategy.

Maybe it is just me, but I think that is a problem and winning should require a plan and some thought in a game that pretends to be grand strategy. Civ should at least pretend better.

Ok, do you want role-playing or a strategy game that requires thought and planning? Your post is meandering and all over the place. When someone says they're winning a VC "accidentally" it implies they had another VC in mind. There's no pretending to know what's on someone's mind. A player is either going for diplo or not.

In comparison to previous iterations a player could pursue more than one VC in VI because it's much easier. Earlier Civ games required much tighter gameplay, often devoted to one and only one VC. Wasting favor, cogs and gold on diplo points while trying to win a SV or Culture would have ultimately wound up as a loss in other Civ games. That's the point people are making when they point out the poor investment of going for diplo points while going for a different VC. The lesson to take away is to tighten up your gameplay and you'll always win the VC you want.

Diplo victory does require planning and almost zero roleplay. It's not roleplay to dump more into an emergency than it would cost to repair the damage. It's not role play to predict a WC outcome for score. You have to plan a way to get the last couple points before the AI votes your score down.

So was this another off topic, tired, old "VI is too easy" post or what?

 

[Archon_Wing]

What, we're still having this discussion.

This is like complaining about getting a time victory because you couldn't get anything else. Diplo or Time is what happens when you can't get anything else. Or more like, Diplo is a less tedious version of time. Someone has to win in the end lol.

There are of course many ways, to plan for a victory and get it. There are also many people that are going to help. It'll never happen because (insert excuse here).

 

[GIO888]

I have been going for Spacerace and been thwarted by Cultural win instead in the past. Never had a Diplo win by mistake, definitely OP's playing style, just as my inadvertent Cultural wins must reflect mine.....

 

[oSiyeza]

That's the point people are making

It was not the point I was making, it was not the point all people was making.

Thanks for criticizing my post, while completely ignoring everything I said, and pretending to know what is in my mind.

My point was that winning without puting any effort and without using any strategy is not rewarding.

If you think is the players fault, good for you. Maybe players should put effort on not winning the wrong way. Maybe that is whats Civ VI actually is.

In my opinion Civ VI having terrible Victory conditions is a problem of the game, not of the player. But yeah, whatever. Maybe I just play wrong.

 

[PiR]

The two other votes are easily predictable

I think this is a key aspect of the issue debated here.
I've changed my habits. I've decided that I would ignore my knowledge of AI predictability. I would only vote for the resolution that would serve my best interests, not trying to guess what others might vote.
Points accumulate much slower.

 

[GinandTonic]

This is not my experience at all. I've never won a DV. I went for it once but it would have taken so long I got a SC instead. Most of my games are over before a DV is mathematically possible.

 

[kireina_kaiju]

I really don't think a lot of people are giving the OP the benefit of the doubt. If you don't get accidental diplo victories, you don't. Let's take the OP at their word that they do.

I get accidental diplo and culture victories as well when I am going after science :

• At higher difficulties or in zombie defense, your goal early game is to guarantee yourself breathing room, and also that you are able to take any available victory condition. If diplo is on, you need to maintain your capability to take it.
• At these difficulties you must also make friends, build wonders - while your luck is better if you avoid most of these, some eurekas/inspirations depend on wonder construction and others give AI unacceptable advantages - and control the world congress. Each of these is a problem from an unintentional victory point of view.
• Getting a lot of votes in the world congress and having them go your way hits you with many diplomatic victory points.
• Many victory conditions also depend on great people. In civ 6, unfortunately, you win world games by accident because you are making great people. This accrues more points.
• At higher difficulties you are limited to wonders the AI passed out until you surpass them in tech and civics. So if you must build a wonder and Mahabodhi Temple is what's available, that's what you build, and you take the diplomatic victory hit

The biggie is when the warmonger you are hiding behind gets targeted with a universal DoW competition. If the AI loses the competition, the warmonger gets an unacceptable bonus, and you lose out on your best imaginable chance to take some of their territory in a loyalty sustainable way (since I usually give it back to the weaker AI), earn their respect so they don't target you, and arrange a positive political situation for yourself with the other nations.

Now, I will be fair. Some of the things you've mentioned do in fact apply to me :

• Disasters are indeed high. I like the global warming mechanic and building the carbon capture project late game. It's one of my favorite aspects of the game, figuring out how to rule an eco-friendly nation that saves the world from itself. But it's only a game if I can lose.
• And yes, I am on a huge map.

I'm not going to go as far as the OP and suggest the game needs to be changed or that these elements cannot be in civ 7, but a couple checkboxes would make the game more fun for me the way I play :

• Turn off tourism for wonders - would prevent unintended culture victory
• Turn off great people scored competitions - would prevent unintended diplo victory

I think really being hit with diplo victory points for participating in a universal DoW is balanced and should stay. The benefit far outweighs the cost.

Additionally, if the AI did compete at all in aid competitions, I would be very happy. I could let the AI beat me to the accursed diplomatic victory points, while still getting world congress favor. In fact, maintaining a blackjack-style squeeze in without going over would be really fun. I would say the same thing about great people, but really great people are so game defining and have such a wide impact that these diplo points are basically unavoidable, and cause you to "just win" on larger maps unless you get lucky and have an AI with GP as their sole focus, so I can't say a blackjack-style game with GP points is fun or balanced.

You may not agree with me, or the OP, and that's fine. You play the game the way you play the game. That's what this is all about, us enjoying our time and playing the way we like to play.

Just, if someone gets on a public forum and says that they accidentally get a diplomatic victory, please don't just assume "they're doing it wrong". They are playing the game the way they enjoy playing the game. And they are getting accidental diplomatic victories. Please just believe them.

OP you are definitely not alone in this.

 

[kireina_kaiju]

... so I just realized this was 5 pages long, and only saw the first page, I apologize, a lot of what I said was said already.

One other thing I am doing "wrong" is playing on marathon speed.

 

[kireina_kaiju]

Ok sorry for triple posting, but there is one aspect of DV that absolutely everyone in this thread has missed. I touched on it in my post but I am stating it explicitly here.

The world congress is not the only source of DV points.

In fact, when I am intentionally going after DV, it's the worst way to get points. I'm just like the rest of you. The WC doesn't meet very many times before I win. But if I am going after it intentionally I am absolutely shooting for DV point gains, and waiting 90 turns isn't acceptable.

And I am going to disagree with OP on one point. Statue of Liberty isn't something to build, it's something to take, to make your conquest easier. It's a bullseye. "Please take my city. Here. Let me reward you by automatically giving you infinity loyalty to keep it."

E. Regarding wonders, both the culture and DV point impact :

Again. I am like most of you. Under ideal circumstances, I won't spam these. I'll build what I need, let the AI build what I can't and then capture from the AI, and focus on making my own darn wonders with blackjack and hookers. The government and diplomacy districts are a great replacement for 5's national wonders, diplo district buildings don't have a high diplomatic victory point cost, and there's no racing.

But.

If I am in a dark age and need to go heroic, and I don't have naturalists yet, I will hit the spam button on those wonders without hesitating and worry about screwing up my victory later.

Wonders are a normal part of the game, regardless your victory condition. And they have side effects. And those side effects cause you to win. I don't make the rules. It's part of the game.

 

[Linklite]

Ok sorry for triple posting, but there is one aspect of DV that absolutely everyone in this thread has missed. I touched on it in my post but I am stating it explicitly here.

The world congress is not the only source of DV points.

In fact, when I am intentionally going after DV, it's the worst way to get points. I'm just like the rest of you. The WC doesn't meet very many times before I win. But if I am going after it intentionally I am absolutely shooting for DV point gains, and waiting 90 turns isn't acceptable.

And I am going to disagree with OP on one point. Statue of Liberty isn't something to build, it's something to take, to make your conquest easier. It's a bullseye. "Please take my city. Here. Let me reward you by automatically giving you infinity loyalty to keep it."

E. Regarding wonders, both the culture and DV point impact :

Again. I am like most of you. Under ideal circumstances, I won't spam these. I'll build what I need, let the AI build what I can't and then capture from the AI, and focus on making my own darn wonders with blackjack and hookers. The government and diplomacy districts are a great replacement for 5's national wonders, diplo district buildings don't have a high diplomatic victory point cost, and there's no racing.

But.

If I am in a dark age and need to go heroic, and I don't have naturalists yet, I will hit the spam button on those wonders without hesitating and worry about screwing up my victory later.

Wonders are a normal part of the game, regardless your victory condition. And they have side effects. And those side effects cause you to win. I don't make the rules. It's part of the game.

The thing is, beyond the WC resolutions and competitions, to my knowledge, there are only two ways to get DPVs, there are twonwonders (Mahboodhi and SoL), plus you can get them from aid relief.

Mahboodhi is early enough that it doesn't really count. I tend to find that it is gone long before you hit the 15DVP threshold to trigger the AI to gang up on you, at least on standard speed. SoL is later and can be a factor, but that's part of the DipV race and is functioning as it should. Perhaps a bit OP and should award fewer DVPs, but the principle of it is fine. It's forcing you to interact with the DipV side of things, which is what it's supposed to do.

Aid requests are mostly a problem with game speed - the people complaining are playing on slower gamespeeds. Perhaps they should award DVPs on a "win x amount of aid requests" basis, where x is larger for slower game speeds. The fact that the OP (if I remember rightly) is using a mod to really slow down the game reinforces my point, and he kind of brought it on himself. The principle is fine (and is the one decent part of the Victory in my opinon).

Unless you game the resolutions, it's impossible to win a DipV with them alone; at best, you'll break even. The competitions don't come very often, once 2 or 3 WC sessions? So, once every 60-90 turns on standard speed. If you're not gaming the system and you don't get aid requests, then even if you win both resolutions, it will take a further 180-270 turns to win via competitions once you've hit 15 DVPs (so if you haven't won via other means, you'll probably lose before you get a DipV), if you don't get aid requests. Which is to say, competitions are needed as well.

The only changes needed to stop "accidental" DipVs (and as discussed previously, accidental isn't really the word), is that on slower speeds, aid requests need to be nerfed so they don't contribute so many DVPs and the SoL might need a relook. The SoL is probably intentional though, so people don't have to game the system to win.

I don't like how a DipV works, but in terms of making the DipV more difficult intentionally specific circumstances where it is reportedly too easy, those changes would probably fix it.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

There's also the Potala Palace that gives 1 point. I set all three wonders to give governor titles instead (since I play with Diplo Victory off). However, instead of major changes, why not just raise the 20 VP's needed to something like 25 or 30? It's one line entry in the code (again, if you can mod):

 

[kireina_kaiju]

Aid requests are mostly a problem with game speed - the people complaining are playing on slower gamespeeds. Perhaps they should award DVPs on a "win x amount of aid requests" basis, where x is larger for slower game speeds. The fact that the OP (if I remember rightly) is using a mod to really slow down the game reinforces my point, and he kind of brought it on himself. The principle is fine (and is the one decent part of the Victory in my opinon).

This I would really like. Again, though, if the AI competed for these like... ever... it would be very easy to win the WC points and avoid the DV points. But yes, scaling this to game speed would fix everything. My own problem when this happens to me is in fact marathon game speed as well. I suspect everyone with this problem has slower game speeds.

And really if you look at this from the other end, slowing down the game speed shouldn't be the easy way to win a DV.

There's also the Potala Palace that gives 1 point. I set all three wonders to give governor titles instead (since I play with Diplo Victory off). However, instead of major changes, why not just raise the 20 VP's needed to something like 25 or 30? It's one line entry in the code (again, if you can mod):

Civ 5 turning off my steam achievements kind of got me into a "you didn't really earn that if you didn't play vanilla" mindset. I know even in civ 5 you could do things like pick opponents appropriate to your goals, turn off city states, edit some vanilla game values, and the like. It's entirely a mindset thing. Nonetheless, players that want to play the game as written are a valid use case and aren't doing something wrong.

Just the same, knowing how to increase the points is valuable information for googlers like me when I found this thread (this is my first CF thread, long time lurker first time poster ) so your post is definitely appreciated. I may dig up the exact value some time this weekend if I have time.

But yeah I think Linklite's approach would be best, so if I crack open the .dll I'll try to find that value too.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

@kireina_kaiju - You could always just subscribe to this mod, which allows configuring Victory Points at game startup: Configure Diplomatic Victory Points. Firaxis themselves have changed the Victory Point threshold twice over the course of the game's lifetime, so even they themselves haven't been particularly set on a value.

 

[jasper]

Is this now what Civ is, abandon all resemble of roleplaying and Empire building? Planning what not to do in order to avoid winning?

Yes when you casually play the game and win without even realize it, that is a problem of the game not the player, and winning unintentionally is a thing as it is a problem. I don't know how redefining the word intentionally to not mean what it means in a valid excuse for a bad game design, or why a player would want to do that to deny the experience of other players or to ignore the problems the game has.

Winning unintientionally means winning without taking any concious action to win. And there is not such a think as unconsciously intentional winning or intentionally pursuying a victory without knowing it.

So I would like players to stop pretending to know what is on the mind of the people, and to stop pretending they know the true intentions of others are. When somebody says, I won without intending to, the response should not be: "You did inted to", or pretend people don't know their own intentions but is ok, because you can tell them.

Winning the game while just building the best empire and when you are late game or clearly ahead makes sense. But there is a problem if you won and you think you shouldn't and don't deserve it. Because winning should feel like you have accomplised something, and sometimes it doesn't.

Also the game has so many pointless mechanics and so many things that don't matter at all, that you will end engaging with mechanics just because they pop up, and randomly click things and vote random resolutions; or build wonders just because there is nothing else to do and at least the wonders look cool. This is a problem with the game, and not the player.

So I understand the feeling, and I have won by accident and looked at the screen trying to understand what was happening till suddenly I understand I have won somehow. And that feels undeserved and wrong to me.

I don't think a strategy game where no strategy is required to win is a good strategy game. But that is the issue, Civ is not really a strategy game any more.

Civ 6 has for me 3 types of victories.

Chore victories: military which should be exciting but is not because I end razing cities just to avoid managing them and still get frustrated by how tedious and repetitive can be. Not talking that you always play them alone, cause no other AI civ ever tries to put a competition on domination; and religion which is like military but a hundred times more shallow and repetitive. But the AI at least does something.

Random victory types. These feel empty bonus races where the rivals are all handicapped, cultural and Diplomatic V. They do not require planning and can be obtained without any strategy just by engaging with the game. These can be achieved by the AI, because don't require any AI. Diplomacy is harder to win by accident just because the go ahead AI "mechanic", but still is a diplomatic victory with no diplomacy..

Science: the only I like, though I hate the accelerate spaceship projects and miss the space station building... of Civ 1, so Fxs is not getting any cuddos here. The good: The AI can get it too, and difficulty affects it directly which is something good. You also see the progress of other civs in a natural way and requires strategy. The bad: The magic acceleration projects, I understand why they are here, but zombies and vampires are realisitc in comparision (and yes people complaining about zombies and not about this made me loss faith in humanity) (religious magic is worse though). More bad: The AI kind of gets stuck in it waiting for the player before wining. And the required strategy is actually as simple as spam the campus district with not thought required unless you pump the AI science bonus so hard the game turns into a game of sudoku against the clock.

I would say that Civ 6 may be a nice building-exploration game. But exploration and building can only sustain the game for the first ages. The strategy side, the simulation side and the management side of civilization are unexistent... My favourite strategy game of all time is now an ok building game with a nice exploration side but no strategy.

Maybe it is just me, but I think that is a problem and winning should require a plan and some thought in a game that pretends to be grand strategy. Civ should at least pretend better.

I would like if people stopped acting like just because they think something it must have value.

The guy says he builds obviously diplo focused wonders and clearly has enough favor to win world votes. Hes trying. He just doesnt think he is.

Hes trying or the difficulty is too easy. He could be the one misinterpreted the situation ya know.

 

[kireina_kaiju]

So I know this is a dead horse, but I ran into a situation where a diplomatic victory was unavoidable - BUT - I also accidentally discovered a way to avoid it anyway. I had 20 points but the game thankfully continued with no victory.

Here's the situation :
Dramatic Ages mode
All the other AI died from dysentery during the dark age
I am Kongo. I cannot win a religious victory.
I haven't captured the other capitols yet. I need to capture them from the free civs to win.
The game is still going.
I am 1 point away from a diplomatic victory.
The vote comes up.

Cue dread.

I sigh, and vote, knowing that even if I vote for myself to lose 2 points, I still win the game, because all the votes are unanimous and whatever I pick.

Nothing happens. The game is still going.

Curious, I build the statue of liberty.

The game is still going.

It turns out that, for a diplomatic victory to occur, there has to be at least one other player.

And if I'm being completely honest, the AI running the free cities are a heck of a lot more challenging than the proper AI if you're trying for a domination victory.

I had cultural victory turned off, so I can't verify that another civ has to exist to win a culture victory, but I'm guessing this works for that too.

So that's really all you have to do if you're close to an accidental victory. Just build a few tall cities next to your opponents, watch the AI inevitably lose them because they are not good at the loyalty game, then enter a dark age or lose your loyalty boost cards and stop garrisoning troops. The other civs become free cities, and you can't win diplomacy (and hypothetically culture). I mean, it's not exactly easy, but if you're looking for a way to recover a "so close!" game, that's it.

All that said : with respect to accidentally overbidding the AI. I've learned the AI never donates a penny in the early game, but if you donate x gold during the medeival era or later, and you do it right away, the AI will typically bid x+1000. So you can get your diplomacy points and control the nastiness in the congress without getting diplomatic victory points.

Honestly I think the more common problem is still always going to be people going after amenities and ending up with too much culture. Thankfully diplomacy has far less synergy with other victory conditions than culture and tourism do. The AI does get a little predictable as well, and if you're careful, you can learn "oh yeah, they always choose to build in the city center" etc and avoid these points. And once you've learned how the AI plays, you can safely keep diplomacy as a failsafe without it overriding your desired victory condition. It just takes a little practice.

All that said there is one last concern I have. When you are on the threshold of a diplomatic victory, and it's late game because you took too long, the AI will indeed vote against you as everyone else has noted. The thing is, the AI won't do that with other runaway AI, which is highly disappointing. Instead each AI will vote for themselves. It's not the biggest deal when you know to look for it; if one AI is close to victory, you just vote for the AI in 2nd place instead of voting against yourself to come out on top in spite of the fact that everyone is voting against you (if you are intentionally going after a diplomatic victory I mean; you come out ahead since you gain points when you vote the same way the AI does and there's always a scored competition that you auto-win like great people points etc). But I feel it really ruins the immersion even when you know what to look for.