When a capital flips you get a penalty

[Abaxial]

It seems that if a capital city flips and then asks to join your empire, you still get the DP penalty for occupying someone else's capital city. This seems very unjust. It's not as if you conquered it - they ASKED you in. I wonder if it is intentional, or they just forgot to allow for this.

The only remedy seems to be as follows: when the city asks to join your empire, refuse. It will then become a free city. Conquer the free city, raze it, and send in a settler to claim the territory. This seems a totally absurd way to avoid a diplomatic penalty!

It would make more sense if you actually got a diplomatic bonus for being so nice that even a foreign capital wants to join you.

 

[AsH2]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/diplomacy-penalties-for-capitals.663240/

 

[Draco84]

I think the "Nice" thing would not to have encouraged the capital of a sovereign country to revolt. you earned those Diplo favour penalties.

 

[Pietato]

Eleanor should be immune to this. This change hurt her badly.

 

[Abaxial]

Eleanor should be immune to this. This change hurt her badly.

I think it is particularly illogical in the case of Eleanor.

 

[Equilin]

The logic is that you should liberate it not keep it, if you want the DF.

 

[oSiyeza]

I think this is really stupid. And to reason that you should be nice to the original civ and return the capital, which means deny asilum to citizens that want to abandon an empire; or be seen by the game as a sort of warmonguer worth punishing by the world for eternity, even before WC exist or before warmonguer penalties apply, exactly the same as invading a foreign capital with an army, is ridiculous too.

Lets be honest here, this is a mechanic designed to avoid unfair advantage to domination players, that just happened to be implemented in the most immersion breaking careless way possible.

To think this is a well designed mechanic, just makes me think that for some people whatever Fxs does is well done. I dont think this is intentional behavior, and if it is, it is just a badly though badly designed one.

Whenever somebody brings this problem to the forum, people argues that makes sense letting a city join your empire in a peaceful way to be punished by the game diplomatically forever, and razing a city not. Or that is ok for Civ to break their own diplomacy rules and add a major mechanic that does not make any sense in real diplomacy in order to make a cheap multiplayer balance. They have all the right to think so, but that is one of the reasons I don't play he game anymore.

 

[Leah and Rachael]

I think this is really stupid. And to reason that you should be nice to the original civ and return the capital, which means deny asilum to citizens that want to abandon an empire; or be seen by the game as a sort of warmonguer worth punishing by the world for eternity, even before WC exist or before warmonguer penalties apply, exactly the same as invading a foreign capital with an army, is ridiculous too.

Lets be honest here, this is a mechanic designed to avoid unfair advantage to domination players, that just happened to be implemented in the most immersion breaking careless way possible.

To think this is a well designed mechanic, just makes me think that for some people whatever Fxs does is well done. I dont think this is intentional behavior, and if it is, it is just a badly though badly designed one.

Whenever somebody brings this problem to the forum, people argues that makes sense letting a city join your empire in a peaceful way to be punished by the game diplomatically forever, and razing a city not. Or that is ok for Civ to break their own diplomacy rules and add a major mechanic that does not make any sense in real diplomacy in order to make a cheap multiplayer balance. They have all the right to think so, but that is one of the reasons I don't play he game anymore.

Yes, it is a mechanic to avoid an unfair advantage to warmongers.

However, it is ALSO based on good reasoning. Giving asylum to citizens who want to abandon an empire should HURT your relationship with said empire.

Diplomatic Favor is not a currency gained from citizens. It is currency earned and spent between empires. Empires don't like regions which secede from them, and don't look kindly to other empires which take over that region as their own.

The reasoning in this case is solid

 

[TreVor_ish]

Diplomatic Favor is not a currency gained from citizens. It is currency earned and spent between empires. Empires don't like regions which secede from them, and don't look kindly to other empires which take over that region as their own.

This.
It doesn't matter how one empire acquired other ones capitol. The fact that they did should give diplo penalty.
Imagine if for instance people of Bratislava decide to be Austria and flip. Slovakian Government would not be impressed Austria took an opportunity to undermine stability of Slovakian country.
The only issue i have with -5 Diplo Penalty for owning foreign Capitol is that, it can apply before World Congress is formed (the fact how it's implemented is another thing). That penalty should not be present in Ancient or Classical Era. Was that really so hard to put EraType requirement on that?

 

[Barbarian King]

Yes, it is a mechanic to avoid an unfair advantage to warmongers.

However, it is ALSO based on good reasoning. Giving asylum to citizens who want to abandon an empire should HURT your relationship with said empire.

Diplomatic Favor is not a currency gained from citizens. It is currency earned and spent between empires. Empires don't like regions which secede from them, and don't look kindly to other empires which take over that region as their own.

The reasoning in this case is solid

Exactly this. The problem here is not that the diplomatic penalty exists for taking a capital, the problem is that there's no diplomatic penalty for razing cities. Diplomatic penalties for disrupting the status quo and changing the balance of power are both realistic and good game mechanics. If anything, there should be more such penalties, although maybe some of them should fade with time.

 

[anonxanemone]

Political borders conflicting with cultural borders is a common issue to put it mildly. Diplomatic penalty for being conveniently complacent to allow it to happrn is not without cause IMHO. I imagine there were many cases when capitals were moved in wartime but I'm aware of any cases in history the capital voluntarily succeeds to another political power though.

 

[oSiyeza]

you earned those Diplo favour penalties.

The logic is that you should liberate it not keep it, if you want the DF.

It doesn't matter how one empire acquired other ones capitol. The fact that they did should give diplo penalty.

Imagine if for instance people of Bratislava decide to be Austria and flip. Slovakian Government would not be impressed

So imagine this sItuation, you go to war with a civilization in ancient time, before warmonguer penalties apply, take and raze all their cities but the capital, no major repercussions. Then make peace with them, and eventually the capital and final city then wants to join your empire.

Yes... the non existent empire that just wanted to join you, now happy citizens of your own empire now also hate you forever affecting all future diplomatic relations with any civ in the millennia to come for helping them... and this is not a fringe scenario, this and simmilar nonsensical situations is how the mechanic comes into play

Im sure in the WC, two thousand years later, all world leaders will say: "Is ok your killed millions, that is old and forgotten, we dont care, but allowing these guys to peacefully join you two thousand years ago... no way. In the name of the ancestors of your own citizens, that belonged to a civilization long time forgotten that peacefully joined you, your civilization will be not be allowed to vote anymore, you monster."

Yes of course makes total sense... and Im pretty sure Australia, US, Spain, Italy, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, UK, Germany, France and all the hundreds of world nations that are in the land of old empires and civilizations that do not exist anymore have these kind of diplomatic problems too... And Im also sure the UN is expecting US to return New Echota to the Cherokee nation before returning the apropiate diplomatic power...

Are you seriously trying to defend this as a logical diplomatic relation? The reasons you argue with, may mean that a civ should have grievances against the owner of the flipped capital. But this does not represent what the mechanic actually does at all. This is called strawmanning, and is totally irrelevant to the problems with the mechanic. Which are that these diplomatic penalties for warmongering apply before diplomacy and warmongering, equal peaceful flipping with military conquest, for eternity, and for offenses against non existent civilizations. These are the problems that none of the supporters of the mechanic have been able to defend so far.

The way to improve diplomacy in a game that took all these factors into account is not to add a new major mechanic that ignores them in single player to try to balance a multiplayer only issue.

Civ6 devs taking these kind of decissions is why I dont play or care about the game anymore, and people of the community supporting them is why I dont take this community seriously anymore as well.

 

[TreVor_ish]

Im sure in the WC, two thousand years later, all world leaders will say: "Is ok your killed millions, that is old and forgotten, we dont care, but allowing these guys to peacefully join you two thousand years ago... no way. In the name of the ancestors of your own citizens, that belonged to a civilization long time forgotten that peacefully joined you, your civilization will be not be allowed to vote anymore, you monster."

We also talk about the game where leaders are immortal.

Yes... the non existent empire that just wanted to join you, now happy citizens of your own empire now also hate you forever affecting all future diplomatic relations with any civ in the millennia to come... and this is not a fringe scenario, this and simmilar nonsensical situations is how the mechanic comes into play

With non existing warmongering penalty, there should be no diplo penalty in ancient times either. (or classical)

Are you seriously trying to defend this as a logical diplomatic relation? The reasons you argue with, may mean that a civ should have grievances against the owner of the flipped capital. But this does not represent what the mechanic actually does at all. This is called strawmanning, and is totally irrelevant to the problems with the mechanic. Which are that these diplomatic penalties for warmongering apply before diplomacy and warmongering, equal peaceful flipping with military conquest, for eternity, and for offenses against non existent civilizations. These are the problems that none of the supporters of the mechanic have been able to defend so far.

No, I agree it's not logical, but for now all I can do is simply put this:

UPDATE GlobalParameters
SET Value = 0
WHERE Name = "FAVOR_PER_OWNED_ORIGINAL_CAPITAL";

and try not to stress out too much

Yes of course makes total sense... and Im pretty sure Australia, US, Spain, Italy, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, UK, Germany, France and all the hundreds of world nations that are in the land of old empires and civilizations that do not exist anymore have these kind of diplomatic problems too... And Im also sure the UN is expecting US to return New Echota to the Cherokee nation before returning the apropiate diplomatic power...

There are countries in UN that don't give two shits about human rights either, so whats Your point.

Civ6 devs taking these kind of decissions is why I dont play or care about the game anymore, and people of the community supporting them is why I dont take this community seriously anymore as well.

I also don't play games that I don't like, and I'm sure there are some that don't take Your remarks seriously either

 

[jasper]

So imagine this sItuation, you go to war with a civilization in ancient time, before warmonguer penalties apply, take and raze all their cities but the capital, no major repercussions. Then make peace with them, and eventually the capital and final city then wants to join your empire.

Yes... the non existent empire that just wanted to join you, now happy citizens of your own empire now also hate you forever affecting all future diplomatic relations with any civ in the millennia to come... and this is not a fringe scenario, this and simmilar nonsensical situations is how the mechanic comes into play

Im sure in the WC, two thousand years later, all world leaders will say: "Is ok your killed millions, that is old and forgotten, we dont care, but allowing these guys to peacefully join you two thousand years ago... no way. In the name of the ancestors of your own citizens, that belonged to a civilization long time forgotten that peacefully joined you, your civilization will be not be allowed to vote anymore, you monster."

Yes of course makes total sense... and Im pretty sure Australia, US, Spain, Italy, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, UK, Germany, France and all the hundreds of world nations that are in the land of old empires and civilizations that do not exist anymore have these kind of diplomatic problems too... And Im also sure the UN is expecting US to return New Echota to the Cherokee nation before returning the apropiate diplomatic power...

Are you seriously trying to defend this as a logical diplomatic relation? The reasons you argue with, may mean that a civ should have grievances against the owner of the flipped capital. But this does not represent what the mechanic actually does at all. This is called strawmanning, and is totally irrelevant to the problems with the mechanic. Which are that these diplomatic penalties for warmongering apply before diplomacy and warmongering, equal peaceful flipping with military conquest, for eternity, and for offenses against non existent civilizations. These are the problems that none of the supporters of the mechanic have been able to defend so far.

The way to improve diplomacy in a game that took all these factors into account is not to add a new major mechanic that ignores them in single player to try to balance a multiplayer only issue.

Civ6 devs taking these kind of decissions is why I dont play or care about the game anymore, and people of the community supporting them is why I dont take this community seriously anymore as well.

Too much drama lol.

Not everything needs to be hyper realistic hyper logical. Its a balance decision, end of story.

The fact that religion contributes to anything, anything at all, proves that game play and balance come first. I wonder if people go to the mortal kombat boards and complain about unrealistic and illogical fighting.

 

[kaspergm]

Too much drama lol.

Not everything needs to be hyper realistic hyper logical. Its a balance decision, end of story.

The fact that religion contributes to anything, anything at all, proves that game play and balance come first. I wonder if people go to the mortal kombat boards and complain about unrealistic and illogical fighting.

Frankly, I agree with Siyeza and feel there’s a huge margin between hyper realism and the current implementation.

Arguing that the fact that religion contributes to the game kills realism makes no sense to me. I think it’s quite unarguable that to this day, religion has a huge impact on world politics and diplomacy, on nations’ cultural development, on art, and at least historically has had huge impact on economy and eve science - sometimes for the worse, one may argue.

I think a simple decaying of -1 per era per capital would satisfy both camps in this discussion, along with removing the penalty in ancient and classical era when world Congress is yet not formed. I feel this would be a simple fix coherent with both game design, realism and balance. And yes, penalty should imo. not apply if capital flips due to loyalty.

 

[linaker]

I agree there should be no penalty when a capital flips. The right to self determination is widely recognised, provided its the result of a vote agreed by the proper authority. When Montenegro voted for independence from Serbia in 2006, that was recognised by the EU and UN. If Montenegro should subsequently decide to become part of Albania, it is free to do so. Similarly, if the UK Government holds a referendum in Northern Ireland and the people vote to join Ireland, both the British and Irish Governments are pledged to respect that, The British Government would not impose sanctions on Ireland.

 

[oSiyeza]

and try not to stress out too much

There are countries in UN that don't give two ****s about human rights either, so whats Your point.

Too much drama lol.

Not everything needs to be hyper realistic hyper logical. Its a balance decision, end of story.

Nobody said every mechanic needs to be hyperrealistic, that is againg strawmanning. I say that a mechanic resembling reality is better than one not having any sense, even more if such aproach also hurts gameplay. This mechanic has not been carefully designed to be fun and meaningful or balanced at the cost of some creative liberties. My impression and what I claim is that the devs pushed a mechanic done quick, without any concern foir doing it properly, and without any care for how the mechanic integrated with the rest of diplomacy.

I think that this mechanic punishes the player, restrics gameplay options unnecesarily, and is completely absurd in terms of other in-game systems, and in the context of how diplomacy works in real life. And the benefits of balancing a very specific multiplayer issue do not justify making the single game experience worse in this maner.

Many people have propossed easy to implement fixes that would make the mechanic less intrusive, more realistic and better integrated with other gameplay systems, while preserving the original purpose of the penalty. This shows that the problem is not of complexity or resources, is a problem of bothering in doing good content. The fact that FXs did not care enough to make a better system and does not care enough to fix it, is the real problem.

Nobody is being overdramatic, this is a Forum dedicated to a game and a post dedicated to this mechanic. I’m arguing that this mechanic is lazy and badly designed and the game is worse with it. And even more importantly, it shows the lack of care that some aspects of the game suffer from and exposes a symptom that may help to explain why so many things in the gameplay feel shallow and unsatisfying.

If you think criticizing bad design choices is being dramatic, I disagree. Is totally ok if the shortcomings in this particular mechanic don’t bother some people. But there is a big stretch from not being bothered by something and saying that the problem does not exist, or critisize the people that talks about it.