Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Markus5, Nov 28, 2016.
i had top secret clearance with all five, so i got the achievement for that, fwiw
And they'll like you for having the same government. So, when picking a government, bear in mind the one's the AI civ's have chosen.
I'll be a lot of the folks saying the AI will always hate you are playing the diplomacy game reactively rather than proactively. In this thread I see a lot of "if I don't do anything wrong, other civ's shouldn't hate me", rather than the more pragmatic "if I don't do anything to make them like me, they probably will dislike me".
So you're pretty much the vassal of the AI civs. Give them vastly beneficial deals, choose the government they like and never declare war, settle near them or move troops near them. Anything and everything to keep them happy.
That's no way to live for men. If I have to obey their every wish, I'd rather take the row of red faces in my contact list. For me, if they won't make a fair trade deal, they can bugger right off. If they knew their own good, they would work to make ME happy, not the other way around. It's absurd really. I may have a smaller, weaker neighbor on my continent and they go ahead and denounce me for some silly reason. Fine, consider yourself EVICTED from my continent.
most of the time they don't go past monarchy so to keep them happy you have to miss out on policy slots. also i can't build more wonders than them and have to skip all great people because if i have more than them they don't like it...SCREW THAT!
It's one of those things that made a lot of sense in Civilization V because of the way the end game mechanics worked with the three ideologies. In Civilization VI, it's just sort of arbitrary.
lol, it wasn't that bad. here's some screenshots of the relationship modifiers from the game in the game from the screenshot i posted. it was an immortal game, so it is not like i was getting modifier help. most of us were democracies. i don't have a save from when i was allied with all of them, but you can see that it seems i only made really favorable deals with Catherine:
this is the point in the game where the units and map think Trajan and me are at war, but the diplomacy screen does not know it. We were frenemies until the end.
They grab new governments just about any time they can. They'll switch out of Theocracy even if they're going for a religious victory. Only reason they wouldn't advance is if their culture isn't allowing them to get that far.
Well, then that's the choice you made.
What do you think should be happening there? You are in competition with them. If you start beating them at their own game, why shouldn't the dislike you? What have you done to get them on your side?
Well, then that's the choice you made. And other civ's will appropriately revile you as a bully for it. Life goes on, until it doesn't. Genghis, Xerxes, Alexander, and many other imperious leaders likely experienced incredulity whenever they encountered some self-proclaimed empire that refused to bend a knee.
You've made the notion of diplomacy rather melodramatically binary--either you get to do as you please in a carefree manner, or you are abjectly servile--but that's a false dichotomy (or at least, a jejune way of looking at relationships, be they personal or political). It's just another aspect of the game that won't go your way if you don't make some conscious effort. And if you don't, then fair enough, but accept that you made that choice.
Personally, I often assign diplomacy only a middling weight. Why would I need most of the civ's in the game to like me in the first place? If some smaller, weaker civ chooses to denounce me, so what? Their loss, most likely. If they have something I really want, a denouncement is coming anyway. From their end or mine, it makes no difference.
And there you have it. Good job.
True allies don't let declaring war on you get in the way of being your pal
Like 75% of the complaints about this seem to boil down to "the AI doesn't stroke my ego".
I think the biggest problem with warmonger penalties is (afaik) they don't seem to be affected by the opinion of the Civ you're declaring war on or taking cities from. In Civ 5, if you declare war on Mr. Evil, enemy of the free world, people won't mind much (and might even give you a positive modifier if they're at war with him too). In Civ 6, this is a terrible thing to do and you should be ashamed, even if someone else is asking you to team up with them they're still going to hate and judge you for it.
Yeah, the government modifier being as big as it is was a bad idea. The purpose of ideologies in Civ 5 was to drive a wedge in existing relationships, but in Civ 6 it just drives a wedge in between people from the very start of the game, and the fact that there are different governments based on what era you're in just makes it worse.
nothing and i couldn't care less. the way the AI is at the moment is just in your way but every game even if every AI have deno me they still offer me trade deals that's how dumb they are.
It really does need major improvement. Every AI in one game went to war with me despite being on friendly terms with half of them. I finally had enough and conquered the last AI to try it, didn't raze a single city. I had a -152 warmongering penalty with all AI despite never declaring a war and never razing a city.
The AI in this game has no concept of relationships, it will throw away a highly beneficial friendship or alliance that has a +50 rating with the player for the smallest chances of gain, then wants to go back to the way it was before it backstabbed its ally. Every AI in VI will backstab even when it is folly militarily to make the attempt, and it's stupidly obvious because it leaves its military on your border for 300 turns before doing so.
It's really stupid of the AI to hate on you every chance it gets. To ensure its own existence, it should definitely try to sweet talk the much stronger power (in many cases the human player). Instead they pour hate on you for things they happen to not like, whether it's a good idea for them to do so or not. If I had a weaker, but fair and friendly neighbor, I would deal with them the same way and be happy to have them there. But the AI is programmed to spread as much hate as possible at every opportunity, and hate just breeds more hate. So when the AI tells me repeatedly how much they hate me and what a despicable person I am, what do you think I'll do? Turn the other cheek and give them favorable deals? Switch to their government type? No. They'll just make me mad and want to crush them. A weaker neighbor should definitely stroke my ego, but instead they try to make me as angry as possible. Absurd doesn't even begin to cover it.
It's really not possible to get along with other civs on FAIR terms (giving the AI everything they want does not count as fair, and even that would only work sometimes), and Firaxis has messed this up big time. There's no fair, peaceful co-existence. It's all a big group hate-fest.
About war mongering specifically, it looks like Firaxis have implemented extreme war monger penalties to discourage any aggressive behavior from the player ... for some sort of political correctness reasons? "War is bad, mkay?" But it's doing the exact opposite. As soon as you've committed 1 act of war "mongering" (let's say a civ declares war on you and then you accept their invitation and help yourself to one of their cities), then that's it. You are and forever will be the most disgusting person the AI can ever imagine. So you might as well continue with war mongering because you're already labelled as one. Killing off a few civs isn't going to have any practical effect on gameplay. You were an outcast before, and you'll still be one afterwards. And let's face it, some war and conquest is necessary and a natural part of this game. So to make you a complete outcast just for a little bit of war mongering is very, very bad design.
Care to address the (more than) 25% of comments describing why the current tuning is broken, in the interest of discussing something?
These are both valid criticisms. Warmongers should lose the good graces of other civilizations, the latter of whom should be pleased to see them taken down a peg or two. This is not simply for satisfying some pseudo-logical pretenses, but for genuine gameplay reasons. The end result of rampant warmongering should be that someone (or a group of someones) actually does something about you beyond issue denunciations. Granted, that can be taken too far, and a civ shouldn't get off scott-free for adding an empire to his belt, but pitting warmongers against each other rather than peaceniks is something that should definitely be encouraged.
As for the government penalty/bonus, it's essentially a RP modifier, since it has little to do with how you are competing with the civ in question. Given that, it really shouldn't be that big--not unless the civ in question has something like a unique ability that relies on other civ's sharing his government.
It doesn't have to be a big hate-fest, nor does a player have to do everything they want. We've seen examples that illustrate that. Players just have to try to play that part of the game, and as they play it accept that all the other civ's are in competition for victory, not simply survival. Think of it like chess: you do not win by simply trying to hold on to what you have, even if your position is weaker than your opponent's.
If, as you suggest, the AI attempted to cater to players who are doing well, then that would create a rich-get-richer effect that snowballs that civ's success even further. As one civ does well, the others should seek to make the game more difficult for them, not help them walk the bases to victory. The real flaw is that those militarily weaker civ's don't join forces against the stronger civ.
He needn't. They're being addressed. Most of the complaints (at least these recent ones) seem to operate under the premise that the AI will hate you no matter what you do unless you capitulate utterly. Demonstrably not correct. There are also misguided notions that being the defender in a war should allow one to completely bypass warmonger penalties, or that building a stronger military should be a de-facto end-run around engaging in diplomacy, and give other civ's cause to fawn over you. Both lead to problematic gameplay situations (seems sufficient to me that there are some agendas which specifically cater to these styles of play).
None of which is to say there aren't valid complaints or room for improvement--there's plenty of both--but the notion of wanting the diplomacy gameplay to be more engrossing should be separate and distinct from rejecting the notion that diplomacy should require a player to make any special effort to improve their relationships.
Below are a few snips from post-patch games that I played past turn 200 (which, as it turns out, are sadly fewer than I'd have hoped).
None of those friendly relationships required any great effort. Nor were they in fact worth any great effort, which is what I tend to think should be the real issue to shine a spotlight upon. Be irate not that good relationships are hard to develop, but that there aren't many perks to doing so.
Separate names with a comma.