Why is alliance restricted to one per type?

[halfhalfharp]

As the title mentioned, we currently can only form one type of alliance with one civ. Why is it made so?

I always like to form economic alliance with anyone nearby to gain more gold, or form both science + economic allaince with one neighbor.

I really dont want to form cultural alliance with anyone if I am playing a cultural game, but there isnt a choice.

Just like the research agreements, why can't we form various allies?

 

[Jackanape]

I've wondered the same. It also limits the number of alliances you can have simply by forcing you into that box...is there a game mechanic behind this reasoning?

 

[nzcamel]

I'm guna guess that having alliance X with every other Civ would be OP.

 

[Maximo the Xth]

Alliance bonuses like +5 strength against common foes or +10 religious strength should not stack for obvious reasons. Restricting alliances was probably the easiest solution to this.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Alliance bonuses like +5 strength against common foes or +10 religious strength should not stack for obvious reasons. Restricting alliances was probably the easiest solution to this.

But that won't work aggressively. Let's say...

There are 4 civs in the scenario, China, Russia, India and me.
I ally myself with China and Russia, and try to bully India together in joint war.
We will still enjoy one military alliance benefits right? Joint war only involves 2 civs.

If India decides to DOW me then he deserves his doom.
And he can always try to ally the others too, encouraging more diplomatic competition.

And I am more concern on "1 alliance with solely 1 civ" rule. If I can only befriend my neighbor, why can't we devote completely into each other?

 

[Disgustipated]

Balancing reasons I suppose, would be nice to have more on large and huge maps though.

 

[aguliondew]

Tier 3 bonuses are kind of powerful but I feel that they made specific alliances so things do not get to out of control. I do not get many civ trade routes coming to my cities, so the bonus for having multiple cultural, science and religion would not be to big. Still having multiple military alliances would be very powerful or having all of your alliance share city state bonuses.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Balancing reasons I suppose, would be nice to have more on large and huge maps though.

Yeah it maybe an issue of balancing. At maximum, there are only 5 alliance slots.If we can have more slots of alliance in larger maps, or upon unlocking some civics, it will sound better right?

Allying the AIs is no easy task in Civ VI already, why shouldn't we reward more to those who can forge such strong relationships?
This can be a virtual diplomatic victory though.
While the AIs should forge their own alliances to counter this, isn't it why alliance should exist?

Tier 3 bonuses are kind of powerful but I feel that they made specific alliances so things do not get to out of control. I do not get many civ trade routes coming to my cities, so the bonus for having multiple cultural, science and religion would not be to big. Still having multiple military alliances would be very powerful or having all of your alliance share city state bonuses.

As I have mentioned, it doesn't work aggressively in AI games, as joint war only involves 2 members.

In multiplayer, this should catalyse players to form alliance against allied forces too. Therefore I can't see that they are completely out of balance.

(Ofc if you decide to bully one player, then allied or not, he is doomed.)

Or we can restrict the benefit in aggressive DOW gained only at joint war, and full benefit at defending DOW? Does it sound more balancing?

 

[Maximo the Xth]

As I have mentioned, it doesn't work aggressively in AI games, as joint war only involves 2 members.

So what? If three civs sign military alliances with each other, all they have to do is declare war on one member, not that difficult, even the AI is capable of that. The target can't do anything against that, especially not in multiplayer.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Then maybe let the military alliance be kept a 1-1 allaince. But the other types of alliance can at least get more slots and flexibility?

 

[Zdarg]

At maximum, there are only 5 alliance slots.If we can have more slots of alliance in larger maps,

Somehow, I never had more than 5 friends on huge maps...

 

[LKx]

Still there should be an unlimited generic alliance with no bonuses (though i'd like shared vision). It would be no different than a friendship, but just for the sake of not looking like a gamey limitation

 

[nzcamel]

Still there should be an unlimited generic alliance with no bonuses (though i'd like shared vision). It would be no different than a friendship, but just for the sake of not looking like a gamey limitation

Something like that...

 

[halfhalfharp]

Somehow, I never had more than 5 friends on huge maps...

Unless you are skillful in diplomatics

 

[SupremacyKing2]

As the title mentioned, we currently can only form one type of alliance with one civ. Why is it made so?

Balance reason:
If you could do the same type of alliance with more than 1 civ at a time, it could easily snowball and become OP. Imagine having 4 research alliances or 4 economic alliances.

Strategy reason:
It forces you to think about the specific type of alliance, which one do you want and which civ would be best. If you could do multiple alliances then you could just do 3 research alliances and not really give any thought to them. This way, you have to think and plan a bit what your next alliance should be and with whom.

 

[criZp]

View attachment 489633

Unless you are skillful in diplomatics

How much were you sucking up?

 

[halfhalfharp]

How much were you sucking up?

I won't call it a suck up.
Its a trade with mutual benefits.
For me its the prevention of meaningless bloodshed.
For them, its the few pieces of extra luxury copies that are useless to myself.
And acting according to their agenda is what agendas are set up for.

Try to enjoy sitting quietly and look at them denouncing and slitting each others' throat, with admiration ... and you will soon learn this art too.

Balance reason:
If you could do the same type of alliance with more than 1 civ at a time, it could easily snowball and become OP. Imagine having 4 research alliances or 4 economic alliances.

Strategy reason:
It forces you to think about the specific type of alliance, which one do you want and which civ would be best. If you could do multiple alliances then you could just do 3 research alliances and not really give any thought to them. This way, you have to think and plan a bit what your next alliance should be and with whom.

But the more frequent case is, diplomatic relatioinships are not effortless to gain. And its frustrating when you click on the alliance button and discover that the most desirable type of alliance is not available... after all those luck to gain one's favor. In higher difficulties, the +18 positive diplomatic modifier is somehow vital in maintaining the next friendship renewal. But cultural alliance + science alliance usually are hindrance in their respective victory path, so normally they are not an option, rendering the previous efforts a great waste.

 

[Amrunril]

I'd never thought of the limit as being a serious constraint before, but it suppose it could be an issue for those playing on very large maps. I think the balance issues with duplicate alliances could be largely resolved if more of the bonuses depended on civ interactions instead of creating entirely new resources. To take the existing science bonuses, for example, the trade route bonus doesn't create any issues with stacking, as it doesn't matter if you're sending 10 science boosted trade routes to one ally or dividing them between two. The free Eurekas from level two alliances, on the other hand, would obviously be problematic if you could spam them. On a similar note, the combat bonus against common war targets would be problematic if duplicated, but allowing militarily allied civs to share flanking, support and great general bonuses would be fine. I suspect many alliance bonuses could be reworked in this fashion, which would have the added benefit of making alliance bonuses, in my opinion, more immersive and less arbitrary.

 

[LKx]

I'd never thought of the limit as being a serious constraint before, but it suppose it could be an issue for those playing on very large maps. I think the balance issues with duplicate alliances could be largely resolved if more of the bonuses depended on civ interactions instead of creating entirely new resources. To take the existing science bonuses, for example, the trade route bonus doesn't create any issues with stacking, as it doesn't matter if you're sending 10 science boosted trade routes to one ally or dividing them between two. The free Eurekas from level two alliances, on the other hand, would obviously be problematic if you could spam them. On a similar note, the combat bonus against common war targets would be problematic if duplicated, but allowing militarily allied civs to share flanking, support and great general bonuses would be fine. I suspect many alliance bonuses could be reworked in this fashion, which would have the added benefit of making alliance bonuses, in my opinion, more immersive and less arbitrary.

I second that

 

[halfhalfharp]

I'd never thought of the limit as being a serious constraint before, but it suppose it could be an issue for those playing on very large maps. I think the balance issues with duplicate alliances could be largely resolved if more of the bonuses depended on civ interactions instead of creating entirely new resources. To take the existing science bonuses, for example, the trade route bonus doesn't create any issues with stacking, as it doesn't matter if you're sending 10 science boosted trade routes to one ally or dividing them between two. The free Eurekas from level two alliances, on the other hand, would obviously be problematic if you could spam them. On a similar note, the combat bonus against common war targets would be problematic if duplicated, but allowing militarily allied civs to share flanking, support and great general bonuses would be fine. I suspect many alliance bonuses could be reworked in this fashion, which would have the added benefit of making alliance bonuses, in my opinion, more immersive and less arbitrary.

I third that. Making the alliance more delicate rather than straightforward strong benefits