Will civilizations be able to defy the World Congress?

[Red Pearl]

They should make like GC and GC2 where you could leave the U.P. but if you did people couldn't trade with you and you couldn't trade with them. If standing army tax is costing close to or more then the money you would get from international trade routes then you should be able to say **** you I leaving the WC/UN. If you did leave the WC/UN then you get diplo penalty as well you couldn't do any international trading.

 

[MatThePhat]

Probably shouldn't be able to defy. In my mind, it goes against the theme of civ v with the whole "as little penalties as possible". Make it binding just to keep it simple, and to give the diplomacy game some teeth.

That being said, I would make an exception if the penalty for breaking from the WC was automatically declaring war on everyone. Just imagine, communications break down, people start withdrawing from the congress, the long civ that stays with the congress is left holding the bag for a worthless and weak assembly no one cares about and the world erupts in conflict as ancient diplomatic channels close! MUAHAHA!

 

[awesome]

Let's hope threats actually work, though

 

[Red Pearl]

except if you controlled the WC/UN you could change your civ (art funding/science funding). You have a monopoly on the three projects. You could get +++ culture from the different resolutions. Depending on how diplomatic victory works it could be easier.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Let's hope threats actually work, though

I agree, we definitely need a proper ability to threaten Civs-& City States (not merely bullying, but actual "do this or face the consequences")-with punitive action (such as unilateral trade sanctions & threats of invasion), rather than the rather blunt instrument of going to war each & every time (& gaining a highly undeserved "warmonger" tag). IIRC, TheBigKingofOz actually suggested such measures in another thread ;-).

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I really don't know why everyone bags G&K Diplomacy. In my current game it's working *brilliantly*. There were 3 major Continents, & on each of them you had definite *blocs* forming-even before the Industrial Age. Korea & I decided to gang up on Siam (who was making a massive nuisance of himself) & wipe him off the map. On the 2nd Continent, Russia & Byzantium were allied against England & Austria-I chose to stay out of their entanglements until Austria captured Constantinople, then Korea & I (Iroquois) joined forced with Russia to kick some Austrian backside (which, though it further worsened my relations with England-due to my friendship with Russia-did *not* lead to them declaring war). Meanwhile, on the 3rd Continent you had Babylon & Spain picking on Sweden (a conflict in which I've stayed entirely neutral). My point, though, is that *all* the players are acting rationally, & you can see *why* they're acting the way they are in the diplomacy screen (England, for instance, was at odds with me before my war with Austria because we were both competing for the affections of several of the same City-States).

Needless to say, though, I'm fascinated to see how things will pan out once "Ideologies" come into play (namely Freedom, Order & Autocracy) I suspect that might lead to significant changes in current alliances.

Aussie.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

According to the issue #4 of the gamerzine Firstlook, defying WC resolutions is TOTALLY a non-option !

 

[codepoet]

According to the issue #4 of the gamerzine Firstlook, defying WC resolutions is TOTALLY a non-option !

Bummer. This really NEEDS to be an option. Having the game remove your options is not fun.

People in this thread keep stating they can't see how this should/could work in gameplay terms.

It's precisely for gameplay terms that it should be in. Not for all proposals, but there is one type in particular that needs this mechanic: Nuclear Weapons.

One of the proposals was a Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. I should be able to not sign the treaty if the vote passes (with the consequences being harsh, like auto-trade embargoes or justification for another civ to declare war, etc.) Further I should be able to be duplicitous to the world... sign the treaty but continue to make nuclear weapons (or worse use them ) Or similarly: Trade embargoes... I should be able to break a supported trade embargo... much to the chagrin of my allies.

In this way you are not restricting options from the player, you're providing more risks and rewards to weigh and make decisions with. I will not like a forced on mechanic... e.g. the world has voted that they don't like the Rifleman unit; therefore no one can built it anymore.

 

[Seek]

Dennis Shirk makes an excellent point in the article though:

In our game sanctions have to be followed no matter what - they become die-hard game rules. We toyed around with letting people ignore them and making people angry, but that created a lot of problems. Why would you want to play with the UN if other players have the option to ignore their decrees?

Being able to ignore the resolutions would mean the entire mechanic can be ignored - *that's* why denying resolutions is bad for gameplay. You will have to work within the mechanic, so if you don't like a resolution get yourself into a position to propose it's repeal.

 

[mitsho]

But it's not really a option there. These punishments need to be harsh to make you change your mind (and people would complain about how harsh they are), but it still isn't a strategic decision for you. Either you are strong enough that you can withstand the punishment (and then you don't care), or you will comply since they are too harsh. Only the strong players could defy the resolution which would increase the gaps between top and bottom civs. The opposite of what is intended with the system.

Look at it this way. Instead of encurring the penalties when you defy a resolution, you must invest these yields (which you would lose) before the decision on the resolution to sway enough votes your way. So, defying is still possible, it just needs to be done beforehand. You still lose the yields and get to keep your nuclear weapons.

But - and that's the important point - it doesn't destroy the gameplay of the system.

I am pretty confident though that there will be an option of "No World Congress" in the advanced options if you still can't play with it on . I'm speculating, just to be clear, there has been no infos on that.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The perfect example is the warmonger going for conquest victory. He is already hated, so diplomatic ramifications would be useless. And one of the main goals of the WC is to slow him down. So it makes no sense to allow ignoring the WC if the one who benefits the most from ignoring it is the one who the WC is designed to slow down.

And your suggestion doesn't resolve this problem either.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Dennis Shirk makes an excellent point in the article though:

Being able to ignore the resolutions would mean the entire mechanic can be ignored - *that's* why denying resolutions is bad for gameplay. You will have to work within the mechanic, so if you don't like a resolution get yourself into a position to propose it's repeal.

Basically, if you don't want to get screwed over by the World Congress, you need to be active in it. That doesn't mean that you have to be proposing resolutions, although that is best. You have to be going around soliciting other civs to vote the way you want them to. Which also means you can't just shrug off everyone hating you. You need to make nice with enough civs to block resolutions that you don't like.

 

[Hulking Lummox]

Bummer. This really NEEDS to be an option. Having the game remove your options is not fun.

People in this thread keep stating they can't see how this should/could work in gameplay terms.

It's precisely for gameplay terms that it should be in. Not for all proposals, but there is one type in particular that needs this mechanic: Nuclear Weapons.

One of the proposals was a Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. I should be able to not sign the treaty if the vote passes (with the consequences being harsh, like auto-trade embargoes or justification for another civ to declare war, etc.) Further I should be able to be duplicitous to the world... sign the treaty but continue to make nuclear weapons (or worse use them ) Or similarly: Trade embargoes... I should be able to break a supported trade embargo... much to the chagrin of my allies.

In this way you are not restricting options from the player, you're providing more risks and rewards to weigh and make decisions with. I will not like a forced on mechanic... e.g. the world has voted that they don't like the Rifleman unit; therefore no one can built it anymore.

I agree with all of your statements completely with maybe the exception of being able to say one thing and do another. You should have to broadcast your defiance and suffer the penalties as red markers "You have defied the UN!" with every UN member.

I would like it if there was even a "Rogue State" path to victory that is only attainable by defying all diplomacy. It would be designed for the underdog civs to cry out like children wanting attention. Forget spaceship parts and tourism, etc., build nukes! Someone who has the power to defy the WC/UN should be able to hold the world hostage, creating a legacy not of domination but the threat of doom to the whole world.

Call it MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Victory or Armageddon Victory. Have enough nuclear missiles in range of every capital in the game (one per capital unless there is a bomb shelter, one nuke may not overlap and count as singularly threatening 2 or more capitals). It would finish like a G&K cultural victory (usually hammered to the bitter end and holding out for the finish of the Utopia Project) but is only won with everyone trying to stop you ("They think you are going for a MAD victory!") and hunt your nuclear submarines. Can you threaten everyone in the game, defying diplomacy, before someone wins by a typical victory type? A roll of the dice to go for victory as the underdog, can't beat em, nuke em!

 

[mo123567]

I think it would be fun to have a system of defiance in the game. You could attempt to have a secret nuclear weapons program. You could defy the WC by trading in illegal goods. You could refuse to pay the unit tax. If you continue to do these things, you will get pushed further away from the world community. Each leader should have the likelyhood of their defiance as part of their personality and current situation in the game. It should not be very common for the AI to defy the council but it should definately be possible. It also shouldn't be an easy choice for the player to defy the council either. If done right, defiance could be a very fun part of the game.

 

[poom3619]

Call it MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Victory or Armageddon Victory. Have enough nuclear missiles in range of every capital in the game (one per capital unless there is a bomb shelter, one nuke may not overlap and count as singularly threatening 3 capitals)...

Good idea.

But IMO, say, if USSR place a nuke at Cuba and it's range reach New York and Washington D.C. but not Los Angeles. U.S. government might secretly establish a proxy government there. So I guess your nuke range should cover at least where, for example, half of their population living in a civ to considered to be "threatened" because the nation wouldn't hold together from panic if a city have been nuked. If you threatening all civ, You won MAD victory. The "weight" of population in city under nuke range could be lowered by Bomb shelter or kind of.

Regarding to the topic, As some say that U.N./W.C. would be practically useless if everyone deny U.N./W.C. order. I think they're and should be in for gameplay sake unless you can win against rest-of-the-world coalition. There should be consequence from denying resolution that would eventually destroy you unless you are a superpower and/or leading W.C. (Hopefully they vote for you in next term)

 

[Yzman]

I think defying should be an option, it should just have harsh penalties.

And don't say it won't work. BTS had it, and it worked fine. The only different I would change from BTS is defying a resolution there made it fail, I think the resolution should still pass, but anyone that doesn't follow it could face harsh consequences.

If every country in the world votes to have a standing army tax except Shaka, he should not be FORCED to follow it by the game mechanics. However I don't know what a good penalty would be.

 

[Galgus]

People need to realize this is a game, not real life. This isn't a simulation but a strategy game, something many people on here forget.

if you can defy every little penalty you can get? Then what's the point of having them? Think about it? If all AI can do is defy each and every negative resolution then why would they having them if they can be simply rejected? Not to mention we have enough penalties as it is, if there IS going to be a penalty for defying a resolution then you're a silly player to do so. I attacked Venice and half the world insantly turned against me. It's pointless. Really.

I'd be surprised if we can defy, I actually support NOT having the ability to Defy Resolution. It makes zero sense to have it in. It breaks the whole system.

Theoretically, defying would have hefty diplomatic penalties- possibly a trade embargo or DOW from every loyal Congress member.

I would much prefer an alliance system because it would be more realistic in terms of working towards national interest.

(If five Civilizations have a problem with me harvesting Whales and I my army is 10X stronger than all they have combined, they can take it up with my Bombers.)


Its just stupid to not even give the option IMO.

 

[Galgus]

I agree with TheKing.

Otherwise it's like if I kill some musketmen with pikes, I can just say "Well I've killed the units, I want my soldiers to pick up their weapons and get a strength bonus. No way some afraid little ****** on the other side of the world can stop me."

It's a game, it needs rules, as arbitrary as they are. After all, why can't I reduce my unit maintenance by lowering the pay of my soldiers?

Theoretically, your civilization wouldn't have the know-how to reproduce Musket ammo.

(I play Marathon mode games, where armies take a very long time to fall behind the latest tech.)

Soldiers need pay or else they are not loyal.

 

[Galgus]

I will remind that you can influence other's votes on the World Congress. Someone is putting up a Standing Army Tax and you are against it? Use your delegates to vote against it, use your economy to bribe other civilizations to do the same, and use your military to demand it from them if they don't budge!

Even against all your efforts, it passed? Become the Host and propose to repeal it! Use the same methods to make others vote for the repeal and done! Standing Army Tax no longer in vigor...

So, if there's any proposal you feel against, there are always ways to make sure you don't get what you don't want.

At very least I hope War can be threatened, or votes ensured as a condition of surrender.

Otherwise I'll feel the need to crush all Civilizations voting the wrong way: and I'm typically a fairly peaceful ruler.

 

[Galgus]

The World Army Tax is a good example why, for balance purposes, it doesn't make sense to let you defy the WC. You have a huge army and are conquering the world. The others propose the tax. Now you could try and get votes against it, but why bother. You can just defy it and continue conquering until you win the game.

If you are conquering the world, why do you care about their stupid tax?

They should have to enforce their laws at gunpoint.