Will civilizations be able to defy the World Congress?

[Galgus]

It would seem odd to me if this defying the World Congress wasn't an option.

It could result in potential diplomatic penalties, including but not limited to trade bans for loyal members and DOW's.


Such a move could make sense if one thinks the other civilizations lack the power to force their resolutions, or are too half-hearted to carry through with a substantive punishment.


I'm hoping that it turns out to be an Alliance Systems mechanic, or at least ground for such a mod.


Players could freely join groups of civilizations in Alliance Systems, adding some depth and tangible point to shared declarations of freindship and maybe even creating some genuine World Wars.

Resolutions would be passed that would be advantageous to most of those involved, and the dissenters would have their honor and place in the group at stake if they defied a measure.

(Think of passing a resolution for one alliance system to go to war with another, or a treaty between them banning nukes.)

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I doubt it.. if you think about it most resolutions we saw are something that you have zero control over it.

take Standing Tax Army, how does one defy that? You can't control how expensive your units are (not counting wonders and policies).

The thing is we are given an option to enact a proposal, then I think we won't have the ability to "defy" proposals.

 

[Glassmage]

even North Korea in real life in part of United Nations and are subjected to sanctions and such. I feel neutral about being able to defy or not defy the proposals.

 

[Matsume]

I doubt it.. if you think about it most resolutions we saw are something that you have zero control over it.

take Standing Tax Army, how does one defy that? You can't control how expensive your units are (not counting wonders and policies).

The thing is we are given an option to enact a proposal, then I think we won't have the ability to "defy" proposals.

If my Shaka ( or Nobunaga, not that this really matters) does not want to pay an extra tax to use HIS SOLDIERS then why should he??? Cause some afraid little ****** on the other side of the world want that way? Let them come and make it so.

For me its a must have, no Civ can "force" others do things they don't want to, off course, put some diplomatic penalties, even DOW the civ that defy, just dont forget not everyone has ( or likes ) to do what a bunch of old ladies half world far away decides.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

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.

 

[Olleus]

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?

 

[mitsho]

I have to agree, it's incredibly hard to imagine situations where 'defy' would work in gameplay terms. This would also most probably lead to complaints about a) the poor AI and b) the human abusing a certain feature/trick and c) having to play without that trick because it's overpowered.

In gameplay terms, I actually see the World Congress as the tool to push back players who are too successful and/or remote for you to take down otherwise. Someone's conquering? Bring down the standing army tax on him. Someone's spreading her ideology close to your cities? Double cultural defenses via a resolution, etc. ... Being able to defy these resolutions would make the investments into a 'voting block'/ideology/city states quite pointless, no?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I have to agree, it's incredibly hard to imagine situations where 'defy' would work in gameplay terms. This would also most probably lead to complaints about a) the poor AI and b) the human abusing a certain feature/trick and c) having to play without that trick because it's overpowered.

In gameplay terms, I actually see the World Congress as the tool to push back players who are too successful and/or remote for you to take down otherwise. Someone's conquering? Bring down the standing army tax on him. Someone's spreading her ideology close to your cities? Double cultural defenses via a resolution, etc. ... Being able to defy these resolutions would make the investments into a 'voting block'/ideology/city states quite pointless, no?

Exactly,

Everybody would defy (especially big empires) all the negative proposals.

 

[Matsume]

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.

So, you think that denying the players (and AI) the possibility of defying resolutions ( and saying you all "congress members") a bad thing per se? As a strategic game that have multiple ways to attain victory (and conquest being of them) do you really think that is good? To narrow all the players strategics choices is good because that pleases you? Instead of letting they do and be ***** hard in the ****** if they are not strong enough to back it up?

Let the consequences roll in, penalties everywhere, DOW against everyone. Let players act like ( if they want to do so ) resolute leaders that think something like that : "The wolf don't sit on the same table as the sheep to talk".

Please 2k, Firaxis, whoever make the calls, do not take the power away from us to do whatever we like and face the consequences of it ( be it good or bad ).

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

So, you think that denying the players (and AI) the possibility of defying resolutions ( and saying you all "congress members") a bad thing per se? As a strategic game that have multiple ways to attain victory (and conquest being of them) do you really think that is good? To narrow all the players strategics choices is good because that pleases you? Instead of letting they do and be ***** hard in the ****** if they are not strong enough to back it up?

Let the consequences roll in, penalties everywhere, DOW against everyone. Let players act like ( if they want to do so ) resolute leaders that think something like that : "The wolf don't sit on the same table as the sheep to talk".

Please 2k, Firaxis, whoever make the calls, do not take the power away from us to do whatever we like and face the consequences of it ( be it good or bad ).

Yes, I do think it's a bad thing, it breaks the whole system of World Congress

I do care about the Diplomacy in this game, and I too can admit tis' flawed, the next thing we need is another source of penalties for you in thsi game. There's SO many negative modifiers in this game, that we seriously don't need.

But let's put this on the other shoe.. what about the AI? You aren't the only one who can defy, what about the AI? What about Montezuma? Napoleon? Attila? Alexander? Genghis? Washignton? Harald? Bismarck? The whole point of Standing Tax Army is to cripple THEIR game, so if they can DEFY it? What's the point of having the proposal? THere's no doubt in my mind that they would program the AI to defy if it doesn't suit their game?

THis isn't the case of what makes sense, this is the case of perfect balance? If you are given the power to defy a resolution you are given the power to stop the World Congress completely?

Hell, I can admit I would probably defy a Standing Army Tax? I mean, why should I be penalized for having a large army? Being a warmonger?

The whole point of World Congress is to change things up and make it a little bit random? The whole game is centered around bonuses? But whenever we are given a penalty, suddenly it makes zero sense and we should be able to defy it.

 

[JSMCAG]

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.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I recall there being a "defy" option for both the Apostolic Palace & the United Nations back in Beyond the Sword-so it should be do-able from a purely mechanistic standpoint.

Aussie.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, but it didn't work that well then either. So I suppose it's possible to have a mechanic that doesn't work well here too, but they might decide it'll work better if they go with something else.

 

[Matsume]

I do care about the Diplomacy in this game, and I too can admit tis' flawed, the next thing we need is another source of penalties for you in thsi game. There's SO many negative modifiers in this game, that we seriously don't need.

-Diplomacy in this game... are you kidding, right? Someone here ever succeeded in Demanding something from the AI ?? At least a single time and not before capturing his last city ???Isnt just capturing the last, helpless city simple easier and faster???

-Defense Pact in this game??? how many times that worked out for you??

-DOF, we all know that just a excuse for a AI to start asking you (every single turn) mad:so f*cking annoying!!!) for every surplus resource you got ( and they never give it yo you, even if you gave them like 10 on the last turn).

But let's put this on the other shoe.. what about the AI? You aren't the only one who can defy, what about the AI? What about Montezuma? Napoleon? Attila? Alexander? Genghis? Washignton? Harald? Bismarck? The whole point of Standing Tax Army is to cripple THEIR game, so if they can DEFY it? What's the point of having the proposal? THere's no doubt in my mind that they would program the AI to defy if it doesn't suit their game?

Give them a simple algorithm to calculate their relative powers against that of the congress and let they decide if they are man enough to defy or no ( it would be super fun to watch Alex be banged Left, Top, Middle and Center.....)

THis isn't the case of what makes sense, this is the case of perfect balance? If you are given the power to defy a resolution you are given the power to stop the World Congress completely?

This is a human societies and nations simulation game, not only makes sense but make the game less predictable and more fun to see some Warmongers mad:angrily) accept and see others (more resolute and/or brave, maybe even mad) defy resolutions and maybe having to deal with a world-scaled war against them.
You will have to admit, we all played and loved being the North Korea on many games.

Hell, I can admit I would probably defy a Standing Army Tax? I mean, why should I be penalized for having a large army? Being a warmonger?

If you (think that you) have the balls, you dont have too. Just be a MAN and deal with the consequences of your acts.Scare that bunch of ladies back to their tea...

The whole point of World Congress is to change things up and make it a little bit random? The whole game is centered around bonuses? But whenever we are given a penalty, suddenly it makes zero sense and we should be able to defy it.

How random is that a feature that every single game will try to cripple your play??? If you're going scientific , a resolution voted on the other side of the world that make YOUR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE less inclined to generate and generate more culture instead.
You conquered your starting continent and suddenly, you cant use that fancy unit you're waiting the entire game to build and for that end you killed and conquered your entire continent to get enough of that same resource, just because some p*ussy on the other side is afraid and used his Ai infinite gold to get everyone to vote to ban that resource ( like uranium for AB). What would you do? Sit and say its ok?? Do as you like, but dont take mine and others chance to let the power decide.

 

[Highway_King]

I think it would be rather fun if everyone proposed the nuclear proliferation treaty to stop me from building nukes only to have me nuke them all in response.

 

[alpha2117]

I think it would be rather fun if everyone proposed the nuclear proliferation treaty to stop me from building nukes only to have me nuke them all in response.

If they are proposing it then just before the vote the crazy nukers know what to do. Vote on this!

I think the WC is something that if it goes against you your stuck with it. Either you do something before the vote (trading whales to people so they dont ban it etc, or vote buying)

 

[bagas12]

If my Shaka ( or Nobunaga, not that this really matters) does not want to pay an extra tax to use HIS SOLDIERS then why should he??? Cause some afraid little ****** on the other side of the world want that way? Let them come and make it so.

For me its a must have, no Civ can "force" others do things they don't want to, off course, put some diplomatic penalties, even DOW the civ that defy, just dont forget not everyone has ( or likes ) to do what a bunch of old ladies half world far away decides.

It's a abstraction i suppose, it's not they will need to pay a tax to some entity but, that the resources to supply (weapons, canned food, ammunition) and hold such big army cost now much more.

 

[Bevel Lemelisk]

I could see maybe defying nuclear weapons being produce, but the penalty would likely lead to war, a large increase in unhappyness (nuclear weapons are no one's friend). But other resolutions shouldnt be defy able, unit maintenance obviously stands out. Also Nukes could actually introduce radiation zones across the planet to help limit their use. If you use one on another continent you could get rad zones on yours (as well as the other of course) as radiation spreads across the planet.

 

[KillerClowns]

If you want to use military might to defy the World Congress, it's very simple. As I recall from screenshots, votes can be traded like any other good on the trade screen. And by extension, threatened for. If you've got the military might you'd need in a real-world situation to defy the Congress, you've got enough in-game to threaten people into voting your way beforehand. Maybe mix in a few bribes here or there to pad it out. Especially since the civs who will vote in favor of anti-war resolutions will typically be the ones with the smallest armies -- that is to say, the easiest people to beat into compliance.