[R&F] Will joint wars destroy any chance for better diplomacy?

[Trengilly]

I sometimes feel we aren't all playing the same game. I can't remember an AI I've befriended ever joining in a joint war against me. And I can count on one hand the number of times I've lost an alliance with an AI. If you play relativity peaceful, mix in a few joint wars of your own, and court good relations with the AIs you want to befriend the diplomacy system works great. Much better than Civ 5.

You do have to work at the diplomacy. I work to satisfy agendas, run international trade routes, make lots of luxury/resource trades, and frequently give gifts (anything to keep the +10 favorable trade deals modifier).

Do we believe that defensive pact was moved earlier in the culture tree for R&F? It would be better earlier.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I sometimes feel we aren't all playing the same game.

Yes, because AI don't play games.

 

[Thormodr]

You meant Civ3 and 4 probably? Civ5 had it restrained.

Civilization 5 definitely. You could easily get most leaders to declare war for a little gold or trade goods. It was laughably easy. So easy, it felt like an exploit. All the top you-tubers did it, as well.

I’m glad it’s not really a thing in Civ VI.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civilization 5 definitely. You could easily get most leaders to declare war for a little gold or trade goods. It was laughably easy. So easy, it felt like an exploit. All the top you-tubers did it, as well.

I’m glad it’s not really a thing in Civ VI.

Yep, but I comparing it to Civ3 and Civ4. I remember playin MP in Civ3. Me and my opponent started at opposite ends of the world and had race for discovery. My ship reached him, so I had the first turn - on that turn all AI players declared war on my opponent.

 

[Thormodr]

Yep, but I comparing it to Civ3 and Civ4. I remember playin MP in Civ3. Me and my opponent started at opposite ends of the world and had race for discovery. My ship reached him, so I had the first turn - on that turn all AI players declared war on my opponent.

Wasn’t a big fan of Civ III, to be honest. Other than Civilization 5, it was the Civ I played the least.

Anyway, glad the days of manipulating the AIs like that are pretty well gone.

 

[Tomice]

The AI needs to stop mindlessly selecting to Joint War when it becomes available. That's the main problem and needs to take way more into account.

It certainly feels like this. Though if the player is friends/allies with the AI it seems to protect him quite a bit.

Maybe stealth_nsk was right that we need a "join war" feature first and foremost, as bribing someone into war is too easy to exploit.
In combination with the proposed "both need to denounce before" change to joint wars, we might have a much better system.

 

[pietro1990]

Definitely needs to be improved.

Definitely better than the disastrous Civilization 5 where you could sit back and bribe other Civs to declare war on each other and you would reap the benefits, though.

In civ 5 you don't have the "we have enough hands on our hands right now" its a little bit more unpredictable wich is a good thing if there is one civ game that made you bride civs in to war to protect you'rself it was civ 4

 

[newbie2]

It certainly feels like this. Though if the player is friends/allies with the AI it seems to protect him quite a bit.

Maybe stealth_nsk was right that we need a "join war" feature first and foremost, as bribing someone into war is too easy to exploit.
In combination with the proposed "both need to denounce before" change to joint wars, we might have a much better system.

I really hope someone makes a mod for this. A CB system is a very good implementation, but it loses its meaning if the first possible war you can do (aside from surprise war), doesnt require an actual CB

 

[pgm123]

EDIT: After thinking about your proposal for a bit, it would still not solve the issue of casus belli being ignored in joint wars. Plus we would help two systems.

I don't really agree that it doesn't solve the CB issue. One party will declare with the CB and then others would join. You get the effect as if you declared using the same CB (or a formal war otherwise).

 

[pietro1990]

The question is what will decide the AI to not accept a joint war against a formal ally ? (when alliance expires) currently they don't care .

 

[Thibaulthc]

I think that the simple fact ti add a Cadiz Belli to choose for each attacker when going into a Joint War would solve a big part of the problem:

• AI wouldn't accept joint war trades if his only option is surprise war
• So AI wouldn't attack you for no reason just because he was bribed to
• We still could take advantage from a better Casus Belli AND take another civ to join
• Thus AI might accept some joint wars more easily bcoz he could use a better CB too

The option to ask a friend or an ally to join a war we are already in really lacks. Maybe just adding a new CB to declare war to enemy if allies would help.

 

[pietro1990]

Joint war is still broken look at this lets play :

India and the cree do a joint war although they both are friendly( green faces with positive modifiers). I can still see why india did it but that cree does it a person who is on the other side of the map and have to move a lot of tiles to get to the player is still a question

why do they do it? Because its a trade deal